ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...
- Thread starter Hilston
- Start date
- Status
One Eyed Jack
New member
What ever gave you that idea? You can't be a true Christian and NOT be sincere, truthful, and honest.
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jim - If atheists are wrong, then why do you give them so much credence? I do not accept a personal subjective inaccurate claim as authoritative**, instead, I use reason and logic and truth and God’s word to shape my response.
** Quoting Jim saying.
Ok, I’ll take on this challenge, it’s not really a challenge, except to see how bad I can make the atheist look on this issue, I’ll give it a try with aussie or attention, etc.
If you or anyone wants to demote that statement from faith/belief into just being a claim, then just do the 2 second math on that idea! So they only “claim” that no God exists. Then you simply ask them, do they believe that claim to be true, or do they believe that claim to be false. They don’t like to face this fact, but obviously they “believe” that claim to be true, manifestly, if they believed it to be false, then they would not be an atheist. (Hello out there, Come in Jim, earth to Jim and all atheists alike.)
Another way to restate belief or faith, is trust. If they, and apparently yourself, just do not want to deal with this issue objectively, then ask the question, do you trust that the truth or reality of the matter is that there is no God. Lastly, if you/they do not concede to this reasoning, then perhaps all that remains is the question, does faith and/or belief and/or trust exist. If you/they do not concede that belief exists and is part of what it means to be an atheist, then you just can’t win an argument with willfully stupid, of course belief and faith and trust exists and of course that is at the heart of what it means to be an atheist.
I believe the claim
God exists
That is, I understand and have confidence that the claim God exists is a true statement, a statement of reality. The atheist says the exact same sort of thing (a statement of belief) when they state:
God does not exist
That is their understanding of reality; they trust and understand that claim to be a true statement of reality. To suggest that atheists do not believe in their understanding about God, is to beg the entire question of what it means to be an atheist, it is a positive denial that God exists. But, even a theist can make that claim, here watch me,
God does not exist
So by your reasoning, I would be an atheist, but the truth is contrary to that, the difference between the theist and the atheist is that I do not believe that claim to be true, while the atheist believes that claim to be true. Anyone can make a claim about anything, but the way we understand who believes what and why is by learning about what they believe. Concerning God, theists believe one exists, while atheists deny that any exist, those are both statements of belief or faith or trust or confidence of the truth of the matter.
Now, if you will not agree to this line of reasoning, then you should have a reasonable respond to the following.
If the so-called atheist does not believe that the following claim is true
No God exists
then by definition, they have just disqualified them self as an atheist. Being an atheist presupposes the belief that no God exists.
Definitions of atheism or atheist
From MicroSoft Bookshelf dictionary 2000
Definitions of belief
From MicroSoft Bookshelf dictionary 2000
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary @1994 electronic version.
For one to claim
I do not believe in the existence of the tooth fairy
Holds the same meaning as saying
I believe that a tooth fairy does not exist.
Restating a positive denial as a negative affirmation is two sides to the same coin. And to suggest that the two are somehow not inextricably connected and equal, is to be irrational, illogical, and meaningless. (=s you and the atheists on this point.)
Also, if you first presuppose that there is a God, and those who disbelieve in that God are not believers in that God, then to state that all atheists are non-believers is to first assume that there is a God to not believe in, and so again we see that (even in this example) the denial of God’s existence presupposes God’s existence in order to understand the question and the answer. That really amounts to bad semantics and bad thinking, but the point remains. If a person believes a claim to be true, then to deny belief in that claim is immediately contradictory and makes no sense.
Jim, you said.
(1a) A claim does not a belief or truth make. A claim is to be evalutated for its logic and truth integrity. Also, if the claim is directly contradictory, then instead of pretending like you can argue against it, just demonstrate that it is a contradiction and so it does all the arguing for itself and defeats itself.
(1b) – Right Jim, that is my point, I am choosing my words very carefully, please apprehend in like fashion,
Every atheist believes that that the claim, no God exists, is true (to one degree of confidence or another).
To deny belief in the non-existence of God is to deny what it means to be an atheist.
(2) No one is doing that, we are just not speaking about the same issue the way you want us to. God refers to atheists and idolaters, which is a presupposition that they exist. Your utter failure at addressing this bible fact highlights your lack of understanding. Secondly, and specifically to your point, has Bob Enyart or myself affirmed the atheist’s claim of having no faith? I’d say we have not, you say we have. I know you can not provide one shred of evidence to support your fallacious claim, so I will just let your empty and false words speak for themselves. And if you hadn’t noticed, I have been arguing that atheists believe in their beliefs all this time, so I find your argument to be fully in kind with your ignorance and false wishful thinking.
God’s word teaches that idolaters and atheists both exist, this bible observation is manifest, and so is the presumption that atheists believe that there is no God. So God’s word is true, and Jim is subject to error as you have been demonstrating all this time, namely, that it is wrong to do what God has done in the just aforementioned example. I do not contradict your bible passages, I simply try to be consistent with them. Your continued avoidance of this bible teaching demonstrates at the very least your biblical inconsistency.
Last, why have you joined the Athests camp? I would have assumed that you would prefer to stand on the rock, on the solid ground of the gospel truth instead of giving the atheists claims validity. You argue against me when I claim that atheists actually believe that no God exists. You both affirm that atheists are believers (in something not yet fully described), and you also counter-claim that atheists do not (truly) exist, reasoning that God has removed that option from mankind by His revelation to all of mankind, even though God demonstrates that atheists exist by teaching about their foolishness. (!!!) I remain consistent with God’s word and the truth in reality by saying that atheists do exist, the bible does not teach against something that does not exist, but you contradict this fact by pretending that atheists do not really exist. Then you flip back and forth on this point by saying that you address or reference atheists even though you do not believe they actually exist, THAT IS DUPLICITE, THAT IS BEING DISHONEST. So what if they say that they have no faith, great, so we both agree that they are wrong there too! But I will not become deluded into believing that their claim is true as you have, and then make the erroneous and false and biblically contradictory assumption that no atheist exists. Instead, I trust scripture on this point which has established that atheists exist, and then simply expose their lies and false teachings for what they are.
If you want to have integrity, that is, live your life in harmony with your beliefs, then the first step is to not violate them.
If you truly believed that there is no such thing as an atheist, then you would never discuss the issue again. NEVER. But since we all know conclusively that you DO believe that atheists exist, by virtue of your thousands of words of understanding about them, you make yourself out to be the fool, trusting in the claims of the fool in order to shape your response to them. You trust the atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, that makes you foolish. You should instead expose their foolishness for what it is and believe that atheists do exist, and that their claim of having no faith is contradictory non-sense. Sure, their phony claims exist, but their claims are not true, and for the wise knowledgable Christian to deny the existence of atheists, is to join the ranks of foolish atheists who also falsely believe there is no God. You DO believe atheists exist, they have been at the forefront of your thoughts during this entire thread.
Forget all that foolishness, take God’s lead and follow His example, after presupposing that atheists exist, apply the teachings you find in God’s word about them. (To His glory, and our shame if we don’t.)
** Quoting Jim saying.
What makes an atheist, an atheist, is the “belief” that the answer to the question, does God(s) exist, is no.
Ok, I’ll take on this challenge, it’s not really a challenge, except to see how bad I can make the atheist look on this issue, I’ll give it a try with aussie or attention, etc.
If you or anyone wants to demote that statement from faith/belief into just being a claim, then just do the 2 second math on that idea! So they only “claim” that no God exists. Then you simply ask them, do they believe that claim to be true, or do they believe that claim to be false. They don’t like to face this fact, but obviously they “believe” that claim to be true, manifestly, if they believed it to be false, then they would not be an atheist. (Hello out there, Come in Jim, earth to Jim and all atheists alike.)
Another way to restate belief or faith, is trust. If they, and apparently yourself, just do not want to deal with this issue objectively, then ask the question, do you trust that the truth or reality of the matter is that there is no God. Lastly, if you/they do not concede to this reasoning, then perhaps all that remains is the question, does faith and/or belief and/or trust exist. If you/they do not concede that belief exists and is part of what it means to be an atheist, then you just can’t win an argument with willfully stupid, of course belief and faith and trust exists and of course that is at the heart of what it means to be an atheist.
I believe the claim
God exists
That is, I understand and have confidence that the claim God exists is a true statement, a statement of reality. The atheist says the exact same sort of thing (a statement of belief) when they state:
God does not exist
That is their understanding of reality; they trust and understand that claim to be a true statement of reality. To suggest that atheists do not believe in their understanding about God, is to beg the entire question of what it means to be an atheist, it is a positive denial that God exists. But, even a theist can make that claim, here watch me,
God does not exist
So by your reasoning, I would be an atheist, but the truth is contrary to that, the difference between the theist and the atheist is that I do not believe that claim to be true, while the atheist believes that claim to be true. Anyone can make a claim about anything, but the way we understand who believes what and why is by learning about what they believe. Concerning God, theists believe one exists, while atheists deny that any exist, those are both statements of belief or faith or trust or confidence of the truth of the matter.
