Total Posts:74|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

We Can Not Believe in the Impossible

s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In order for something to be made believable, it must be internalized. That is to say, it is not enough for a phenomenon to have occurred; its occurrence must have already taken place within the individual's imagination. Objectification is a product of the mind; if something occurs outside of the individual which in his mind is impossible, he will doubt his own senses. On July 20, 1969, the first manned spacecraft landed on the moon. Millions of people witnessed the event via their television sets; however, in the face of empirical evidence, conspiracy theorists then and now refused and continue to refuse to believe it.

Secondly, if a person believes something is highly likely, even though he is unable to prove it and in the face of contradictory evidence, it is an act of futility to try to convince him otherwise. Objectivity does not exist outside of the mind, and it will not be negated due to external evidence.

If a person changes his mind about something, he is not going from possibility to impossibility or vice versa but from one probability to another. To most atheists, the existence of God is not impossible but rather highly unlikely. Conversely, to most theists, the nonexistence of God is not impossible but likewise highly improbable.

The theist objectifies his belief in God; he externalizes that which exists in his imagination. The atheist subjectifies his belief in God; he internalizes that which is foreign to his own experience. To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination. Those things which we see outside of ourselves are merely projections of possibilities which exist inside of our minds, and those things which we see within our imaginations are merely reflections of those things we fail to see outside of ourselves.
uncung
Posts: 4,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 12:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, I don't either believe in the impossible stuff. I do only believe in the fact, logic and scientific things.
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 12:34:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In order for something to be made believable, it must be internalized. That is to say, it is not enough for a phenomenon to have occurred; its occurrence must have already taken place within the individual's imagination. Objectification is a product of the mind; if something occurs outside of the individual which in his mind is impossible, he will doubt his own senses. On July 20, 1969, the first manned spacecraft landed on the moon. Millions of people witnessed the event via their television sets; however, in the face of empirical evidence, conspiracy theorists then and now refused and continue to refuse to believe it.

Secondly, if a person believes something is highly likely, even though he is unable to prove it and in the face of contradictory evidence, it is an act of futility to try to convince him otherwise. Objectivity does not exist outside of the mind, and it will not be negated due to external evidence.

If a person changes his mind about something, he is not going from possibility to impossibility or vice versa but from one probability to another. To most atheists, the existence of God is not impossible but rather highly unlikely. Conversely, to most theists, the nonexistence of God is not impossible but likewise highly improbable.

The theist objectifies his belief in God; he externalizes that which exists in his imagination. The atheist subjectifies his belief in God; he internalizes that which is foreign to his own experience. To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination. Those things which we see outside of ourselves are merely projections of possibilities which exist inside of our minds, and those things which we see within our imaginations are merely reflections of those things we fail to see outside of ourselves.

I follow you there and think that you are looking from the point of view of theists as a group and atheists as a group.

I did not become an atheist then choose to decide which information to accept or reject according to my expectations.

I happen to be an atheist, however, I got to that point by objectively evaluating evidence. I had no vested interest or anything at stake that depended upon my findings.

There is a big difference between those two scenarios and I think that both theists and atheists should recognise that.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 3:02:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In order for something to be made believable, it must be internalized. That is to say, it is not enough for a phenomenon to have occurred; its occurrence must have already taken place within the individual's imagination. Objectification is a product of the mind; if something occurs outside of the individual which in his mind is impossible, he will doubt his own senses. On July 20, 1969, the first manned spacecraft landed on the moon. Millions of people witnessed the event via their television sets; however, in the face of empirical evidence, conspiracy theorists then and now refused and continue to refuse to believe it.

Secondly, if a person believes something is highly likely, even though he is unable to prove it and in the face of contradictory evidence, it is an act of futility to try to convince him otherwise. Objectivity does not exist outside of the mind, and it will not be negated due to external evidence.

If a person changes his mind about something, he is not going from possibility to impossibility or vice versa but from one probability to another. To most atheists, the existence of God is not impossible but rather highly unlikely. Conversely, to most theists, the nonexistence of God is not impossible but likewise highly improbable.

The theist objectifies his belief in God; he externalizes that which exists in his imagination. The atheist subjectifies his belief in God; he internalizes that which is foreign to his own experience. To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination. Those things which we see outside of ourselves are merely projections of possibilities which exist inside of our minds, and those things which we see within our imaginations are merely reflections of those things we fail to see outside of ourselves.

This is one of the most succinct and insightful posts I've ever read on this sight. It's an excellent post, and thank you for it.

This explains very well why theists and atheists constantly "talk past" each other, using the same language, but completely uncomprehending of the other's intellectual perspective.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 3:46:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:02:10 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
In order for something to be made believable, it must be internalized. That is to say, it is not enough for a phenomenon to have occurred; its occurrence must have already taken place within the individual's imagination. Objectification is a product of the mind; if something occurs outside of the individual which in his mind is impossible, he will doubt his own senses. On July 20, 1969, the first manned spacecraft landed on the moon. Millions of people witnessed the event via their television sets; however, in the face of empirical evidence, conspiracy theorists then and now refused and continue to refuse to believe it.

