Fed up of non believers

[Guest]

The prefix 'a' is a negation of something. It can mean not or without. It's used to describe what you are not or without./QUOTE]

I've just shortened your post Ryedo- you're only changing the meaning to suit your cause.

 

You are trying to redefine atheism- because that was done by Anthony Flew- which just confused things. Historically, the term has been used to describe the belief that no god(s) exists.

 

If a theist is one who believes in the existence of a deity, and the “a” prefix serves to negate the meaning of “theist,” then an atheist must be one who does not believe in the existence of a deity.

 

Anyway, I am not labouring on this- and I am not changing my dictionary either..

[Waldo]

OK, where the dragon is concerned I've given it distinct attributes - I could even give it more and make those attributes very similar to what is often claimed about god. This can be done with anything that someone pulls out their ass and claims exist; that goes whether it's god, dragons, fairies, you name it.

 

You can only work from what is claimed about the said being. The analogy isn't at all misleading.

 

The analogy is a false-equivalency.

 

I am not claiming god exists. The notion of existing or not-existing is far too limited in scope to be applicable to the god concept. Try conceiving of god as something (cannot be a 'something' though) which is not subject to any attribute that has an opposite (such as being / not-being, or exists / not-existing).

 

In contrast, the notion of a dragon existing, is very graspable.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 18:38 ----------

 

Rather than saying it is a 'absence of belief'- in fact it should be 'belief of absence'. That is what it is- you can only have 3 possibilities, affirm it, deny it or reserve judgement (now that would be an agnostic).

 

I would say at least 4 possibilities.

 

In addition to the ones you mention, there is 'not to give any thoughts on the matte', which is distinct to 'giving the matter some thought, then reserving judgement'.

 

Do you think that's a valid 4th position?

[ivanava]

The analogy is a false-equivalency.

 

I am not claiming god exists. The notion of existing or not-existing is far too limited in scope to be applicable to the god concept. Try conceiving of god as something (cannot be a 'something' though) which is not subject to any attribute that has an opposite (such as being / not-being, or exists / not-existing).

 

In contrast, the notion of a dragon existing, is very graspable.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 18:38 ----------

 

 

I would say at least 4 possibilities.

 

In addition to the ones you mention, there is 'not to give any thoughts on the matte', which is distinct to 'giving the matter some thought, then reserving judgement'.

 

Do you think that's a valid 4th position?

 

Exist means have objective reality or being, the universe is everything that exists, so God is either part of the universe and not its creator, or it doesn't exist.

[Waldo]

Exist means have objective reality or being, the universe is everything that exists, so God is either part of the universe and not its creator, or it doesn't exist.

 

Are those the only possibilities you can conceive of? (that's kinda my point, your mental conceptual modelling of 'reality' is somewhat limited, as is mine)

[ivanava]

Are those the only possibilities you can conceive of? (that's kinda my point)

 

No my imagination can conjure up a powerful entity that occupies a realm outside our realty, and because it is outside our realty and not part of our universe so doesn't exist.

 

I can conjure up a benevolent being that loves its creation to the point that it won't interfere even when it sees them suffering.

 

I can conjure up a very powerful alien life form that could be perceived as a God, just like we might be perceived as Gods to our ant friends.

 

I can conjure up any number of logical contradiction.

 

The only thing my imagination can't conjure up is the concept of nothing, no matter how hard I try I can imagine the nothingness that some people beleive was before the universe.

[danot]

I am more than happy to make the statement that God does not exist, because I know that it isn't possible

How can you possibly know that!!

 

Unless you're claiming to know that nothing exists beyond the 'known' universe, which coincidentally, some extremely intelligent people are having great difficulty in establishing.

[salsafan]

You tell me what it is that you want me to disprove and I disprove it.

 

God is different depending on who you ask, to many people it is something that they believe exists which explains everything they don't understand.

 

I can't describe God for you because in my world it doesn't exist.

 

I guess I am curious as to understand how you derived at the non-existence. If you know that it does not exist, then you must know what is "it" to begin with.

[ivanava]

How can you possibly know that!!

 

Unless you're claiming to know that nothing exists beyond the 'known' universe, which coincidentally, some extremely intelligent people are having great difficulty in establishing.

 

I have no doubts at all that there are intelligent being with substantially more knowledge and power than we humans, but they are not Gods. The universe is everything than exists, therefor there is nothing other than the universe that exists.

 

---------- Post added 03-03-2014 at 19:22 ----------

 

I guess I am curious as to understand how you derived at the non-existence. If you know that it does not exist, then you must know what is "it" to begin with.

 

Its part of some humans imagination.

[Ryedo40]

The analogy is a false-equivalency.

 

I am not claiming god exists. The notion of existing or not-existing is far too limited in scope to be applicable to the god concept. Try conceiving of god as something (cannot be a 'something' though) which is not subject to any attribute that has an opposite (such as being / not-being, or exists / not-existing).

 

Waldo, I think you misunderstood the point of the analogy. I deliberately used a graspable concept to get the point across on how you can be agnostic and atheist. It still applies even if you change it to god - or whatever god is claimed to be.

[danot]

I have no doubts at all that there are intelligent being with substantially more knowledge and power than we humans, but they are not Gods. The universe is everything than exists, therefor there is nothing other than the universe that exists.

 

If these beings are part of creation, they wouldn't be considered to be God's at all, they'd simply be another integral part of creation. What I said is- 'How could you possibly know that nothing exists beyond the known universe?'. Who says that the laws of physics, contemporary science and human logic even apply to whatever caused the universe to pop into existence without cause?