You claim that God does not exist, part 3

Planets can be seen, don't be so anti-science.

I never said god was invisible so that's a lie.....I won't claim that something is invisible if it doesn't exist...that's believers "logic"...I use real logic.


You: ""Atheist means, "God does not exist, provide scientific evidence of His omnipotence please." ""


No, atheist means one does not believe in a god or gods, The End. Atheists are not a "club" or group that all have the same ideas on the subject, atheists are individuals who do not believe in a god or gods. Some may have other thoughts on the subject but NO one can change the definition of "atheist" one who does not believe in god or gods.


Believers , it's time to stop ranting about what others are free to believe and maybe actually PROVE that your "god" exists or be quiet...

 

You check with a closed mind.

Your insistence that definitions be agreed upon and then dismissing the definition of someone else is a perfect portrayal of what I am saying, but you will deny it as you deny any definition that you disagree with.

 

Disappointing that no one caught this yet and sorry to burst your bubble because you make a lot of sense otherwise, but the Sun is only the center of our solar system. There's a Galactic Center to the Milky Way galaxy but there's nothing we can nail down as "the center" of the Universe while we remain uncertain of its shape or limits.

 

What definition are you referring to? You saying over and over that I do it isn't helping, you could have pointed it out and saved us the last six or eight posts.

 

I, like you, am using definitions that I agree with. You don't like them, tough. It doesn't mean that I have to accept what you use.

You could have just accepted this and save at least six or eight posts.

 

I'm still not seeing any examples. I don't think I do the things you say I do, and it would be very easy for you to prove it if I did. I'm not perfect, I may have made mistakes, maybe I have the bias you talk about. I may have phrased an argument poorly, and you may have understood it differently to how I meant it. Or, you might have made a criticism in passing without a leg to stand on and you want to save face by pretending it's valid or stop responding when I call you on it.

If I am to accept it, I would want to fix my mistake, and for that I would have to know what it is. If you are aware of a mistake of a word that I have made, then you can simply write that word.

 

Start by opening your mind to the fact that you are not always correct in your thinking and statements. You refuse to see your own error, as stated. Arrogance and ego are a terrible combination in any discussion and failure to recognize ones own faults, as displayed by you, leads to nothing but further misunderstandings. Although that does seem to be your goal.

 

That in response to:

Arjay, provide the examples the man's been patiently requesting or go fish, 'cause you clearly got nothin'.

 

Have you even read his posts in the past, or are you just passing judgment without knowledge?

 

I responded directly to what was written prior. You might try it sometime. Is that your knee jerking, 'cause it looks mighty shaky from here?

 

Well, help me out then, point me to my error. If it is an error, I will try to correct it, and thus get better at detecting similar problems in the present and future. If it is a point that I don't agree is an error, then I will try to argue that.

I hold it quite likely that you have misunderstood an argument I have made, or made assumptions about my arguments that aren't true. It seems to me that if you do not allow for us to fully understand what you're accusing me of, then you're not really open to the idea of you being incorrect (because if you are wrong, then there is nothing for me to find) and you have some pretty harsh words for people who aren't.

Well, if he hasn't read it, why don't you give an example for his benefit? You apparently refuse to tell me because I'm supposed to be able to see it, but that can't be said for Grumblenuts.

It does look a lot like he's talked himself into a corner.

 

Yes, I'm quite ignorant about who tends to argue what around here. Strangely empowering, bordering on blissful, lol!

 

That is your fit of deviant bias causing you to imagine things. Again.

 

I have noticed, especially from you, that all you tend to do is complain about how misunderstood you are yet you keep coming back for more. If you truly believe what you are saying, which by the way I don't, you would stop insisting that everyone bow to your imagined benevolence. Just leave it alone and go play by yourself.

 

Atheists believe God does not exist because they adhere to dogma which says God cannot exist. If your worldview is built on a foundation which says something cannot be, then no amount of evidence or arguments will ever suffice. I've actually seen atheists say that direct personal observation of God would not convince them; they're write it off as a hallucination. That's the unreasonableness of dogma.

The problem with this is threefold.