Now, if you will not agree to this line of reasoning, then you should have a reasonable respond to the following.
If the so-called atheist does not believe that the following claim is true
No God exists
then by definition, they have just disqualified them self as an atheist. Being an atheist presupposes the belief that no God exists.
Definitions of atheism or atheist
From MicroSoft Bookshelf dictionary 2000
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary @1994 electronic version.
But lets not stop there, one might false believe as you have been suggesting that one can claim that there is no God and be an atheist and not at the same time personally believe that claim to be true.
Definitions of belief
From MicroSoft Bookshelf dictionary 2000
From Merriam-Webster Dictionary @1994 electronic version.
You have a claim, and you have a person who is persuaded one way or another about that claim, giving their intellectual assent of trust or confidence or conviction of the truth of a claim, that IS belief. The positive denial of a belief in something at the same time is a belief against that same thing’s existance.
For one to claim
I do not believe in the existence of the tooth fairy
Holds the same meaning as saying
I believe that a tooth fairy does not exist.
Restating a positive denial as a negative affirmation is two sides to the same coin. And to suggest that the two are somehow not inextricably connected and equal, is to be irrational, illogical, and meaningless. (=s you and the atheists on this point.)
Also, if you first presuppose that there is a God, and those who disbelieve in that God are not believers in that God, then to state that all atheists are non-believers is to first assume that there is a God to not believe in, and so again we see that (even in this example) the denial of God’s existence presupposes God’s existence in order to understand the question and the answer. That really amounts to bad semantics and bad thinking, but the point remains. If a person believes a claim to be true, then to deny belief in that claim is immediately contradictory and makes no sense.
Jim, you said.
Do you see the circular un-resolvable contradictions you present? One step at a time.
(1a) A claim does not a belief or truth make. A claim is to be evalutated for its logic and truth integrity. Also, if the claim is directly contradictory, then instead of pretending like you can argue against it, just demonstrate that it is a contradiction and so it does all the arguing for itself and defeats itself.
(1b) – Right Jim, that is my point, I am choosing my words very carefully, please apprehend in like fashion,
Every atheist believes that that the claim, no God exists, is true (to one degree of confidence or another).
To deny belief in the non-existence of God is to deny what it means to be an atheist.
(2) No one is doing that, we are just not speaking about the same issue the way you want us to. God refers to atheists and idolaters, which is a presupposition that they exist. Your utter failure at addressing this bible fact highlights your lack of understanding. Secondly, and specifically to your point, has Bob Enyart or myself affirmed the atheist’s claim of having no faith? I’d say we have not, you say we have. I know you can not provide one shred of evidence to support your fallacious claim, so I will just let your empty and false words speak for themselves. And if you hadn’t noticed, I have been arguing that atheists believe in their beliefs all this time, so I find your argument to be fully in kind with your ignorance and false wishful thinking.
God’s word teaches that idolaters and atheists both exist, this bible observation is manifest, and so is the presumption that atheists believe that there is no God. So God’s word is true, and Jim is subject to error as you have been demonstrating all this time, namely, that it is wrong to do what God has done in the just aforementioned example. I do not contradict your bible passages, I simply try to be consistent with them. Your continued avoidance of this bible teaching demonstrates at the very least your biblical inconsistency.
Last, why have you joined the Athests camp? I would have assumed that you would prefer to stand on the rock, on the solid ground of the gospel truth instead of giving the atheists claims validity. You argue against me when I claim that atheists actually believe that no God exists. You both affirm that atheists are believers (in something not yet fully described), and you also counter-claim that atheists do not (truly) exist, reasoning that God has removed that option from mankind by His revelation to all of mankind, even though God demonstrates that atheists exist by teaching about their foolishness. (!!!) I remain consistent with God’s word and the truth in reality by saying that atheists do exist, the bible does not teach against something that does not exist, but you contradict this fact by pretending that atheists do not really exist. Then you flip back and forth on this point by saying that you address or reference atheists even though you do not believe they actually exist, THAT IS DUPLICITE, THAT IS BEING DISHONEST. So what if they say that they have no faith, great, so we both agree that they are wrong there too! But I will not become deluded into believing that their claim is true as you have, and then make the erroneous and false and biblically contradictory assumption that no atheist exists. Instead, I trust scripture on this point which has established that atheists exist, and then simply expose their lies and false teachings for what they are.
If you want to have integrity, that is, live your life in harmony with your beliefs, then the first step is to not violate them.
If you truly believed that there is no such thing as an atheist, then you would never discuss the issue again. NEVER. But since we all know conclusively that you DO believe that atheists exist, by virtue of your thousands of words of understanding about them, you make yourself out to be the fool, trusting in the claims of the fool in order to shape your response to them. You trust the atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, that makes you foolish. You should instead expose their foolishness for what it is and believe that atheists do exist, and that their claim of having no faith is contradictory non-sense. Sure, their phony claims exist, but their claims are not true, and for the wise knowledgable Christian to deny the existence of atheists, is to join the ranks of foolish atheists who also falsely believe there is no God. You DO believe atheists exist, they have been at the forefront of your thoughts during this entire thread.
Forget all that foolishness, take God’s lead and follow His example, after presupposing that atheists exist, apply the teachings you find in God’s word about them. (To His glory, and our shame if we don’t.)
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Aussie thinker and Attention – You represent the atheist view here, please respond to the following.
The theist believes that God exists, the atheists believes that God does not exist. But I’ve been hearing that the claim that God does not exist is not an issue of faith or belief or confidence, it’s just a claim that atheists somehow hold to, supposedly without believing that it is true or not.
First, does human faith/belief/trust/confidence exist?
Second, is a positive denial the same meaning as the negative affirmation? Example.
It is true that God does not exist
And
It is false that God exists
Third, when we evaluate and decide about a truth claim one way or the other, we are making a statement of belief or faith that the claim is either truth or false. For example, “atheism” is the positive denial that God exists, but to be an “atheist” is to believe that claim to be true or accurate according to reality. If you deny belief in the claim that no God exists, then you are denying what it means to be an atheist.
Lastly, if you want to remain consistent by saying that concerning God, you are a non-believer, and you will not affirm any statements of belief about God, then you are directly denying that atheism is right or true and you are immediately not an atheist. Also, you are fundamentally presupposing that God exists in order to answer that you are a non-believer. If God truly does not exist, then it’s not an issue of being a believer or not, it’s simply a question of truth of God’s existence. I do not beg the question about the existence of God with an atheist, that is the contention, so I do not presume that He exists in seeking your understanding of the matter because I know you do not believe He exists. But as to your belief in that claim, I also know you believe that atheism is true, even if you try to deny any faith therein.
So please explain your belief about non-belief in a claim’s truth value, how can you believe something to be true, if you don’t believe it to be true? And if you don’t believe it to be true, then you haven’t even been persuaded one way or the other about the truth of God’s existence, you would then be neither a theist nor an atheist, just an undecided bystander.
???
The theist believes that God exists, the atheists believes that God does not exist. But I’ve been hearing that the claim that God does not exist is not an issue of faith or belief or confidence, it’s just a claim that atheists somehow hold to, supposedly without believing that it is true or not.
First, does human faith/belief/trust/confidence exist?
Second, is a positive denial the same meaning as the negative affirmation? Example.
It is true that God does not exist
And
It is false that God exists
Third, when we evaluate and decide about a truth claim one way or the other, we are making a statement of belief or faith that the claim is either truth or false. For example, “atheism” is the positive denial that God exists, but to be an “atheist” is to believe that claim to be true or accurate according to reality. If you deny belief in the claim that no God exists, then you are denying what it means to be an atheist.
Lastly, if you want to remain consistent by saying that concerning God, you are a non-believer, and you will not affirm any statements of belief about God, then you are directly denying that atheism is right or true and you are immediately not an atheist. Also, you are fundamentally presupposing that God exists in order to answer that you are a non-believer. If God truly does not exist, then it’s not an issue of being a believer or not, it’s simply a question of truth of God’s existence. I do not beg the question about the existence of God with an atheist, that is the contention, so I do not presume that He exists in seeking your understanding of the matter because I know you do not believe He exists. But as to your belief in that claim, I also know you believe that atheism is true, even if you try to deny any faith therein.
So please explain your belief about non-belief in a claim’s truth value, how can you believe something to be true, if you don’t believe it to be true? And if you don’t believe it to be true, then you haven’t even been persuaded one way or the other about the truth of God’s existence, you would then be neither a theist nor an atheist, just an undecided bystander.
???
Last edited:
1way writes,
I’ll sure try to !
Yes
This is where you fall down. I did mention to you earlier about the Tooth Fairy. We “positively” deny the Tooth Fairy but this is hardly a “belief” system. If someone makes an OUTRAGEOUS claim to you and you deny it.. it can hardly be construed that you have a belief in your denial. It is they who have the “belief” in the outrageous.
