Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116,971,997]

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Why is that


Why do you assume that everyone has faith in the existence of something whose existence cannot be proven ?

I did not limit the condition of faith.

I have faith in many things that are not spiritual. Despite my history of failure in relationships, as an example, I have faith that my current relationship will last.

Now THAT is the triumph of hope over experience. I would class that also as faith.

Is there nothing in which you believe that is not absolutely known to you? Do you think you might be alive tomorrow? If yes, THAT is also faith. Belief in that which is not and cannot be known.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I would tell them that it is a colour that they can't see. Anyway not all blind people see black. Sometimes they have a colour.

So, you would agree, then, that the inability in an individual to experience anything in its fullness is not proof that the thing unnoticed does not exist?

The blind person cannot see Red and yet Red exists.

In a similar way, I would advance that for those who cannot/have not experienced God, that simple inability is not proof of anything beyond that simple inability.

Neither is it a proof of the existence of God. It is only the proof of what it proves.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

What is the difference between you assuming that they do not exist and me assuming that gods do not exist?

There is no difference outside of my own understanding and yours.

I am certain that God exists. My understanding is not particularly clear, but I am happy that He is. I offer no proof.

I do recall the exact moment, place and situation when I understood what was happening. It was pretty nice.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Which god, what god. I am at this point ignostic. I have absolutely no idea what a god is according to you. It is always the onus is on the person making that claim that a god exists to give evidence or a good reason for that claim. There is no more need for me to make any claims about a god not existing than there is for me to start claiming santa does not exist. However if you wish to debate that santa or god does exist then i am sure i or some other atheist will quite happily point out the faults in your thinking.

And i am getting a bit tired of listening to your bull**** denials of what you wrote down for any to clearly see. Nor am i pleased to now see you falsely accuse me of quote mining.
Your turn, present clear evidence that i did quote mine instead of just making the claim in the hope that a bit of mud slinging on your part will make it all go away.
Your dishonesty really is becoming annoying.




I could not care less what you believe. However seeing as you appear to be ignorant of the use of a debate site then let me inform you. Appear on this debate site and make a false claim that atheists are "Actively campaigning to remove belief from others is an interesting need in some" then you will get someone pointing out that that is not a truth. Deal with it instead of just being annoying by denying you said it.

Here is the initial claim in the exchange in which you chose to repond to half of the thought i expressed on the topic of people trying to convert me:
<snip>
Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
I assumed diy meant "Do It Yourself". I get in more trouble than I care to by assuming, though...

I don't have any concerns whatever about atheists as long as they contain their lack of belief to themselves.

Actively campaigning to remove belief from others is an interesting need in some. Whether a guy is an Atheist, a Methodist or a Muslim makes no difference to me as long as they corral the need to convert me.

I do find it interesting that they attach themselves to a definition of what they are not.

I happen to be a Vikings Fan by birth and a Colts Fan by location. I am not an Apacker or Apatriot, but it pretty much goes without saying. My definition of myself, though, is the positive, not the negative.
I find this post to be somewhat hypocritical and an amusing take on things.

Atheists tend to become militant when theists try forcing their beliefs on society. For example , the anti- abortion stand of christians, the anti-gay and gay marriage of christians, the attempt by christians to get their beliefs become mandatory teaching in school and their attempts to classify their theology as a science or history of which it is neither.

As for your comment "Actively campaigning to remove belief from others " is more a case of self pity than actual reality. Just another christian lamenting the fact that others are telling them to take their superstitious beliefs and piss off and stop interfering in the lives of others. Which makes the christian try for the pity vote of complaining that others are not allowing them to be christians and follow christian doctrine of trying to force their morality on others.
Last edited by soylentgreen; 03-18-18 at 01:45 PM.
<snip>

Everything else you said is an angry rant. You are free to continue ranting without the exercise of writing it down.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

You fell in love with a complete stranger? What did you love about her?

Well, after about a 10 hour dating site cup of coffee that led to a dinner and lingering, hand in hand, walk on the canal, I was done for. It's a magical night that has led to a magical, three year long first kiss.

She's charming, beautiful and way out of my league. Giving, understanding, nurturing, supporting, vulnerable, exotic, energetic, athletic, religious, a sports fan and she thinks I'm a wonderful person as well.

Those are the things that I have discovered about her. On that first afternoon/night, though, we just "fit" together very well. In the following days, everything about her crowded thoughts of me out of the way.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I was in love with a wonderful young lady in my youth. On a magical night, in a park on the shore of a lake, she leaned against a Birch tree, looked up at me and we kissed a short and light hearted kiss.

Thinking of this still makes me feel good.

What is the physical event that just happened that made me feel good just now?

The interaction of the neurons and the chemical reactions. Memories (the configuration of the neurons) will activate to produce the feelings, and stimulate the 'pleasure' center of the brain.

That is the physical event. Can you show there is something more?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

So, then, explain in terms that can be understood by those who cannot experience either in any way what you claim exists actually does exist.

Explain "Red" in terms that a person without sight who never had sight can grasp its meaning in the way that people with sight understand it by seeing it.