Secondly, if a person believes something is highly likely, even though he is unable to prove it and in the face of contradictory evidence, it is an act of futility to try to convince him otherwise. Objectivity does not exist outside of the mind, and it will not be negated due to external evidence.

If a person changes his mind about something, he is not going from possibility to impossibility or vice versa but from one probability to another. To most atheists, the existence of God is not impossible but rather highly unlikely. Conversely, to most theists, the nonexistence of God is not impossible but likewise highly improbable.

The theist objectifies his belief in God; he externalizes that which exists in his imagination. The atheist subjectifies his belief in God; he internalizes that which is foreign to his own experience. To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination. Those things which we see outside of ourselves are merely projections of possibilities which exist inside of our minds, and those things which we see within our imaginations are merely reflections of those things we fail to see outside of ourselves.

This is one of the most succinct and insightful posts I've ever read on this sight. It's an excellent post, and thank you for it.

This explains very well why theists and atheists constantly "talk past" each other, using the same language, but completely uncomprehending of the other's intellectual perspective.

I am a little less impressed than PureX because of one critical phrase: "The atheist subjectifies his belief in God;" That seems to assert that atheists have a belief in god in the first place to 'subjectify'. There seems to be a tacit assumption that god exists in s-anthony's post when he writes "he [i.e. the atheist] negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination." It is not clear to me what 'negating gods presence' means, but it has overtones of 'denying gods existence'.

Yes, theists do think the god they imagine is 'objectfied' in the universe and athiests do think that the god they imagine is not 'objectified' in the universe. Whether that is a deep insight or restating the obvious (ie that theists believe god exists and atheist believe god doesn't exist) in slightly obscurantist jargon is possibly a matter of one's personal taste in prose style than of fact.
Goldtop
Posts: 6,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 3:48:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination.

Good post again, s-a, however this part needs a bit of tweaking.

If it were not for theists projecting their gods out into the world, there would be no need for atheism of any kind, as the atheist responds to the theists projections. The atheist simply asks for validation and verification of those projections and when none is forthcoming, the atheist dismisses them and thinks nothing more of it.

That is, until the next theist comes along with their projections and then the process repeats itself.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 4:14:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:46:46 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:02:10 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:

I am a little less impressed than PureX because of one critical phrase: "The atheist subjectifies his belief in God;" That seems to assert that atheists have a belief in god in the first place to 'subjectify'.

You lifted that phrase out of it's idea-context. The point of the statement is that the atheist subjectively internalizes his objective god-concept (that gods don't objectively exist). Thus, it has become his subjectively based belief, even though he believes it to be an objective fact.

Which is exactly why you failed to understand this point: you have done so, yourself.

There seems to be a tacit assumption that god exists in s-anthony's post when he writes "he [i.e. the atheist] negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination." It is not clear to me what 'negating gods presence' means, but it has overtones of 'denying gods existence'.

"Negating God's presence" means exactly that: negating the presence of any possible evidence of God's existence because one has already determined that gods do not exist. Atheists do this all the time. It's an 'automatic response' for them.

Yes, theists do think the god they imagine is 'objectfied' in the universe and athiests do think that the god they imagine is not 'objectified' in the universe. Whether that is a deep insight or restating the obvious (ie that theists believe god exists and atheist believe god doesn't exist) in slightly obscurantist jargon is possibly a matter of one's personal taste in prose style than of fact.

Theists "objectify" their subjective experience of "God". Atheists internalize (subjectify) their objective non-experience of any gods. Both then tend to "auto-defend" their internalized and objectified beliefs as if they were both subjectively and objectively true. Because, within themselves, they are.

Yet both have been "fooling themselves", somewhat. And they both "talk past" each other in their over-zealous auto-definsiveness, as a result.
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 7:14:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

Theists project their subjective cognitive experiences into objective reality, while atheists internalize their idealized objective reality to the point of denying the validity of subjective experience. Not realizing, of course, that by internalizing "objectivity" they have created their own subjective cognitive paradigm.

Monkeys with too much imagination" and ego. Welcome to crazyville.
Anonymous
4/2/2017 8:10:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's really the why of the blindness of reason.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I follow you there and think that you are looking from the point of view of theists as a group and atheists as a group.

I believe theism and atheism exist in all of us. The only difference I see in a theist and an atheist is a theist believes the existence of God is more probable than the nonexistence of God.

I did not become an atheist then choose to decide which information to accept or reject according to my expectations.

I believe our capacity for preconceptions allows us to make predictions based on probabilities. If we're not able to preconceive something, we're not able to expect it. The direction we take is for the most part determined by our expectations.

I happen to be an atheist, however, I got to that point by objectively evaluating evidence. I had no vested interest or anything at stake that depended upon my findings.