It is a weird way to ask a question. It begs me to put some “belief” into my answer. No one but a theist ever asks for someone to confirm “belief” in a negative. Technically all atheists “believe” that a God does not exist.. but you put the wrong emphasise on the “believe”. It is only a belief because God does not exist it can never be proven that he does not exist. Your own definition of atheist uses the word “disbelief” and you try and say that it is the same a s a belief in the opposite. Trouble with that is a belief is a much stringer term than disbelief.
It is exactly equated to your “belief” that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Would you say you have a strong belief that there is no Tooth Fairy or would you say you disbelieve ?
Ditto.
I think I covered most of that above. You are attempting to show we have belief just like you. I am equating that to your belief in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.. is that a fair (or even sensible) way to label it ?
Funny thing is atheism is just a label. The only technically correct term is agnostic.. “I don’t know”. I and most other choose to use the term atheist because agnostic is taken by many to mean “I think there is a God but am unsure which one or how it works”. The term atheist is more taken to me .. “I am as sure in the non existence of God as I am in the Tooth Fairy”.
Trying to call it a “belief” system is at worst dishonest and at best a misunderstanding born of the theist own life that is FULL of belief systems !
You seem to be horribly confused. You have to break the mindset of “belief”.
I have told you before .. you can understand exactly how we feel when you examine your own reasons for no believing in the Tooth Fairy..
Would you label that non-belief a belief ??? I doubt it
You think I am being flippant when I use the Tooth Fairy example as you think that God is important and the Tooth Fairy is a “known” fairy tale for children.
You must try and understand that God is NOT important to us… the worldwide phenomenon of humans fantasising about God is important and fascinating to us.. hence the windy discussions !
God is just a “known” fairy tale for adults !
I’ll sure try to !
Yes
This is where you fall down. I did mention to you earlier about the Tooth Fairy. We “positively” deny the Tooth Fairy but this is hardly a “belief” system. If someone makes an OUTRAGEOUS claim to you and you deny it.. it can hardly be construed that you have a belief in your denial. It is they who have the “belief” in the outrageous.
It is a weird way to ask a question. It begs me to put some “belief” into my answer. No one but a theist ever asks for someone to confirm “belief” in a negative. Technically all atheists “believe” that a God does not exist.. but you put the wrong emphasise on the “believe”. It is only a belief because God does not exist it can never be proven that he does not exist. Your own definition of atheist uses the word “disbelief” and you try and say that it is the same a s a belief in the opposite. Trouble with that is a belief is a much stringer term than disbelief.
It is exactly equated to your “belief” that the Tooth Fairy does not exist. Would you say you have a strong belief that there is no Tooth Fairy or would you say you disbelieve ?
Ditto.
I think I covered most of that above. You are attempting to show we have belief just like you. I am equating that to your belief in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy.. is that a fair (or even sensible) way to label it ?
Funny thing is atheism is just a label. The only technically correct term is agnostic.. “I don’t know”. I and most other choose to use the term atheist because agnostic is taken by many to mean “I think there is a God but am unsure which one or how it works”. The term atheist is more taken to me .. “I am as sure in the non existence of God as I am in the Tooth Fairy”.
Trying to call it a “belief” system is at worst dishonest and at best a misunderstanding born of the theist own life that is FULL of belief systems !
You seem to be horribly confused. You have to break the mindset of “belief”.
I have told you before .. you can understand exactly how we feel when you examine your own reasons for no believing in the Tooth Fairy..
Would you label that non-belief a belief ??? I doubt it
You think I am being flippant when I use the Tooth Fairy example as you think that God is important and the Tooth Fairy is a “known” fairy tale for children.
You must try and understand that God is NOT important to us… the worldwide phenomenon of humans fantasising about God is important and fascinating to us.. hence the windy discussions !
God is just a “known” fairy tale for adults !
Last edited:
... out of town ...
... out of town ...
Gentlemen,
Thanks for your posts and your excellent questions. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to answer immediately. I will happily do so posthaste, but I've been out of town for the past two days, and I'm leaving again first thing in the morning, and I won't be back until Saturday. I just wanted y'all to know that I hadn't forgotten about you.
See you soon,
Jim
... out of town ...
Gentlemen,
Thanks for your posts and your excellent questions. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to answer immediately. I will happily do so posthaste, but I've been out of town for the past two days, and I'm leaving again first thing in the morning, and I won't be back until Saturday. I just wanted y'all to know that I hadn't forgotten about you.
See you soon,
Jim
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jim – Thanks, have a good trip, I’m doing the same, wont be back until Sat or so, but I am happy to contribute any way I can.
Aussie Thinker – Aussie said
Belief verses a belief system.
Right now, I am not differentiating between one belief and many associated beliefs like a system of belief. So forget that much, we are first trying to determine if the belief that God does not exist is anything more than a claim for the atheist.
Second, you guys keep qualifying the belief as being fanciful or ridiculous and such, what is wrong with you? We are first trying to deal with the issue of whether or not the belief in God not existing is a belief or not, not whether the issue seems ridiculous or not. Get a grip on the issue at hand, and after you get the idea clear in your mind, don’t change the subject until that issue is properly dealt with.
You just claim that if someone denies an outrageous claim that it can not hardly be construed as having a belief in the denial. That is perfectly wrong and does nothing to correct my claim that doing so establishes that belief. Your argument’s logic goes as follows, I say that whenever one believes that atheism is true, that belief is actually a belief, and then you respond by arguing that a denial of a ridiculous claim does not imply any belief. That is the topic of this discussion, that is this discussion, you are perfectly begging the question of the differences in our debate here, of course you believe that your faith that there is no God holds no belief, I know that about you, to restate that in such a way as to try to pass that off as a support argument for your side is only bogus at best. A claim is not a support for that claim, a claim is only a claim, please deal with my support reasoning that I gave you that demonstrates that if one believes that a claim is true, then such a belief necessarily garners faith into their personal agreement and support of that claim.
So no, I did not fall down, I did not change the subject several times in one response, I stayed my course, I presented a solid reasonable argument to which you unreasonably responded by claiming that your claim supports your claim.
Let me assist you.
Do you believe that the following claim is true or not?
God does not exist.
???
Next, you suffer from twigginess. You can’t see the forest because of the trees and the leaves and the twigs and the tiny veins in the leaves, etc. Open your eyes and step back a moment for goodness sakes. Here is what I actually said.
Either no, those two claims do not represent the same meaning, or yes, obvisously those two claims mean the same thing. Any other response should be because of a lack of understanding, either of the question, or of the answer, for you to pass off as a response what you did, is a shame.
Don’t brake down (destroy) my ideas in a way that I did not present them, that is distortion and probably aversion. The answer is yes, a positive denial is the same meaning as the negative affirmation as exemplified. For you to mishandle that simple question by not even answering it demonstrates a willingness to deny the truth of a matter even when it is staring you right in the face, you are apparently motivated by an intense desire to be viewed as right and not wrong, even if it means denying the truth of a matter in doing so. Either demonstrate how my example does not represent the same idea or just sit back and actually deal with the truth for a change. Fiction is nice occasionally, but it has no place in establishing our world view.
Your quoted me (1way) saying.
I disapprove of your example of the tooth fairy based on your reasoning about it, the example would be fine if you would not mix up unlike and several issues as though they are one, they are not they are several. I purely want to establish that the belief that the claim “God does not exist” is true, is precisely what it means to be an atheist. No need to make an analogy, just deal with the truth of the matter. Belief in a truth claim is belief! In fact, if you do not belief what I just mentioned, then it is impossible to be an atheist. But since you want to suggest, however erroneously, that you have no faith in that issue, then I have the task of helping you (or others) see the error of your contradictory and false belief, namely that you have no belief concerning the claim that God does not exist.
But then you say.
You are just a fairy tale, things like truth and reason and right and wrong are strangers to you. So I am to you, a stranger, and now after communicating with you, I am none the more close to you or your ridiculous aversion to the truth of the matter. (To my benefit and to your demise)
The belief that God does not exist, is a truth claim,
The person who believes that claim to be true or accurate and is worthy of their intellectual support or adherence (to one degree or another) is what it means to be an atheist.
To deny
belief in the claim that God does not exist, is to deny being an atheist.
To affirm
belief in the claim that God does not exist, is to affirm being an atheist.
Any meaningful departure from that formulation is irrational contradictory senselessness.
DO YOU GET THAT POINT?
It’s not, is this issue ridiculous,
It’s not, does this belief somehow implicate a belief system,
It’s not, atheism is actually agnosticism which is not really agnosticism it’s ignorance, which is not really ignorance, it’s atheism
It’s not about avoiding arguments,
It’s about the truth of the matter, belief/faith is inextricably connected to the belief that atheism is true or right.
If you just can not accept all of the above, then respond to this.
Do you believe the following is true:
God does not exist.
