Why I'm an atheist.

[gcomeau]

Finally. Actual answers.

Because that is what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.

Because that I what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.

Then your answer is really "I evaluate those two things to be non-subjective claims".

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are aware that "because that's the way it is" doesn't really qualify as an answer so I'm just ignoring the first part of both those statements.

We can back into what it is about a claim being "non subjective" that places them in the "to be logically analyzed" compartment later.

Well, now you are back to that nonsense, but I'll answer. I take the communion of saints on faith because it IS faith.

Gah...

No it bloody well is not "faith". You yourself provided the definition of faith at the beginning of the thread, don't make me repeat it back to you again. The communion of saints is the OBJECT of your faith, not your faith itself. It is the thing you have faith IN.

If I say "I believe in the sun" does that make the sun belief? Can I put "belief" in the dictionary as one of the definitions of "sun"? No I cannot. The sun is not "belief" because someone believes in it, and the communion of saints is not "faith" because you have faith in it.

It's just a belief; there is little objective about it.

Woohoo! We have actual criteria! Namely:

"Objectivity and subjectivity."

I don't know why it was like pulling teeth to get you to just say that.

Ah, now I see how this works. It takes me a while because I assume that posters are interested in an honest discussion by default, until shown otherwise: You ask; I answer over and over and over; then you say I haven't answered over and over an over.

Got it.

Oh bullshit. This is the first time you've come anywhere near providing those answers. show me one single other place in this entire discussion where you told me your defining criteria for deciding whether something should be subject to logical inquiry was whether it was an objective or subjective statement. For cripes sake man, this is the first time you've even typed either word in the entire thread. I know, I just went back and did a search to verify it!

Now that we finally have those criteria however maybe we can make some headway. At last.

Here's where your answers still leave me with a problem. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the communion of saints was a subjective claim? It doesn't appear to fit the definition. Unless you are saying the communion exists ONLY as a personal perception and not as a real, actual connection? That it has no real independent existence outside your own mind or the mind of other believers? Is that your position?That the communion exists ONLY in your own mind?

 

[Si modo]

Dude, you've lost touch with reality, please try and get a grip. I hear a therapist might help.

Why would he need a therapist? All he has said is that the science for the fossil finds and the shifting plates agrees with some biblical account.

Historical and archeological studies indicate that Tiberius existed and the bible also says that Tiberius existed. Do I need a therapist for stating a fact?

He needs a therapist because he uses science to know that sea-life fossils exist at the tops of mountains (which I can confirm), but then ignores ALL of the scientific evidence about plate tectonics, uplift, erosion, you know, geology to believe that instead a massive flood for which there are differing, unconfirmed, subjective accounts which was caused by a supernatural being, whom we haven't seen in thousands of years, for which there is no supporting evidence, committed genocide on his own creations cause they displeased Him just because he wants to. Its called irrational, and the best solution for irrational behavior is some sort of therapy.

I don't know if he needs a therapist or not. I'm not in that field, nor are you. If you were, it would be unethical of you to recommend treatment over the net. But I do know what I read in his/her post. All I saw was a statement of fact (that the science agrees with an account in the bible) and a quote of scripture.

Thus, using your reasoning, when someone dares to say that archeological studies indicate that Tiberius existed and that agrees with an account in a book, they need therapy.

I will have to keep from snickering whenever an atheist from this thread wants to use logic to convince me of something. And, the fact they they want to convince me of something is hysterical on its face.

It is quite intereting that atheists have such fascination with attempts to marginalize those who do believe - it's and effective methodolgy used by those who proseltylize. How very bizarre.

 

[Si modo]

Finally. Actual answers.

Because that is what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.

Because that I what I do with scientific subject matter. There is little subjective about it.

Then your answer is really "I evaluate those two things to be non-subjective claims".

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you are aware that "because that's the way it is" doesn't really qualify as an answer so I'm just ignoring the first part of both those statements.

We can back into what it is about a claim being "non subjective" that places them in the "to be logically analyzed" compartment later.

Well, now you are back to that nonsense, but I'll answer. I take the communion of saints on faith because it IS faith.