Should be "easy peasy" for you.

um cant i just take a red object paint a number on its back and some objects of the same shape that are not red and pick out the numbered one every time from across the room the person who cant see red can even have me leave the room and rearrange the objects or hold them up one by one

ill be able to pick it out every time so would most people

whoops mis read that sorry would have to change the demonstration

ok put a bump on the red object and have the blind person hold it in one hand and an identical shaped but not red object in another hand ill always guess which one has the bump just being able to see shapes wont explain that ability they will have to look different

 

[devildavid]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Not destined for the literary canon, methinks.
By the by I haven't seen the word sheeple in a long time, not since I used to waste my time (elsewhere) in political chat.
Now I waste my time in a greater cause, but I'm still wasting my time.
When I read the word in your post, the first thought that popped into my head was: Richard Dawkins, Shepherd.
Funny word. Funny thought.

Namaste.

Your obsession with Dawkins seems unhealthy. Did he metaphorically steal your lunch money and push you down in the mud in the schoolyard? Do you know how to debate on your own terms, without dragging in your vast array of heroes and villains from your moral fantasy world?

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

What if a guy is blind and cannot "see" Red. Does Red, therefore not exist anymore?

I would submit that merely being incapable of doing something does not prove that the thing cannot be done. In this case, perceiving "Red".

I can see Red. If I meet a person who is blind, I lament their disability, I do not constrict my world view to match their perceptions. I also don't condemn them for not seeing Red.

If they condemn me because I do see "Red", I find that to be confusing.

what can you prove you have extra information about thanks to your god detecting sense?

 

[CLAX1911]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I am a theist and in regard to religion I call myself a diy Christian.

I have been talking with atheists for years now, and I have come to the certainty that atheists are essentially into evasions in their arguments against the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

For example, the ways they describe themselves is already into evasion, avoiding seeing themselves in their true attitude, like they describe themselves as just not believing in any God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc., whereas the way I see them they are simply motivated by any other reasons, than that they simply just do not believe in any God, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc.

best advise regarding talking about religion...

Don't.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

I did not limit the condition of faith.

I have faith in many things that are not spiritual. Despite my history of failure in relationships, as an example, I have faith that my current relationship will last.

Now THAT is the triumph of hope over experience. I would class that also as faith.

Is there nothing in which you believe that is not absolutely known to you? Do you think you might be alive tomorrow? If yes, THAT is also faith. Belief in that which is not and cannot be known.

Thinking I will be alive tomorrow has a very rational basis, as does realizing I could also die. I assess the odds with all the information I have.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

The interaction of the neurons and the chemical reactions. Memories (the configuration of the neurons) will activate to produce the feelings, and stimulate the 'pleasure' center of the brain.

That is the physical event. Can you show there is something more?

What happened before that? What caused that memory to ignite in my mind? i have heard that a single memory exists in various parts of the brain. Why? How? What makes that memory become "real" for me again?

Simply knowing that there is a hockey puck and a goal and a group of players does not create a championship winning effort for the UMD Bulldogs over the Notre Dame Fighting Irish. Still, it happened and those things are all a part of the fact.

I would submit that what you feel is well defined is in truth both vague and nebulous. Others have said this better than I could:

https://allpoetry.com/poem/8511819-The-Farewell-by-Khalil-Gibran
<snip>
"Life, and all that lives, is conceived in the mist and not in the crystal.
And who knows but a crystal is mist in decay?
This would I have you remember in remembering me:
That which seems most feeble and bewildered in you is the strongest and most determined.
Is it not your breath that has erected and hardened the structure of your bones?
And is it not a dream which none of you remember having dreamt that build(ed) your city and fashioned all there is in it?
Could you but see the tides of that breath you would cease to see all else,
And if you could hear the whispering of the dream you would hear no other sound."
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

um cant i just take a red object paint a number on its back and some objects of the same shape that are not red and pick out the numbered one every time from across the room the person who cant see red can even have me leave the room and rearrange the objects or hold them up one by one

ill be able to pick it out every time so would most people

whoops mis read that sorry would have to change the demonstration

ok put a bump on the red object and have the blind person hold it in one hand and an identical shaped but not red object in another hand ill always guess which one has the bump just being able to see shapes wont explain that ability they will have to look different

Red is used in various applications because it is the same color as blood when an animal is bleeding.

There is a deep, instinctive and reflexive reaction to Red. That reaction is not present in the number you propose.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

what can you prove you have extra information about thanks to your god detecting sense?

Nothing.

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Red is used in various applications because it is the same color as blood when an animal is bleeding.

There is a deep, instinctive and reflexive reaction to Red. That reaction is not present in the number you propose.

ok whats your point? i can still demonstrate red is real to the blind and color blind alike because i can show them it gives me information they dont get

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Nothing.

then red existing has evidence gods dont

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Thinking I will be alive tomorrow has a very rational basis, as does realizing I could also die. I assess the odds with all the information I have.

The only thing you may be assured of is that you are alive right now.