If so, then you just demonstrated your belief that atheism is true. If not then you do not believe that atheism is true and therefore you are not an atheist (supporter).
Are you that terrified of the truth that you will automatically not deal with it? Come on, show some resolve, show us the truth of the matter, stop hiding behind tangents and chopping points where you mistakenly demolish an example into a separate question. (!!!) :doh:
Last, so you really are not an atheist, if that is true, then please stipulate clearly what you believe so that I will not be mislead about what you believe. BTW, I admire that you were brave enough to denounce atheism in favor of Gnosticism, at least you are trying to be somewhat honest about the irrationality of atheism. It’s too bad your fear clouds your judgment as much as it has.
Aussie Thinker – Aussie said
No no no no nooooooooo. You are handling several issues as though they are one and they are not one they are several.
Belief verses a belief system.
Right now, I am not differentiating between one belief and many associated beliefs like a system of belief. So forget that much, we are first trying to determine if the belief that God does not exist is anything more than a claim for the atheist.
Second, you guys keep qualifying the belief as being fanciful or ridiculous and such, what is wrong with you? We are first trying to deal with the issue of whether or not the belief in God not existing is a belief or not, not whether the issue seems ridiculous or not. Get a grip on the issue at hand, and after you get the idea clear in your mind, don’t change the subject until that issue is properly dealt with.
You just claim that if someone denies an outrageous claim that it can not hardly be construed as having a belief in the denial. That is perfectly wrong and does nothing to correct my claim that doing so establishes that belief. Your argument’s logic goes as follows, I say that whenever one believes that atheism is true, that belief is actually a belief, and then you respond by arguing that a denial of a ridiculous claim does not imply any belief. That is the topic of this discussion, that is this discussion, you are perfectly begging the question of the differences in our debate here, of course you believe that your faith that there is no God holds no belief, I know that about you, to restate that in such a way as to try to pass that off as a support argument for your side is only bogus at best. A claim is not a support for that claim, a claim is only a claim, please deal with my support reasoning that I gave you that demonstrates that if one believes that a claim is true, then such a belief necessarily garners faith into their personal agreement and support of that claim.
So no, I did not fall down, I did not change the subject several times in one response, I stayed my course, I presented a solid reasonable argument to which you unreasonably responded by claiming that your claim supports your claim.
Let me assist you.
Do you believe that the following claim is true or not?
God does not exist.
???
Next, you suffer from twigginess. You can’t see the forest because of the trees and the leaves and the twigs and the tiny veins in the leaves, etc. Open your eyes and step back a moment for goodness sakes. Here is what I actually said.
Here is the sort of answer my question is expecting.
Either no, those two claims do not represent the same meaning, or yes, obvisously those two claims mean the same thing. Any other response should be because of a lack of understanding, either of the question, or of the answer, for you to pass off as a response what you did, is a shame.
Don’t brake down (destroy) my ideas in a way that I did not present them, that is distortion and probably aversion. The answer is yes, a positive denial is the same meaning as the negative affirmation as exemplified. For you to mishandle that simple question by not even answering it demonstrates a willingness to deny the truth of a matter even when it is staring you right in the face, you are apparently motivated by an intense desire to be viewed as right and not wrong, even if it means denying the truth of a matter in doing so. Either demonstrate how my example does not represent the same idea or just sit back and actually deal with the truth for a change. Fiction is nice occasionally, but it has no place in establishing our world view.
Your quoted me (1way) saying.
And then you said
Not at all, you ripped up what I actually said and spoke about off topic issues. I am NOT attempting to show that we have belief just like you, that is a loaded statement and was given away when you just previously objected to atheists having a belief “system”. Forget that for now, we have not even progressed beyond the first issue of whether or not the belief in truth of the claim that God does not exist is a belief or not. Stop re-creating my view, I understand my view just fine and do not need you to misrepresent it, I need you to understand it and respond to it.
I disapprove of your example of the tooth fairy based on your reasoning about it, the example would be fine if you would not mix up unlike and several issues as though they are one, they are not they are several. I purely want to establish that the belief that the claim “God does not exist” is true, is precisely what it means to be an atheist. No need to make an analogy, just deal with the truth of the matter. Belief in a truth claim is belief! In fact, if you do not belief what I just mentioned, then it is impossible to be an atheist. But since you want to suggest, however erroneously, that you have no faith in that issue, then I have the task of helping you (or others) see the error of your contradictory and false belief, namely that you have no belief concerning the claim that God does not exist.
But then you say.
Excuse me for freeking out, but, atheist, agnostic, whats the difference, so I lied, and am lying now by saying they are really the same thing(!), and I’m also lying by suggesting that agnosticism is supposed to be “I think there is a God but I’m unsure which one or how it works”. Ouch, that’s gotta hurt. You didn’t just jump of the map, you just hyper-spaced out of reality altogether. You are wrong, you are ignorant, and you take me as a fool which I am not. I do NOT have the time to waist on dishonest and insincere efforts and I am upset for spending the amount of time I have already with you, if you continue down the path of this inane foolishness.
You are just a fairy tale, things like truth and reason and right and wrong are strangers to you. So I am to you, a stranger, and now after communicating with you, I am none the more close to you or your ridiculous aversion to the truth of the matter. (To my benefit and to your demise)
The belief that God does not exist, is a truth claim,
The person who believes that claim to be true or accurate and is worthy of their intellectual support or adherence (to one degree or another) is what it means to be an atheist.
To deny
belief in the claim that God does not exist, is to deny being an atheist.
To affirm
belief in the claim that God does not exist, is to affirm being an atheist.
Any meaningful departure from that formulation is irrational contradictory senselessness.
DO YOU GET THAT POINT?
It’s not, is this issue ridiculous,
It’s not, does this belief somehow implicate a belief system,
It’s not, atheism is actually agnosticism which is not really agnosticism it’s ignorance, which is not really ignorance, it’s atheism
It’s not about avoiding arguments,
It’s about the truth of the matter, belief/faith is inextricably connected to the belief that atheism is true or right.
If you just can not accept all of the above, then respond to this.
Do you believe the following is true:
God does not exist.
If so, then you just demonstrated your belief that atheism is true. If not then you do not believe that atheism is true and therefore you are not an atheist (supporter).
Are you that terrified of the truth that you will automatically not deal with it? Come on, show some resolve, show us the truth of the matter, stop hiding behind tangents and chopping points where you mistakenly demolish an example into a separate question. (!!!) :doh:
Last, so you really are not an atheist, if that is true, then please stipulate clearly what you believe so that I will not be mislead about what you believe. BTW, I admire that you were brave enough to denounce atheism in favor of Gnosticism, at least you are trying to be somewhat honest about the irrationality of atheism. It’s too bad your fear clouds your judgment as much as it has.
Last edited:
1way,
You are driving yourself crazy by your own poor way of putting the question and understanding the answer !
I stated it clearly in my previous answer but here goes.
Even though they are stupid questions I will give you the answers you so desperately need.
I Believe God does not exist
And again
I have a belief in the non-existence of God
Happy ?
Now as I KNOW exactly how you will treat the answers I will give you the qualification you seem to fail (don’t want to ) understand.
I also believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist
and
I have a belief in the non-existence of the Tooth fairy
Did you note the similarity of the statement.. well that is also the similarity of importance of my belief.
The above statement are the sort of thing we attribute “disbelief” to. Hence an atheist is said to disbelieve in God (in fact your definition used that term). The term disbelief is CLEARLY a much softer term than belief. Belief implies something you specifically set out to do, it requires faith, hope, suspension of normal scepticism.. disbelief requires none of that.
Your namby pamby attempt to equate as the same is simply ridiculous.
BTW You never answered my question..
Do you declare that you have a belief in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy or do you say you disbelieve it ?? If you say disbelieve .. why.. it’s the same thing as belief in the opposite ?? Isn’t it ??.. Yep I think you may start to get it !
You are driving yourself crazy by your own poor way of putting the question and understanding the answer !
I stated it clearly in my previous answer but here goes.
Even though they are stupid questions I will give you the answers you so desperately need.
I Believe God does not exist
And again
I have a belief in the non-existence of God
Happy ?
Now as I KNOW exactly how you will treat the answers I will give you the qualification you seem to fail (don’t want to ) understand.
I also believe that the Tooth Fairy does not exist
and
I have a belief in the non-existence of the Tooth fairy
Did you note the similarity of the statement.. well that is also the similarity of importance of my belief.
The above statement are the sort of thing we attribute “disbelief” to. Hence an atheist is said to disbelieve in God (in fact your definition used that term). The term disbelief is CLEARLY a much softer term than belief. Belief implies something you specifically set out to do, it requires faith, hope, suspension of normal scepticism.. disbelief requires none of that.
Your namby pamby attempt to equate as the same is simply ridiculous.
BTW You never answered my question..