Gah...

No it bloody well is not "faith". You yourself provided the definition of faith at the beginning of the thread, don't make me repeat it back to you again. The communion of saints is the OBJECT of your faith, not your faith itself. It is the thing you have faith IN.

If I say "I believe in the sun" does that make the sun belief? Can I put "belief" in the dictionary as one of the definitions of "sun"? No I cannot. The sun is not "belief" because someone believes in it, and the communion of saints is not "faith" because you have faith in it.

It's just a belief; there is little objective about it.

Woohoo! We have actual criteria! Namely:

"Objectivity and subjectivity."...

Ummmmm....duh. This is no different from anything I have said from the start.

.... I don't know why it was like pulling teeth to get you to just say that. ....

Maybe your tools weren't the correct ones. Communication is a give and take and when one gets nasty, sometimes it closes effective communication down. Just a thought.

....

Ah, now I see how this works. It takes me a while because I assume that posters are interested in an honest discussion by default, until shown otherwise: You ask; I answer over and over and over; then you say I haven't answered over and over an over.

Got it.

Oh bullshit. This is the first time you've come anywhere near providing those answers. show me one single other place in this entire discussion where you told me your defining criteria for deciding whether something should be subject to logical inquiry was whether it was an objective or subjective statement. For cripes sake man, this is the first time you've even typed either word in the entire thread. I know, I just went back and did a search to verify it!

Now that we finally have those criteria however maybe we can make some headway. At last. ....

It doesn't really matter that you didn't understand from the start, but good to know you finally get it. (As we keep getting snarky, we keep getting snarky...dare ya ta stop.)

.... Here's where your answers still leave me with a problem. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the communion of saints was a subjective claim? ...

As I know of no methodology to objectively analyse whether it exists or doesn't, and until someone shows me that there is such a methodology available, it's subjective.

.... It doesn't appear to fit the definition. ....

You find an objective methodology for analyzing whether the communion of saints exists or not, then you can tell me it falls in the objective set.

Now, let's look at that last paragraph in it's entirety again:

.... Here's where your answers still leave me with a problem. How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the communion of saints was a subjective claim? It doesn't appear to fit the definition. Unless you are saying the communion exists ONLY as a personal perception and not as a real, actual connection? That it has no real independent existence outside your own mind or the mind of other believers? Is that your position?That the communion exists ONLY in your own mind?

Ummm. Yeah.

I tell you the communion of saints falls in the subjective category; you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition; I argue above that it is subjective; then you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition unless it's a personal perception?

OMG. You create a strawman (that somehow, somewhere I ever indicated a subjective issue was anything but subjective), then argue that that the communion of saints is exactly what I said it was - subjective?

Yeah, the communion of saints is subjective, as I said before.

 

[gcomeau]

Does anyone have a list of what Noah had in his bug out bag ?

Its a good thing that he did have a bug out plan, or you would not be here. Science proves that Shell Fish fossils are found existing on the highest mountain ranges of earth. There is no Empirical proof as to why these fossils are found there.....only theory about shifting tectonic plates...which agrees totally with the Biblical Account of the flood which states that during the time of the great flood...the valleys sank and the mountains rose ( Ps. 104:6-9). Thus....the water level would not have to be that great to encompasses the entire globe.

This is a little off topic, but holy crap...

Do you happen to have even the faintest conception of how a flood moves things around, or deposits sediments when it's finished? And what kind of "flood" it would take to move a continental plate to any degree whatsoever, let alone toss them around far enough to raise mountain ranges!?!?!?!? Maybe if you shot specific isolated sections of the planet with some kind of planet sized space based water cannon that fired entire oceans of water at relativistic velocities into the surface of the earth you MIGHT be able to do what you just described, but you would not be having anyone bobbing around riding out the result in a wooden boat with his personal traveling menagerie while it was happening. That would be roughly the equivalent of trying to survive a point blank thermonuclear detonation by putting your hands in front of your face to block the blast.

What you just said is insane.

 

[gcomeau]

Ummmmm....duh. This is no different from anything I have said from the start.