1. Atheists are so entrenched in their dogma that they aren't even aware it's dogma.
2. There's no logical or rational justification for this dogma.
3. Dogma shuts down free thinking.

If we dispose of this dogma that God cannot exist, and instead take the humble, reasonable position that God is as valid a potential explanation as anything else, then God immediately leaps out as the best explanation. And that is why I'm a theist.

 

The Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't a definition of God. It's a satirical portrayal of the concept of god that pokes fun at the belief in God.

Personally I think the point of these "definitions"to which the op refers is to create analogies that illustrate that the burden of proof does not lie on the skeptic to disprove a theory. It lies on the one making the claim to provide evidence that their theory is true. The best of these analogies was designed by the philosopher Bertrand Russell, "Russell's Teapot." The claim is purposely made absurd to illustrate how logic is applied.

Is god as valid a potential explanation as anything else? The answer to that question depends upon what it is that we are trying to explain.

 

Cats believe Dogs do not exist because they adhere to catma which says Dog cannot exist. If we dispose of this catma that Dog cannot exist, and instead take the humble, reasonable position that Dog is as valid a potential explanation as anything else, then Dog immediately leaps out and bites your right ankle. And that is why I'm a theist.

 

Well, I'd like to talk about the issue at hand, but since you won't tell me what it is, I don't have that option.

"Bowing down to my imagined benevolence"? You seem to be reading stuff into my posts that weren't really there.

Why is it so hard for you to give an example? If you have an issue with it, beat me on the issues, not with reiterated analyses that even people like Grumblenuts (who has no inherent stake in the situation) see through.

If I am wrong, then I am open to your correction. If you are wrong, I won't know, because you don't tell me what your criticism is.

 

On what basis do you expect atheists to admit to something that is patently absurd?

What is your basis for ASSUMING that your deity exists?

Where is your convincing EVIDENCE that your deity exists?

You have made an allegation that your "god does exist" and yet you have done nothing more than DEMAND that others must acknowledge this on YOUR word alone.

Since this is YOUR claim then the onus is on you to substantiate it in a convincing manner.

As an atheist I am willing to concede if you can provide scientific evidence for the existence of your deity.

But if you can't then all you will have achieved is to prove that atheists are right to be skeptical of the claims of theists like yourself.

 

I remain skeptical that I will live to see theists provide scientific evidence backing their beliefs/faith. But not cynically so. In fact I would defend to death their right to freely express their beliefs. As much as I'd defend anyone's freedom of speech to the death. That said, flatly stating "You claim that God does not exist" or "Atheists believe God does not exist" is troll bait, not debate. A lie. A cry. Not a try. Atheists lack belief. That's all we claim. By definition. Look it up. Quote it. Then talk.

 

"Goddidit" is not a valid explanation for anything precisely because it explains nothing.

 

You do realize that dogma is a religious term and by definition an atheist denies religion, right? All of your posted "reasons" are based on beliefs that an atheist does not hold.

Your manner of believing does not affect me at all as it is neither humble or reasonable but merely a dogma, something you seem to hate.

 

That's the unreasonableness of dogma.

 

I have cited several instances of your behavior being what you claim it is not. I have asked you to examine your behavior without the prejudice of it being from you. You have continually denied what you have stated as being anything other than absolutely true to all people.

There is a certain conceit in your approach which casts a slimy covering over anything of actual merit that you could say.

Your type will never admit that they could conceivably be in error so they continue to pursue the subject just to get attention. You don't want to talk about the "issue at hand", you want to be the issue at hand.

 

I haven't understood you to have done that. If I have missed it, could you please point it out explicitly (it's possible that I have regarded any such reference as merely a quote which you answered, rather than as pointing out any mistakes). Please be explicit, whatever method you have supposedly used so far has not been clear enough.

I think I have been polite and straight forward, but very well, how would you suggest I phrase my request so that it invites answers?

My guess is you read in some kind of snarkiness in my voice which didn't go into the text when I wrote it. None of my actual arguments rely on any conceit or superiority on my part, so if we get to the issues at hand, and conceit I may or may not have should become irrelevant.

I seem to recall me admitting precisely what you think I would never admit:

Even if you don't believe me, surely you can't say I haven't admitted it?