Do you declare that you have a belief in the non-existence of the Tooth Fairy or do you say you disbelieve it ?? If you say disbelieve .. why.. it’s the same thing as belief in the opposite ?? Isn’t it ??.. Yep I think you may start to get it !
attention
New member
Because a true Christian beliefs in something that is known not to be true.
This knowledge is the current knowledge, and is built on a system of knowledge and science, developed in the past thousands of years, in which we can not find any credibility for the existence of any deities to explain reality.
A true Christian posits something that is in contrast with this knowledge.
A quick reply to 1Way ...
A quick reply to 1Way ...
Hi 1Way,
I thought I'd give this a shot and try to reply to your post before I head out.
I must say that you are the most singularly confused person I've yet to encounter in this discussion. First, you confuse what the so-called atheists say with what I have to say about them. Then after basically affirming what they claim to believe, you disparage me for siding with the atheist because I basically affirm what they claim to believe? Then you accuse me, several times, of having some belief in or about true atheists that I've repeatedly stated do not truly exist. You state that you and I agree that so-called atheists actually have faith, but then say that "I will not be deluded into believing that their claim [to not have faith] is true as you have." Then you complain, "You argue against me when I claim that atheists actually believe that no God exists." You go on to say that I should never discuss true atheists again because I don't believe they truly exist. Fact is, I wouldn't have to ever mention the concept of "true atheists" if people like you didn't come around trying to defend their belief. So after all you've written, you seem to be deeper than ever in your quagmire of confusion.
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
Jim previously wrote: No. The [SO-CALLED] atheist denies having faith, 1Way. Aussie has told you this. The truth is they have a blind, irrational faith, but most of them deny it. So there is no "statement of atheistic faith/belief" that an atheist (or at least most) will agree with.
Now, before we get to your well-nigh insane remarks, allow me to point out the following: When I said, "The [SO-CALLED] atheist denies having faith ... Aussie has told you this" you should not have assumed that I affirmed his claim as being true. And even if you did have a tinge of doubt as to my meaning, the very next sentence should have made it unequivocally and patently clear: "The truth is [NOTE: There is an implicit, but inescapable, contrasting particle here: 'BUT the truth is ...'] they have a blind, irrational faith ..." Please say you now understand this. If not, then I can only pity you.
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
Your attempt at equivocation on trust/belief/faith is irrelevant to the atheist and to this discussion. They have their own definitions. Certainly the majority of so-called atheists is not going to equate believing their own claims with having faith. "Belief" and "faith," while being biblically equivalent (pistes, pisteo), are not necessarily English equivalents. The latter comes much more "loaded" and implies much more than does the former, at least among the atheists I've encountered and read.
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
Jim previously wrote: (1a) No, the atheist claims to not have belief. He claims to not have faith. (1b) That is impossible, (2) and to affirm the atheist's claim of not having faith is basically dishonest.
1Way writes:
(1a) A claim does not a belief or truth make. A claim is to be evalutated for its logic and truth integrity.[/quote]So why are you so eager to believe a claim that is illogical and has no integrity? When you believe the so-called atheist's claim of true atheism, you've affirmed a lie.
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
1Way writes:
If, after this post, you ever say that I believe true atheists exist, I will be compelled to conclude that you are mentally unstable.
Now here are some questions you did not answer:
*What is it, in positive terms, that the atheist places his faith in? Don't answer "no gods" or "no faith" or "false faith." State what it is.
*Why, in your opinion, is the atheist a fool for not believing in the true God?
*Why, in your opinion, does the atheist believe there is no God?
And Knight: POTD? How embarrassing.
Jim
A quick reply to 1Way ...
Hi 1Way,
I thought I'd give this a shot and try to reply to your post before I head out.
I must say that you are the most singularly confused person I've yet to encounter in this discussion. First, you confuse what the so-called atheists say with what I have to say about them. Then after basically affirming what they claim to believe, you disparage me for siding with the atheist because I basically affirm what they claim to believe? Then you accuse me, several times, of having some belief in or about true atheists that I've repeatedly stated do not truly exist. You state that you and I agree that so-called atheists actually have faith, but then say that "I will not be deluded into believing that their claim [to not have faith] is true as you have." Then you complain, "You argue against me when I claim that atheists actually believe that no God exists." You go on to say that I should never discuss true atheists again because I don't believe they truly exist. Fact is, I wouldn't have to ever mention the concept of "true atheists" if people like you didn't come around trying to defend their belief. So after all you've written, you seem to be deeper than ever in your quagmire of confusion.
1Way writes:
For example?
1Way writes:
Yes, you do. You believe them when they claims to not believe in God. You admit this below. Then you retract it. Then you admit it again. Then you modify it. Then you admit it again. I'm convinced that you either (a) cannot read, or (b) are so caught up in a flurry of scattered thoughts that you do not see a simple contrast within a sentence of English words and phrases. I'm leaning toward the latter explanation. Try to get this this, 1Way:
Jim previously wrote: No. The [SO-CALLED] atheist denies having faith, 1Way. Aussie has told you this. The truth is they have a blind, irrational faith, but most of them deny it. So there is no "statement of atheistic faith/belief" that an atheist (or at least most) will agree with.
Now, before we get to your well-nigh insane remarks, allow me to point out the following: When I said, "The [SO-CALLED] atheist denies having faith ... Aussie has told you this" you should not have assumed that I affirmed his claim as being true. And even if you did have a tinge of doubt as to my meaning, the very next sentence should have made it unequivocally and patently clear: "The truth is [NOTE: There is an implicit, but inescapable, contrasting particle here: 'BUT the truth is ...'] they have a blind, irrational faith ..." Please say you now understand this. If not, then I can only pity you.
1Way writes:
Why do you believe them when the Bible says it's not true and that they're self-deluded?
1Way writes:
I'm guessing they would say that believing a claim is not the same as putting one's faith in some deity (ask them). It's going to boil down to semantics with the so-called atheist, 1way, and you're still going to have to deal with the biblical text on this issue. All men know God exists and that they are accountable to Him. Ro 1:30-32 calls them God-haters who know the judgment of God. They say they don't hate God any more than they hate the tooth fairy. Will you believe them and disbelieve the scripture?
Your attempt at equivocation on trust/belief/faith is irrelevant to the atheist and to this discussion. They have their own definitions. Certainly the majority of so-called atheists is not going to equate believing their own claims with having faith. "Belief" and "faith," while being biblically equivalent (pistes, pisteo), are not necessarily English equivalents. The latter comes much more "loaded" and implies much more than does the former, at least among the atheists I've encountered and read.
1Way writes:
I never thought I'd see the day where the belief in atheism would be equated to belief in God by a Christian!
1Way writes:
The Bible says you're wrong. Even to the pagans on Areopagus, Paul showed them that they already believed in God by the words of their own philosophers and by their altar to the unknown God. Paul told them that they DO know this God and willfully suppress the truth about Him, choosing deliberate ignorance over a rational theistic worldview. The Bible militates against your view, 1Way.
1Way writes:
Do you know what it means to beg the question?
1Way writes:
A positive denial? Or is it a negative affirmation? Or an affirmative negation? And the point is?
1way writes:
I don't believe in atheists, 1way. By what form of logic do you come to ascertain that I would ever agree to the existence of one?
1Way writes:
What? If you claimed to believe that you were Rosie O'Donnell, I would say you are self-deluded. Regardless of what you believed, or how strongly you claimed to believe that you are an atheist or Rosie O'Donnell, that doesn't make you an atheist or a Rosie O'Donnell.
1Way writes:
Now that's what I call question-begging. Good job! Please keep in mind that, biblically speaking, there are no true atheists. Do I need to elaborate further, or is the folly of your statement now clear to you?
1Way writes:
Haven't I gone out of my way to say that I do not immediately deny their belief in that claim? Haven't I said that I do not use this as a stratedy when discussing the existence of God with so-called atheists? Are you even reading what I write, or do you continue to prefer debating a figment of your imagination?
Jim previously wrote: (1a) No, the atheist claims to not have belief. He claims to not have faith. (1b) That is impossible, (2) and to affirm the atheist's claim of not having faith is basically dishonest.
1Way writes:
(1a) A claim does not a belief or truth make. A claim is to be evalutated for its logic and truth integrity.[/quote]So why are you so eager to believe a claim that is illogical and has no integrity? When you believe the so-called atheist's claim of true atheism, you've affirmed a lie.
1Way writes:
This is what Paul did on Mars Hill (Acts 17). So why do you pretend you can argue against the disbelief in God when the Bible says there is no such thing.
1Way writes:
Yup. I do deny what it means to be a true atheist, because I agree with the Bible that says they do not truly exist. What it means to be a so-called atheist is anti-biblical, and so I choose to affirm the scripture and deny what it means to be a true atheist (since they don't truly exist).