Yes, it is.

Ummm. Yeah.

I tell you the communion of saints falls in the subjective category; you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition; I argue above that it is subjective; then you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition unless it's a personal perception?

Yeah, the communion of saints is subjective, as I said before.

You really don't seem to be following this if you don't understand why your answer is confusing.

Fine, you think the communion exists only in your own mind.

If that's the case, why exactly do you need faith it exists? I don't need faith that my thoughts exist, I kind of know they do. I'm the one thinking them after all. I assume you are perfectly capable of realizing that YOUR thoughts exist also and do not require independent objective verification of that simple fact.

So, where does the faith part come into play?

 

[Si modo]

Ummmmm....duh. This is no different from anything I have said from the start.

Yes, it is.

Ummm. Yeah.

I tell you the communion of saints falls in the subjective category; you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition; I argue above that it is subjective; then you tell me it doesn't appear to fit the definition unless it's a personal perception?

Yeah, the communion of saints is subjective, as I said before.

You really don't seem to be following this if you don't understand why your answer is confusing. ...

Why is it confusing? You asked me if the communion of saints is in my mind. YES IT IS as the concept is subjective. Look up the definition of subjectivity.

.... Fine, you think the communion exists only in your own mind. ....

That's exactly what I know - the concept of the communion of saints is in my mind as are all beliefs that I have. When something is subjective, I can only believe it or not believe it or neither.

.... If that's the case, why exactly do you need faith it exists? ....

Another strawman. If I ever said I need faith, you would have a relevant question. I didn't and you don't.

.... I don't need faith that my thoughts exist, I kind of know they do. I'm the one thinking them after all. I assume you are perfectly capable of realizing that YOUR thoughts exist also and do not require independent objective verification of that simple fact. ...

What are you going on about now? Strawmen are uninteresting, but let's beat them to a pulp together, shall we?

I don't need faith that my thoughts exist, either. I know my thoughts exist. I think my thoughts. Your assumption is correct - my thoughts exist irrespective of independent objective verification of that fact.

Now what do you want to know?

.... So, where does the faith part come into play?

More silliness. Where does faith come into play for what? For my having thoughts (your strawman)? Nowhere. For my having beliefs? Everywhere, because that is what faith is BY DEFINITION.

 

[gcomeau]

Why is it confusing? You asked me if the communion of saints is in my mind. YES IT IS as the concept is subjective. Look up the definition of subjectivity.

The fact that I am very familiar with the definition of subjectivity is what has me puzzling over your thought processes. And also because I know that definition I did not ask you if it was "in your mind". I asked if it existed ONLY in your mind, and the minds of other believers.

The "only" is really, really important. Please don't just casually drop it again.

Another strawman. If I ever said I need faith, you would have a relevant question. I didn't and you don't.

Let me rephrase. What the heck is the POINT of saying you have faith in it? I don't say "I have faith that I like vanilla ice cream." I KNOW that I like vanilla ice cream. Referring to something you know as a fact as an article of faith is nonsensical.

I can't believe I have to do this AGAIN, but this was the definition of faith you posted remember?

"As faith is by definition, a belief in something that has no supporting data".

You HAVE supporting data that your thoughts exist. You. Are. Thinking. Them. They HAVE to exist.

 

[Si modo]

You really don't seem to be following this if you don't understand why your answer is confusing. ...

Why is it confusing? You asked me if the communion of saints is in my mind. YES IT IS as the concept is subjective. Look up the definition of subjectivity.

The fact that I am very familiar with the definition of subjectivity is what has me puzzling over your thought processes. ....

Oh spare us all the condescention. I am positive that your utter confusion with such simple concepts as objectivity and subjectivity is crystal clear to even the most casual observer.

.... And also because I know that definition I did not ask you if it was "in your mind". I asked if it existed ONLY in your mind, and the minds of other believers.

The "only" is really, really important. Please don't just casually drop it again. ...