You may choose to take you own life, God forbid... However most of us are living with the idea that we will be alive and in generally the same condition tomorrow. We assume, that is, have faith, that the things that we are planning for, and on, will be there.

Our jobs, our incomes, our security and all else that is of importance to us.

If we did not have faith that these things would be there for us, if we all believed in our hearts that the currency would collapse, that our houses would be destroyed, that our jobs would disappear, what would that do to our planning?

We all have faith in things beyond our direct and complete control.

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

The only thing you may be assured of is that you are alive right now.

You may choose to take you own life, God forbid... However most of us are living with the idea that we will be alive and in generally the same condition tomorrow. We assume, that is, have faith, that the things that we are planning for, and on, will be there.

Our jobs, our incomes, our security and all else that is of importance to us.

If we did not have faith that these things would be there for us, if we all believed in our hearts that the currency would collapse, that our houses would be destroyed, that our jobs would disappear, what would that do to our planning?

We all have faith in things beyond our direct and complete control.

yet people who tell me they see things i cant at the bus stop some times still seem to be crazy

seems like this is good argument not to build you plans around possibility's that are not supported as likely to be true

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

ok whats your point? i can still demonstrate red is real to the blind and color blind alike because i can show them it gives me information they dont get

Will they understand what Red is, though? If they cannot see Red, they cannot know Red.

You can grasp the definition of God, but do not understand God.

You are offering a definition of Red but not the understanding of Red.

There is a difference between looking at a picture of the Sistine Chapel ceiling and walking into the Sistine Chapel. There is a further difference between walking into the Chapel and building it.

There are layers of understanding that we can only find by finding them.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

then red existing has evidence gods dont

Not to the blind person.

Evidence for that which is evident exists only to those who can experience the evidence.

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Will they understand what Red is, though? If they cannot see Red, they cannot know Red.

You can grasp the definition of God, but do not understand God.

You are offering a definition of Red but not the understanding of Red.

There is a difference between looking at a picture of the Sistine Chapel ceiling and walking into the Sistine Chapel. There is a further difference between walking into the Chapel and building it.

There are layers of understanding that we can only find by finding them.

i can show what they cant see is something real you admit you cant do that with the god you sense

theirs a difference between me seeing the red on a trafic light and a crazy person saying they traffic light turned into a giant spider ( fun night at the bus stop that poor woman )

i can predict traffic stopping to a blind person but carefully lifting them up to the light wont let them feel a giant spider

you say you sense something that i cant fully understand without sensing myself maybe that is so but your going to have to show it or else you have the same credibility as the woman who sees giant spiders

 

[devildavid]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

The only thing you may be assured of is that you are alive right now.

You may choose to take you own life, God forbid... However most of us are living with the idea that we will be alive and in generally the same condition tomorrow. We assume, that is, have faith, that the things that we are planning for, and on, will be there.

Our jobs, our incomes, our security and all else that is of importance to us.

If we did not have faith that these things would be there for us, if we all believed in our hearts that the currency would collapse, that our houses would be destroyed, that our jobs would disappear, what would that do to our planning?

We all have faith in things beyond our direct and complete control.

No, I have a rational expectation based on all the facts I have at hand presently. If the facts changed, such as a serious health issue, my expectations would change accordingly. But our expectations don't necessarily change our behavior, much of which is automatic and built in. We still strive to survive and adapt. We do it without consciously thinking about it every second, not because we have faith, but because the mechanism to survive is built into us.

 

[blarg]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

Not to the blind person.

Evidence for that which is evident exists only to those who can experience the evidence.

yes to the blind person remember when i explained how i could prove to them i have information they lack, because i can tie that into what they can experience easily

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

No, I have a rational expectation based on all the facts I have at hand presently. If the facts changed, such as a serious health issue, my expectations would change accordingly. But our expectations don't necessarily change our behavior, much of which is automatic and built in. We still strive to survive and adapt. We do it without consciously thinking about it every second, not because we have faith, but because the mechanism to survive is built into us.

Well, we all have expectations. Some might call the expectations that things not certain will happen "faith".

I have faith that I will live beyond my retirement and I have saved cash based on that belief. I'll be disappointed if my plans fall through. My heirs may not hold the same disappointment.

That practice on my part is more like delayed gratification than it is the mechanism to survive. My life is/has been based more on delayed gratification than immediate survival. Being raised by Depression era parents probably has something to do with that.

However, if my belief was that I would die tomorrow, the decision to contribute to my 401K today would be affected dramatically.

"Reasonable expectation" is what you seem to be discussing. If yes, then deciding what makes an expectation "reasonable" is the key to your consideration.

 

[code1211]

Re: Atheists' arguments are essentially evasions. [W:116]

yes to the blind person remember when i explained how i could prove to them i have information they lack, because i can tie that into what they can experience easily

You failed to describe how that "tie in" might occur in a way that will allow them to experience Red.

You have described a process by which you propose that you will describe something they cannot experience and then demand that they have faith that your description of the unknowable is accurate.

You have not described a system by which they may experience Red.