1Way writes:
If you try to argue physics and biology in a philosophically neutral and non-religious fashion, then you are dishonestly pretending that the so-called atheist's claim of not having faith is true. The so-called atheist has biases. So does the Christian. Both look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions. What is the problem? A lack of intelligence? A lack of evidence? No. It's a difference of worldview that is at issue. Someone has wrong biases, and these must be exposed. A so-called "neutral assesssment of the evidence" doesn't exist, but that is exactly what Bob Enyart presumes to provoke from Zakath.
1Way writes:
Idolaters (those who claim to believe in the existence of false gods) exist. But their false gods do not. Evidentialists (those who believe in the existence of atheists) exist. But atheists do not. Try to follow the logic. What do Romans 1:19,20,30,32 mean to you? These verses affirm the universality of the knowledge of God and of His judgment. For you to say there are true atheists is unbiblical.
1Way writes:
Where?
1Way writes:
There's no such thing, 1Way. Who in the world are you talking to?
1Way writes:
I'm sure you've made Aussie and Attention's day. That's all we need is more people like you affirming the self-delusion of the so-called atheists. Do you also offer drinks to alcoholics?
1Way writes:
Why do you equivocate? Try to get this, 1Way: I affirm that SO-CALLED (because they do not truly exist) atheists really do believe in God's existence, and I've fully described this. The Bible is ineluctably explicit on this. For some reason you're not seeing it.
1Way writes:
Where? The fool (not the atheist) has said in his heart "there is no God." Another fool has said in his heart "I am Rosie O'Donnell." Follow your own logic on this one, 1way.
1Way writes:
What it duplicite? A flooring material? I use "atheist" as a term loosely identifying real people that I'm talking about. I get tired of typing SO-CALLED and ANTI-THEIST. If it will make you happy and less confused and irrational, I will henceforth precede every reference the so-called atheists with SO-CALLED.
1Way writes:
WHAT?!?! Are you on medication? Why would I ever agree that the so-called atheist has no faith? Whoever said they have no faith? You said, "But I will not become deluded into believing that their claim is true [their claim to having no faith!]. So YOU are affirming their having no faith?!?!?! 1Way, is English your first language? What is with you, man? Are you tired? Lots of stress? Dude, you are not making any sense.
1Way writes:
Where?
1Way writes:
I don't, 1way. EVER, because they are figments of imaginations. My only reference to TRUE atheists is to demonstrate that they do NOT actually exist. I discuss true atheists (which don't exist) about as often as I talk about the true tooth fairy (which also doesn't exist). Rather, I talk about SO-CALLED atheists, which DO exist. YOU are talking about true atheists, which do not exist. Is that clear? How many ways do I need to state it. No one else has been as confused on this as you, 1Way.
1Way writes:
Do you really think that by talking about so-called atheists that I therefore believe true atheists exist? If I talk about the tooth fairy does that mean I believe there is truly a tooth fairy? Are you so desperate that you have to resort to this sort of syntactic hogwash to feel like you're still in the game?
1Way writes:
Are you deliberately doing this? Did you forget everything I've written? I do NOT trust the SO-CALLED atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, 1Way. I do NOT trust the SO-CALLED atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, 1Way. I do NOT trust the SO-CALLED atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, 1Way. I do NOT trust the SO-CALLED atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, 1Way. I do NOT trust the SO-CALLED atheist when he says he has no faith about the existence of God, 1Way.
1Way writes:
I do, the way Paul did. He exposed their lie of disbelief. He exposed the fact that they themselves know but deny the truth. You can go ahead and try to prove that a rock can't create itself and that a fire can't burn forever if you want. I'll stick to scripture principles. Thanks.
1Way writes:
Why would not believing in true atheists equate to not believing in God?
1Way writes:
No, 1Way. I believe SELF-PROFESSING SELF-DELUDED SO-CALLED atheists exist, but not true atheists. I believe SELF-PROFESSING SELF-DELUDED SO-CALLED atheists exist, but not true atheists. I believe SELF-PROFESSING SELF-DELUDED SO-CALLED atheists exist, but not true atheists. I believe SELF-PROFESSING SELF-DELUDED SO-CALLED atheists exist, but not true atheists.
If, after this post, you ever say that I believe true atheists exist, I will be compelled to conclude that you are mentally unstable.
Now here are some questions you did not answer:
*What is it, in positive terms, that the atheist places his faith in? Don't answer "no gods" or "no faith" or "false faith." State what it is.
*Why, in your opinion, is the atheist a fool for not believing in the true God?
*Why, in your opinion, does the atheist believe there is no God?
And Knight: POTD? How embarrassing.
Jim
Last edited:
attention
New member
Objective being vs. subjective being
" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.
A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.
A non-objective being is a non-being.
Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"
Excerpt from: "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" K. Marx
" (...) Hunger is a natural need; it therefore needs a nature outside itself, an object outside itself, in order to satisfy itself, to be stilled. Hunger is an acknowledged need of my body for an object existing outside it, indispensable to its integration and to the expression of its essential being. The sun is the object of the plant — an indispensable object to it, confirming its life — just as the plant is an object of the sun, being an expression of the life-awakening power of the sun, of the sun’s objective essential power.
A being which does not have its nature outside itself is not a natural being, and plays no part in the system of nature. A being which has no object outside itself is not an objective being. A being which is not itself an object for some third being has no being for its object; i.e., it is not objectively related. Its being is not objective.
A non-objective being is a non-being.
Suppose a being which is neither an object itself, nor has an object. Such a being, in the first place, would be the unique being: there would exist no being outside it — it would exist solitary and alone. For as soon as there are objects outside me, as soon as I am not alone, I am another — another reality than the object outside me. For this third object I am thus a different reality than itself; that is, I am its object. Thus, to suppose a being which is not the object of another being is to presuppose that no objective being exists. As soon as I have an object, this object has me for an object. But a non-objective being is an unreal, non-sensuous thing — a product of mere thought (i.e., of mere imagination) — an abstraction. To be sensuous, that is, to be really existing, means to be an object of sense, to be a sensuous object, to have sensuous objects outside oneself — objects of one’s sensuousness. To be sensuous is to suffer.
Man as an objective, sensuous being is therefore a suffering being — and because he feels that he suffers, a passionate being. Passion is the essential power of man energetically bent on its object. (...)"
Excerpt from: "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" K. Marx
attention
New member
(Self)-consciousness and alienated self-consciousness
" (...) The way in which consciousness is, and in which something is for it, is knowing. Knowing is its sole act. Something therefore comes to be for consciousness insofar as the latter knows this something. Knowing is its sole objective relation.
It [consciousness] then knows the nullity of the object (i.e., knows the non-existence of the distinction between the object and itself, the non-existence of the object for it) because it knows the object as its self-alienation; that is knows itself — knows knowing as object — because the object is only he semblance of an object, a piece of mystification, which in its essence, however, is nothing else but knowing itself, which has confronted itself with itself and hence has confronted itself with a nullity — a something which has no objectivity outside the knowing. Or: knowing knows that in relating itself to an object it is only outside itself — that it only externalises itself; that it itself only appears to itself as an object — or that that which appears to it as an object is only itself.
On the other hand, says Hegel, there is here at the same time this other moment, that consciousness has just as much annulled and reabsorbed this externalisation and objectivity, being thus at home in its other-being as such.
In this discussion all the illusions of speculation are brought together.
First of all: consciousness, self-consciousness, is at home in its other-being as such. It is therefore — or if we here abstract from the Hegelian abstraction and (put the self-consciousness of man instead of self-consciousness) it is at home in its other being as such. This implies, for one thing, that consciousness (knowing as knowing, thinking as thinking) pretends to be directly the other of itself — to be the world of sense, the real world, life — thought surpassing itself in thought (Feuerbach)[51]. This aspect is contained herein, inasmuch as consciousness as mere consciousness takes offence not at estranged objectivity, but at objectivity as such.
Secondly, this implies that self-conscious man, insofar as he has recognised and superseded the spiritual world (or his world’s spiritual, general mode of being) as self-alienation, nevertheless again confirms it in this alienated shape and passes it off as his true mode of being — re-establishes it, and pretends to be at home in his other-being as such. Thus, for instance, after superseding religion, after recognising religion to be a product of self-alienation he yet finds confirmation of himself in religion as religion. Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism, or of his merely apparent criticism: this is what Feuerbach designated as the positing, negating and re-establishing of religion or theology — but it has to be expressed in more general terms. Thus reason is at home in unreason The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself — in contradiction with both the knowledge and the essential being of the object — is thus true knowledge and life.
There can therefore no longer be any question about an act of accommodation on Hegel’s part vis-à-vis religion, the state, etc., since this lie is the lie of his principle.
If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself, to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in annihilated and superseded religion.
In Hegel, therefore, the negation of the negation is not the confirmation of the true essence, effected precisely through negation of the pseudo-essence. With him the negation the negation is the confirmation of the pseudo-essence, or of the self-estranged essence in its denial; or it is the denial; or it is the denial of this pseudo-essence as an objective being dwelling outside man and independent of him, and its transformation into the subject. (...)"