Your tedious need to have me repeat asked and anwsered material (for your reference, from your own post: "Fine, you think the communion exists only in your own mind.") is uninteresting, but your confusion is fascinating. I repeat, to what you agreed (Fine, you think the communion exists only in your own mind.): The concept that the communion of saints exists is only in my mind (and the minds of others who believe in it), as is normally the case for a subjective concept and as is normally the case for a belief.

....

Another strawman. If I ever said I need faith, you would have a relevant question. I didn't and you don't.

Let me rephrase. What the heck is the POINT of saying you have faith in it? ...

In WHAT? What is the antecedent for your 'it'?

Be clear in your questions because at this point and considering your utter confusion in what you want to ask, I won't even hazard a guess at the several possibilities for that antecedent.

.... I don't say "I have faith that I like vanilla ice cream." I KNOW that I like vanilla ice cream. ....

Good for you.

.... Referring to something you know as a fact as an article of faith is nonsensical. ....

Another strawman. You obviously need company for killing arguments that you create. Let me keep you from being lonely in your battle against your strawmen: Referring to something I know as a fact as an article of faith is nonsense.

Now what?

.... I can't believe I have to do this AGAIN, but this was the definition of faith you posted remember?

"As faith is by definition, a belief in something that has no supporting data".

You HAVE supporting data that your thoughts exist. You. Are. Thinking. Them. They HAVE to exist.

Yup. And, your point is?

 

[gcomeau]

Oh for fuck's sake...

Alright, I am going to extend the benefit of the doubt here and assume that we just have wildly different understandings of that definition of the communion of saints you posted and that is making it impossible to understand each other when we talk about what faith in that communion entails and how exactly it qualifies as a subjective or objective claim.

So let's try going to basics.

"God exists."

Is THAT statement properly the subject of logical analysis, or something to be taken on faith? Which compartment of your brain does that one slot into?

 

[KittenKoder]

Oh for fuck's sake...

Alright, I am going to extend the benefit of the doubt here and assume that we just have wildly different understandings of that definition of the communion of saints you posted and that is making it impossible to understand each other when we talk about what faith in that communion entails and how exactly it qualifies as a subjective or objective claim.

So let's try going to basics.

"God exists."

Is THAT statement properly the subject of logical analysis, or something to be taken on faith? Which compartment of your brain does that one slot into?

Both, it doesn't "fit" into a slot.

 

[Si modo]

Oh for fuck's sake...

Alright, I am going to extend the benefit of the doubt here and assume that we just have wildly different understandings of that definition of the communion of saints you posted and that is making it impossible to understand each other when we talk about what faith in that communion entails and how exactly it qualifies as a subjective or objective claim.

So let's try going to basics.

"God exists."

Is THAT statement properly the subject of logical analysis, or something to be taken on faith? Which compartment of your brain does that one slot into?

The antecedent question was too tough for you? Hmmmm. I guess you really didn't know what you wanted to ask, as I said.

mkay

Both are used, but storage is in B. My analytical areas tell me it is a subjective concept - we have no methodology of providing objective data supporting whether He does or does not exist - no objective analysis is available. So, all anyone has to go on is belief - subjective. I could believe that He does exist; I could believe that He doesn't exist; or I wouldn't consider the possibility of either option. I have faith that He does exist (faith = belief that has no supporting data).

Now, same question back at you. Answer your own question.

 

[gcomeau]

Both are used, but storage is in B. My analytical areas tell me it is a subjective concept - we have no methodology of providing objective data whether He does or does not.

And there we have it, clarity.

The problem is that you are confusing "subjective" with "unverifiable". While they tend to have a great deal of overlap in what they apply to they are not synonyms. An inability to objectively verify the truth of a claim does not automatically render the claim subjective. "God exists" is rather clearly not a subjective claim.

If the claim was "I think god exists", or "I believe god exists", or "I suspect god exists" THOSE are all subjective claims. They are speaking about your personal thoughts and opinions and nothing else. They make no claim to the existence of ANYTHING outside your own mind. They only assert that the thought, belief, or suspicion themselves exist within your own perspective.

"God exists" does not do that. It claims something that rather clearly is supposed to have real independent existence seperate from your own mind exists out in the real world.