Excerpt from: "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" K. Marx
" (...) The way in which consciousness is, and in which something is for it, is knowing. Knowing is its sole act. Something therefore comes to be for consciousness insofar as the latter knows this something. Knowing is its sole objective relation.
It [consciousness] then knows the nullity of the object (i.e., knows the non-existence of the distinction between the object and itself, the non-existence of the object for it) because it knows the object as its self-alienation; that is knows itself — knows knowing as object — because the object is only he semblance of an object, a piece of mystification, which in its essence, however, is nothing else but knowing itself, which has confronted itself with itself and hence has confronted itself with a nullity — a something which has no objectivity outside the knowing. Or: knowing knows that in relating itself to an object it is only outside itself — that it only externalises itself; that it itself only appears to itself as an object — or that that which appears to it as an object is only itself.
On the other hand, says Hegel, there is here at the same time this other moment, that consciousness has just as much annulled and reabsorbed this externalisation and objectivity, being thus at home in its other-being as such.
In this discussion all the illusions of speculation are brought together.
First of all: consciousness, self-consciousness, is at home in its other-being as such. It is therefore — or if we here abstract from the Hegelian abstraction and (put the self-consciousness of man instead of self-consciousness) it is at home in its other being as such. This implies, for one thing, that consciousness (knowing as knowing, thinking as thinking) pretends to be directly the other of itself — to be the world of sense, the real world, life — thought surpassing itself in thought (Feuerbach)[51]. This aspect is contained herein, inasmuch as consciousness as mere consciousness takes offence not at estranged objectivity, but at objectivity as such.
Secondly, this implies that self-conscious man, insofar as he has recognised and superseded the spiritual world (or his world’s spiritual, general mode of being) as self-alienation, nevertheless again confirms it in this alienated shape and passes it off as his true mode of being — re-establishes it, and pretends to be at home in his other-being as such. Thus, for instance, after superseding religion, after recognising religion to be a product of self-alienation he yet finds confirmation of himself in religion as religion. Here is the root of Hegel’s false positivism, or of his merely apparent criticism: this is what Feuerbach designated as the positing, negating and re-establishing of religion or theology — but it has to be expressed in more general terms. Thus reason is at home in unreason The man who has recognised that he is leading an alienated life in law, politics, etc., is leading his true human life in this alienated life as such. Self-affirmation, self-confirmation in contradiction with itself — in contradiction with both the knowledge and the essential being of the object — is thus true knowledge and life.
There can therefore no longer be any question about an act of accommodation on Hegel’s part vis-à-vis religion, the state, etc., since this lie is the lie of his principle.
If I know religion as alienated human self-consciousness, then what I know in it as religion is not my self-consciousness, but my alienated self-consciousness confirmed in it. I therefore know my self-consciousness that belongs to itself, to its very nature, confirmed not in religion but rather in annihilated and superseded religion.
In Hegel, therefore, the negation of the negation is not the confirmation of the true essence, effected precisely through negation of the pseudo-essence. With him the negation the negation is the confirmation of the pseudo-essence, or of the self-estranged essence in its denial; or it is the denial; or it is the denial of this pseudo-essence as an objective being dwelling outside man and independent of him, and its transformation into the subject. (...)"
Excerpt from: "Critique of Hegel's Philosophy in General" K. Marx
Re: A quick reply to 1Way ...
Re: A quick reply to 1Way ...
Gee, that was just about the longest post I've had to read through here for some time. Who was it who said that if you can't say what you want to in one page worth of writing, you must not have a very clear grasp on it yourself?
But clearly, "pagans" are not "atheists" (i.e., the pagans mentioned here clearly DID believe in SOME God, just not the one Paul had in mind), so what is the relevance of this example?
But of course, a true atheist would not accept this statement solely on the supposed authority of the Bible; it would help if you gave some clear reasoning to back it up.
Specifically, the atheist claims to not have belief or faith in a particular proposition, namely the existence of God. (Or, if you wish to be more specific, the existence of God per the Christian description, in this case.) To claim that it is impossible to hold such a position is logically equivalent to claim that it is impossible not to believe in any possible entity, no matter how unlikely the existence of that entity is. For example, I do not believe in Santa Claus. I cannot, however, provide conclusive proof that such an entity does not exist SOMEplace (for one thing, I obviously cannot check all possible places where this entity MIGHT exist). Strictly speaking, then, it might be argued that I am "taking on faith" the non-existence of Santa, but that is no more an indictment of that belief than would be the identical argument showing that there can be "no such thing" as belief IN Santa - or God, for that matter.
Then you and the Bible are equally wrong in this area.
I think you would agree that there are significant contradictions between the Christian set of beliefs and, say, those of Hinduism. They are significant to the point of making the two mutually exclusive, i.e., it is not logically possible to accept the literal truth of both religions. In simpler form, it is impossible that one person accept as true the proposition that both the Christian God AND the Hindu deity Vishnu exist as described. Agreed so far?
Now, the arguments that you have used to show the "impossibility" of atheism do not depend on the specific attributes of the Christian God; in other words, "Vishnu" could be substituted for "God" at all appropriate points in these arguments, and the fundamental form or logical "truth value" of these arguments would not change. To do so would show that it is impossible to DISbelieve in Vishnu; i.e., you also cannot be a "Vishnu-atheist". But this leads to the above contradiction; a person who truly believes in the existence of the Christian God MUST disbelieve in the existence of Vishnu, and vice-versa. Yet this form of argument may be used to exclude the possibility of disbelief in either! Since the argument leads to an inescapable contradiction, the argument itself must be flawed. Q.E.D..
The only way to salvage the argument from this fate is to fall back to a much weaker form of the argument, which is that the atheist is clearly accepting SOMETHING "on faith" - which is admittedly in the strictest sense correct. The atheist "has faith" that he or she is correct. However, this faith is no more unreasonable, in this context, than faith in, say, Newton's Laws of Motion, and most certainly does not equate to having faith in God. Even if we try to push the argument back a little bit toward the original direction you intended, by saying that the atheist actually "must" believe in "SOME God," this is of little help - the "God" that the claimed "atheist" might believe in is in no way required to be anything like the Christian description, and might wind up being no more than a convenient name hung on the collective natural laws of the universe - which doesn't strike me as a sufficient distinction from the standard meaning of "atheist" to make it worth the trouble.
Of course, there's a very simple and practical way to show the distinction between two cases; in the second, you can show the fool standing next to the real Rosie O'Donnell, and thus demonstrate the foolishness of their statement. It's a bit more challenging to pull off the analogous demonstration in the first case.
Perhaps, but it certainly seems that the distinction you're trying to draw between "true" and "so-called" atheists really wasn't worth the effort at all.
Of course, the atheists will say that the believers are similarly only "self-professing" and "self-deluded". Such assertions mean very little, either way.
Re: A quick reply to 1Way ...
Gee, that was just about the longest post I've had to read through here for some time. Who was it who said that if you can't say what you want to in one page worth of writing, you must not have a very clear grasp on it yourself?
But clearly, "pagans" are not "atheists" (i.e., the pagans mentioned here clearly DID believe in SOME God, just not the one Paul had in mind), so what is the relevance of this example?
But of course, a true atheist would not accept this statement solely on the supposed authority of the Bible; it would help if you gave some clear reasoning to back it up.
Specifically, the atheist claims to not have belief or faith in a particular proposition, namely the existence of God. (Or, if you wish to be more specific, the existence of God per the Christian description, in this case.) To claim that it is impossible to hold such a position is logically equivalent to claim that it is impossible not to believe in any possible entity, no matter how unlikely the existence of that entity is. For example, I do not believe in Santa Claus. I cannot, however, provide conclusive proof that such an entity does not exist SOMEplace (for one thing, I obviously cannot check all possible places where this entity MIGHT exist). Strictly speaking, then, it might be argued that I am "taking on faith" the non-existence of Santa, but that is no more an indictment of that belief than would be the identical argument showing that there can be "no such thing" as belief IN Santa - or God, for that matter.
Then you and the Bible are equally wrong in this area.
I think you would agree that there are significant contradictions between the Christian set of beliefs and, say, those of Hinduism. They are significant to the point of making the two mutually exclusive, i.e., it is not logically possible to accept the literal truth of both religions. In simpler form, it is impossible that one person accept as true the proposition that both the Christian God AND the Hindu deity Vishnu exist as described. Agreed so far?
Now, the arguments that you have used to show the "impossibility" of atheism do not depend on the specific attributes of the Christian God; in other words, "Vishnu" could be substituted for "God" at all appropriate points in these arguments, and the fundamental form or logical "truth value" of these arguments would not change. To do so would show that it is impossible to DISbelieve in Vishnu; i.e., you also cannot be a "Vishnu-atheist". But this leads to the above contradiction; a person who truly believes in the existence of the Christian God MUST disbelieve in the existence of Vishnu, and vice-versa. Yet this form of argument may be used to exclude the possibility of disbelief in either! Since the argument leads to an inescapable contradiction, the argument itself must be flawed. Q.E.D..