Edit: And to "answer my own question": Subject of logical inquiry. Obviously.

 

[Si modo]

Both are used, but storage is in B. My analytical areas tell me it is a subjective concept - we have no methodology of providing objective data whether He does or does not.

And there we have it, clarity.

The problem is that you are confusing "subjective" with "unverifiable". While they tend to have a great deal of overlap in what they apply to they are not synonyms. ....

Such bullshit. You keep pulling the strawmen out, don't you? Amazing what you can make up in your mind.

Where have I EVER even used the word 'unverifiable' in this thread?

Don't bother trying - I haven't until just now because of your idiotic strawman.

I know you can read, but what you actually see and what I type are very different - you have quite an imagnination.

.... An inability to objectively verify the truth of a claim does not automatically render the claim subjective. ...

LMAO. C'mon, someone else play along here.

.... "God exists" is rather clearly not a subjective claim. ....

Oh? So, there is some objective analysis available to support His existence or refute it? This should be interesting.

As I am pretty confident that there isn't, I'll go on. As I have no supporting information one way or the other about His existence, I have faith that He does exist. I believe that He does exist. I could beleive that He doesn't exist. I could just not even consider it.

.... If the claim was "I think god exists", or "I believe god exists", or "I suspect god exists" THOSE are all subjective claims. ....

Good God, man. If I ever stated that God exists as a fact, you would have a point. I haven't and you don't.

.... They are speaking about your personal thoughts and opinions and nothing else.

As beliefs are thoughts, yes. What's your point?

.... They make no claim to the existence of ANYTHING outside your own mind. ....

No shit. What's your point?

.... They only assert that the thought, belief, or suspicion themselves exist within your own perspective. ....

Energizer Bunny? Is that you going on and on and on? Ummmm, I guess that would make it subjective or you are still confused on subjective and objective.

.... "God exists" does not do that. ....

Wow. I certainly hope you recall that "God exists" were your words. You asked me how I analyze that. I told you. And, I suggest you reexamine my answer. Then let me know where I ever claimed His existence was anything other than my belief (my thought, as beliefs are thoughts).

I have to wonder if chemicals are invloved now. You see words that aren't even of my creation, then you argue about your words with me.

.... It claims something that rather clearly is supposed to have real independent existence seperate from your own mind exists out in the real world.

Well, as I have never said "God exists" and as I even said that there is no objective method to support that claim one way or the other, what the hell are you talking about? Because YOU are arguing with yourself at this point.



Now to you: Does God exist or do you think God exists?

 

[gcomeau]

Both are used, but storage is in B. My analytical areas tell me it is a subjective concept - we have no methodology of providing objective data whether He does or does not.

And there we have it, clarity.

The problem is that you are confusing "subjective" with "unverifiable". While they tend to have a great deal of overlap in what they apply to they are not synonyms. ....

Bullshit. You keep pulling the strawmen out, don't you? Amazing what you can make up in your mind.

Where have I EVER even used the word 'unverifiable' in this thread?

If you were using that word I wouldn't have had to figure out that when you said "subjective" that's what you actually meant and I wouldn't have said you were confusing the two.

What you DID do was say that what made the claim "God Exists" subjective was that you weren't aware of any way to objectively providing data on God's existence... also known as VERIFYING God's existence.

LMAO. C'mon, someone else play along here.

Now see... the fact that you're laughing when I explain a basic and obvious point about the meaning of the word subjective to you is just proving my point that you don't understand what it means.

Oh? So, there is some objective analysis available to support His existence or refute it?

No, there isn't. But thank you for AGAIN demonstrating that you don't understand what "subjective" is.

Like I JUST SAID what that makes the claim is objectively UNVERIFIABLE. It does NOT make the claim subjective. But the fact that you THINK it makes it subjective demonstrates again that you are confusing the two words.

The lack of some objective analysis to support or refute God's existence makes the claim "God exists" objectively unverifiable. It makes the claim "God exists" unfalsifiable. What it does NOT make it is "subjective".

Understand?

Wow. i certainly hope you recall that "God exists" were your words.

Of course I remember they were my words. That is the example claim which I presented to explore your understanding of the meaning of "subjective". And your analysis of the nature of that claim and subsequent asertion that it was "subjective" demonstrated with abundant clarity that you do not understand what that word means.

And to answer your last question, I doubt it, and no.

 

[Si modo]

And there we have it, clarity.

The problem is that you are confusing "subjective" with "unverifiable". While they tend to have a great deal of overlap in what they apply to they are not synonyms. ....

Bullshit. You keep pulling the strawmen out, don't you? Amazing what you can make up in your mind.

Where have I EVER even used the word 'unverifiable' in this thread?

If you were using that word I wouldn't have had to figure out that when you said "subjective" that's what you actually meant and I wouldn't have said you were confusing the two.

What you DID do was say that what made the claim "God Exists" subjective was that you weren't aware of any way to objectively providing data on God's existence... also known as VERIFYING God's existence. ...

And your point is?

.... Now see... the fact that you're laughing when I explain a basic and obvious point about the meaning of the word subjective to you is just proving my point that you don't understand what it means. ...

Now you're just being dishonest. Let's look at what I was lauging at, not what you say now. Tsk, tsk. Such dishonesty.

.... An inability to objectively verify the truth of a claim does not automatically render the claim subjective. ....

I laugh at that and I laugh even harder at your exposed dishonesty.

.... "God exists" is rather clearly not a subjective claim. ....

Oh? So, there is some objective analysis available to support His existence or refute it?

No, there isn't. But thank you for AGAIN demonstrating that you don't understand what "subjective" is. ....

It's confirmed. There are chemicals involved in your confusion. Or, you think God's existence is a fact.

Definition of subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
(Dictionary.com)

.... Like I JUST SAID what that makes the claim is objectively UNVERIFIABLE. It does NOT make the claim subjective. But the fact that you THINK it makes it subjective demonstrates again that you are confusing the two words. .

It does NOT make the claim subjective. But the fact that you THINK it makes it subjective demonstrates again that you are confusing the two words. ...

And if it's unverifiable, there is no supporting data to verify it or to refute it. With that condition, there is only belief, not belief, or lack of any considertion. So, as I'm too ignorant to understand your ramblings, why don't you tell us what a belief in God's existence actually is if it's not subjective (and obviously not objective).

.... The lack of some objective analysis to support or refute God's existence makes the claim "God exists" objectively unverifiable. ...

And that makes it what? It's not objective. Now you are claiming that a statement, "God exists", is not subjective either. Do tell - what is it?

.... It makes the claim "God exists" unfalsifiable. What it does NOT make it is "subjective".....

And unfalsifiable claims cannot be subjective in your mind, obviously.

.... Understand? ....

Oh, absolutely. I understand what you are trying to say.

Wow. i certainly hope you recall that "God exists" were your words.

Of course I remember they were my words. That is the example claim which I presented to explore your understanding of the meaning of "subjective". And your analysis of the nature of that claim and subsequent asertion that it was "subjective" demonstrated with abundant clarity that you do not understand what that word means. ...

Okie doke. I suppose if you say something often enough you may actually end up believing it.

.... And to answer your last question, I doubt it, and no.

As I suspected.

I have had some very fascinating discussions with atheists over the years. They have an excellent grip on what atheism is. You, sir, do not.

Atheism is the lack of any belief in a diety. An atheist who actually knows what he is talking about does not say, "No, I don't think God exists." Doing so nullifies any claim of atheism.

Dishonesty, confusion, and inanity bore me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Hypothetical question:

If you see the Sun, you feel the rays of the Sun on you, you see the effects of the sun on your skin and on others, and do so consistancy day in and day out, do you:

1) Think the sun exists
2) Believe the sun exists
3) Suspect the sun exists, and/or
4) Know the sun exists?

 

[jeffrockit]

If you want to apply cognitive conditions on emotional processes and try to find anwers that way, I do wish you the best of luck.

You're not following.