The only way to salvage the argument from this fate is to fall back to a much weaker form of the argument, which is that the atheist is clearly accepting SOMETHING "on faith" - which is admittedly in the strictest sense correct. The atheist "has faith" that he or she is correct. However, this faith is no more unreasonable, in this context, than faith in, say, Newton's Laws of Motion, and most certainly does not equate to having faith in God. Even if we try to push the argument back a little bit toward the original direction you intended, by saying that the atheist actually "must" believe in "SOME God," this is of little help - the "God" that the claimed "atheist" might believe in is in no way required to be anything like the Christian description, and might wind up being no more than a convenient name hung on the collective natural laws of the universe - which doesn't strike me as a sufficient distinction from the standard meaning of "atheist" to make it worth the trouble.
Of course, there's a very simple and practical way to show the distinction between two cases; in the second, you can show the fool standing next to the real Rosie O'Donnell, and thus demonstrate the foolishness of their statement. It's a bit more challenging to pull off the analogous demonstration in the first case.
Perhaps, but it certainly seems that the distinction you're trying to draw between "true" and "so-called" atheists really wasn't worth the effort at all.
Of course, the atheists will say that the believers are similarly only "self-professing" and "self-deluded". Such assertions mean very little, either way.
attention
New member
Belief / Faith discussion
Belief / Faith discussion
True Atheist
Atheism as it is defined, defines just the opposite of the viewpoint that a theists has (which is the belief in a Deity). A theist therefore lacks the belief in a Deity and in the supernatural in general.
Now, Hilstons argument is, that in reality such a position can not exist, because there is some form of belief or faith in everyone, so the point of view of total unbelief or total lack of faith, would not exist. Hence, a true atheist would not exist.
As is argumented already, the existence of belief or faith to some extend, is no argument for the statement that this equals a belief or faith in Deity or the supernatural.
Since we as humans don't have absolute knowledge, and we do meet situations in which we can not have knowledge about some vital things, it is quite obvious, and also reasoned from evolution, that we don't get "stuck" by lack of knowledge, but instead make a "belief" or "faith" based decission (which in itself is just that we compare the situation with previous experience and knowledge, and make the most reasonable assumption that we can account for).
If we were to be dropped unknowingly of where we were in the middel of a desert, we would make up our minds to head for *some* direction. We are survivalist, we have a history of 3.2 billions of years of evolution behind us, so we know what surviving is all about!
Since we already asserted to have been cut from any real knowledge as to where to go to (for the nearest well or water reservoir, or civilisation), it must be then that what we choose as our direction, for taking us back to the civilised world, or at least the nearest water source, is a statement or decission based on "belief" or "faith".
Does that mean we all belief in God? No, it just means that our brain is functioning in such a way that it will come up with some sort of decission (a form of logic which is unlike computer systems that allow only logical OR or logical AND gates, has the properties of an ALMOST gate).
Now, we can reason that because we never have all the knowledge to know reality in total, whatever we assert about it, is always based on taking a decission based on belief.
This however is not true, and not because we have arrived at absolute knowledge, but because we have the experience from thousands of years of scientific and philosophic investigations in reality, which has made a long historical account of knowledge available to us.
So, for the most ordinary cases, this investigation has accumulated to the knowledge and experience, that empirical knowledge has gotten us where we are. The empirical knowledge, based on the materialist assumption, has worked for us. So, we are not exactly reasoning in the dark, and this neither urges us to question the basic assumptions we use for explaining reality.
Which means, it does not bring in any need for faith or belief, to go for an empirical way of knowing. The religious belief system however, contradicts in a fundamental way the scientific method and knowledge. That is therefore the reason that the belief and faith becomes an orthodox and fundamentalist vision on reality, because the belief part isn't reasonable anymore (since we have the knowledge that contradicts the belief system).
So, there are not the atheist that have to account for their world outlook, thousands of years of scientific, social and philosophical progress accounts for this vision on reality, which therefore has become the vision of humanity on reality itself.
Those who are to account for their stubborn-ness in not wanting to give up the fundamentalist and orthodox outlook on reality, which denies the facts, are the theists.
Belief / Faith discussion
True Atheist
Atheism as it is defined, defines just the opposite of the viewpoint that a theists has (which is the belief in a Deity). A theist therefore lacks the belief in a Deity and in the supernatural in general.
Now, Hilstons argument is, that in reality such a position can not exist, because there is some form of belief or faith in everyone, so the point of view of total unbelief or total lack of faith, would not exist. Hence, a true atheist would not exist.
As is argumented already, the existence of belief or faith to some extend, is no argument for the statement that this equals a belief or faith in Deity or the supernatural.
Since we as humans don't have absolute knowledge, and we do meet situations in which we can not have knowledge about some vital things, it is quite obvious, and also reasoned from evolution, that we don't get "stuck" by lack of knowledge, but instead make a "belief" or "faith" based decission (which in itself is just that we compare the situation with previous experience and knowledge, and make the most reasonable assumption that we can account for).
If we were to be dropped unknowingly of where we were in the middel of a desert, we would make up our minds to head for *some* direction. We are survivalist, we have a history of 3.2 billions of years of evolution behind us, so we know what surviving is all about!
Since we already asserted to have been cut from any real knowledge as to where to go to (for the nearest well or water reservoir, or civilisation), it must be then that what we choose as our direction, for taking us back to the civilised world, or at least the nearest water source, is a statement or decission based on "belief" or "faith".
Does that mean we all belief in God? No, it just means that our brain is functioning in such a way that it will come up with some sort of decission (a form of logic which is unlike computer systems that allow only logical OR or logical AND gates, has the properties of an ALMOST gate).
Now, we can reason that because we never have all the knowledge to know reality in total, whatever we assert about it, is always based on taking a decission based on belief.
This however is not true, and not because we have arrived at absolute knowledge, but because we have the experience from thousands of years of scientific and philosophic investigations in reality, which has made a long historical account of knowledge available to us.
So, for the most ordinary cases, this investigation has accumulated to the knowledge and experience, that empirical knowledge has gotten us where we are. The empirical knowledge, based on the materialist assumption, has worked for us. So, we are not exactly reasoning in the dark, and this neither urges us to question the basic assumptions we use for explaining reality.
Which means, it does not bring in any need for faith or belief, to go for an empirical way of knowing. The religious belief system however, contradicts in a fundamental way the scientific method and knowledge. That is therefore the reason that the belief and faith becomes an orthodox and fundamentalist vision on reality, because the belief part isn't reasonable anymore (since we have the knowledge that contradicts the belief system).
So, there are not the atheist that have to account for their world outlook, thousands of years of scientific, social and philosophical progress accounts for this vision on reality, which therefore has become the vision of humanity on reality itself.
Those who are to account for their stubborn-ness in not wanting to give up the fundamentalist and orthodox outlook on reality, which denies the facts, are the theists.
Last edited:
the existence of a single nonbeliever invalidates Hilston's belief system
the existence of a single nonbeliever invalidates Hilston's belief system
Basically the title says it. The existence of a single "true atheist" totally collapses Jim's worldview.
Unfortunately for Jim, there are true atheists, and there are true Christians who have become true athiests.
the existence of a single nonbeliever invalidates Hilston's belief system
Basically the title says it. The existence of a single "true atheist" totally collapses Jim's worldview.
Unfortunately for Jim, there are true atheists, and there are true Christians who have become true athiests.
Bmyers,
Beautifully stated.
I hope 1way and Hilston can read and comprehend your piece.
Attention,
You have also nailed it.. if somewhat harder to follow.. I just don't think the Theists ever get your simple message. But in the end I enjoy you restating it to them.
Beautifully stated.
I hope 1way and Hilston can read and comprehend your piece.
Attention,
You have also nailed it.. if somewhat harder to follow.. I just don't think the Theists ever get your simple message. But in the end I enjoy you restating it to them.
Last edited:
Jim
Have you never had any glimmers of doubt . I have had at least enough doubt to understand how someone "who's heart is darkened" and has become a fool (by professing to be wise)could come to belive just about anything. Being without excuse is not ,I think, the same as believing. To bad we can't ask Paul to define his terms as Socrates required of his students. :0)
I do ,however, find it mildly amusing that so many wish you to apologize for your "attack" on Bob. Clearly if Paul meant what you think he meant your response to Bob is not only appropriate but required.
Have you never had any glimmers of doubt . I have had at least enough doubt to understand how someone "who's heart is darkened" and has become a fool (by professing to be wise)could come to belive just about anything. Being without excuse is not ,I think, the same as believing. To bad we can't ask Paul to define his terms as Socrates required of his students. :0)
I do ,however, find it mildly amusing that so many wish you to apologize for your "attack" on Bob. Clearly if Paul meant what you think he meant your response to Bob is not only appropriate but required.
- Status