I'm asking you why you think the kind of faith you are espousing is something desirable, and how you arrive at the conclusion that that faith should fall in the same category as emotions when it comes to the applicability of logic to the subject of it. That is a cognitive process. You yourself said you made a choice to embrace it. Choices have reasons. You appear exceedingly reluctant to examine yours.

Why do you care what others believe? It obviously bothers you enough to post that long rant. I care not what your beliefs are and you would probably have more peace in life if you felt the same.
As I have often said, If I am right about God's existence, I will spend my eternity with Him. If I am wrong, I have lost nothing as I have and am having a wonderful life. I am always amused at how one's personal religious beliefs bother non believers so much that they belittle and name call and basically devote much of their time trying to disprove or sway believers. I can think of much better ways to spend my time but it is yours to waste.
Just so you know, an opinion on a message board will very likely not change anyone's beliefs and if it does, their faith was not strong to begin with.

 

[gcomeau]

Why do you care what others believe?

I have a better question. Why do people keep asking me why I want to discuss issues of religious belief IN A RELIGION FORUM? I would think every person here cares what others believe. Otherwise, why exactly are you here in the first place?

And I care what others believe because beliefs shape actions, and other's actions effect me.

Hypothetical question:

If you see the Sun, you feel the rays of the Sun on you, you see the effects of the sun on your skin and on others, and do so consistancy day in and day out, do you:

1) Think the sun exists
2) Believe the sun exists
3) Suspect the sun exists, and/or
4) Know the sun exists?

You know it with as close to 100% certainty as you can be rationally expected to achieve. Yes, it could be some kind of hallucination, but if it is it appears to be shared by everyone. And the hallucination encompasses hallucinating mechanical sensory measurements of the phenomena. And it's a hallucination of a mundane and perfectly natural process there's no particular reason to doubt is occuring... all of which argue against it being one.

So basically, barring my being plugged into the Matrix or something yes, I know the sun exists.

And if it's unverifiable, there is no supporting data to verify it or to refute it. With that condition, there is only belief, not belief, or lack of any considertion.

Uh-huh... and THE BELIEFS ABOUT God's existence would be subjective. Matters of purely personal perspective.

The CLAIM "God Exists" itself is NOT subjective. Unless the claim was "God Exists only in the mind" making God a subjective phenomena in the claim. But that isn't what I said, now is it? Is it what you're saying? I really don't think it is, but if you are arguing God is a purely mental construct with no real existence outside your own mind then by all means speak up and say so and THEN I'll gladly grant you that that makes "God exists" a subjective statement.

Unless that's what you're about to do however, let me repeat... "unverifiable" and "subjective" are not synonyms. A claim being unverifiable does not automatically render it subjective. Subjective claims tend to be unverifiable, but that doesn't mean all unverifiable claims are subjective claims. So stop telling me that the claim "God Exists" is subjective just because it's unverifiable.

And I would be fascinated if you could find a single atheist anywhere on the planet who WOULDN'T say "no, I don't think God exists." considering that not thinking god exists is practically the definition of atheism.

 

[Si modo]

Person's attempting to claim logic as a foundation to their argument that a deity does or does not exist might want to have a bit of a grip on logic before doing so.

Propositional logic:

Given: There is no objective information/data/study indicating the existence of God or refuting the existence of God.

Definition: Beliefs (faith) are the set of ideas for which there is no proof/supporting information.

Any idea about a deity’s existence or lack of existence is a belief.

Atheism harbors no beliefs about a deity.

Ergo, atheism neither denies nor affirms the existence of a deity.

 

[gcomeau]

Person's attempting to claim logic as a foundation to their argument that a deity does or does not exist might want to have a bit of a grip on logic before doing so.

Propositional logic:

Given: There is no objective information/data/study indicating the existence of God or refuting the existence of God.

Definition: Beliefs (faith) are the set of ideas for which there is no proof/supporting information.

Any idea about a deity’s existence or lack of existence is a belief.

Atheism harbors no beliefs about a deity.

Ergo, atheism neither denies nor affirms the existence of a deity.

Atheism harbors no beliefs IN a deity.

IN. Not ABOUT.

Were there any othe words for which you wanted to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the definition?