We are guided by expectations, and expectations are based on experience. It is experience which determines the things for which we're looking. For the most part, we find that for which we're looking; that is to say, most of the things we believe are confirmed by our own bias.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 8:42:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 7:14:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

Theists project their subjective cognitive experiences into objective reality, while atheists internalize their idealized objective reality to the point of denying the validity of subjective experience. Not realizing, of course, that by internalizing "objectivity" they have created their own subjective cognitive paradigm.

Monkeys with too much imagination" and ego. Welcome to crazyville.

I really don't like the over-complicated language here. It seems to me that the idea is that theists believe god exists so they assume god is part of reality while atheists do not think god is part of reality so they don't believe in him.

You may want to add a few 'objectives', 'subjectives' and 'cognitives', and substitute 'belief' with 'subjective cognitive experience' and of course realiry is 'objective reality' but I think that is the gist.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 9:01:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 8:42:36 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 7:14:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

Theists project their subjective cognitive experiences into objective reality, while atheists internalize their idealized objective reality to the point of denying the validity of subjective experience. Not realizing, of course, that by internalizing "objectivity" they have created their own subjective cognitive paradigm.

Monkeys with too much imagination" and ego. Welcome to crazyville.

I really don't like the over-complicated language here. It seems to me that the idea is that theists believe god exists so they assume god is part of reality while atheists do not think god is part of reality so they don't believe in him.

Who's 'reality' are we talking about here, though? To the atheist, true reality is objective. It is what exists APART from our needs, desires, perceptions and conceptions of it. While for the theist, true reality is derived FROM our needs and desires, and our perceptions and conceptions of it.

Both are true, of course, as our needs and desires and our perceptions and conceptions are just as much a part of reality as whatever exists or occurs apart from them.
Skepticalone
Posts: 8,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 10:04:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 9:01:23 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 8:42:36 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 7:14:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

Theists project their subjective cognitive experiences into objective reality, while atheists internalize their idealized objective reality to the point of denying the validity of subjective experience. Not realizing, of course, that by internalizing "objectivity" they have created their own subjective cognitive paradigm.

Monkeys with too much imagination" and ego. Welcome to crazyville.

I really don't like the over-complicated language here. It seems to me that the idea is that theists believe god exists so they assume god is part of reality while atheists do not think god is part of reality so they don't believe in him.

Who's 'reality' are we talking about here, though? To the atheist, true reality is objective. It is what exists APART from our needs, desires, perceptions and conceptions of it. While for the theist, true reality is derived FROM our needs and desires, and our perceptions and conceptions of it.

Both are true, of course, as our needs and desires and our perceptions and conceptions are just as much a part of reality as whatever exists or occurs apart from them.

No amount of (say) me needing to breathe underwater or wanting to fly will change reality. The same goes for perceptions and conceptions of mine or those of anyone else. Reality is what it is and it is hubris to suggest humans can affect the fundamental nature of reality with their minds alone.
Don't join dangerous cults: Practice safe sects.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2017 10:23:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 9:01:23 PM, PureX wrote:
...While for the theist, true reality is derived FROM our needs and desires, and our perceptions and conceptions of it...

I'm not a theist, but I wonder how many theists would agree that true reality is derived from their needs and desires. Untrue reality now, that's a different matter....
Willows
Posts: 11,692
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:42:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 8:19:03 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I follow you there and think that you are looking from the point of view of theists as a group and atheists as a group.

I believe theism and atheism exist in all of us. The only difference I see in a theist and an atheist is a theist believes the existence of God is more probable than the nonexistence of God.

I did not become an atheist then choose to decide which information to accept or reject according to my expectations.

I believe our capacity for preconceptions allows us to make predictions based on probabilities. If we're not able to preconceive something, we're not able to expect it. The direction we take is for the most part determined by our expectations.

I happen to be an atheist, however, I got to that point by objectively evaluating evidence. I had no vested interest or anything at stake that depended upon my findings.

We are guided by expectations, and expectations are based on experience. It is experience which determines the things for which we're looking. For the most part, we find that for which we're looking; that is to say, most of the things we believe are confirmed by our own bias.

I completely agree with you on that.
Skeptical1
Posts: 1,758
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:49:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 7:14:16 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

Theists project their subjective cognitive experiences into objective reality, while atheists internalize their idealized objective reality to the point of denying the validity of subjective experience. Not realizing, of course, that by internalizing "objectivity" they have created their own subjective cognitive paradigm.

Monkeys with too much imagination" and ego. Welcome to crazyville.

The sooner you realise we're all just monkeys in shoes, the closer you'll be to finding the truth you seek (to replace the lies you can't let go of).
Ethang5: Children cannot be morons.
Skeptical1: The only thing you have demonstrated is they don't have a monopoly on it.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 3:54:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This is one of the most succinct and insightful posts I've ever read on this sight. It's an excellent post, and thank you for it.

Thank you.

This explains very well why theists and atheists constantly "talk past" each other, using the same language, but completely uncomprehending of the other's intellectual perspective.

I believe they honestly believe they are talking to each other, thinking they fully understand each other but in reality they are speaking two entirely different languages. I believe, for the most part, disagreements are based, merely, on miscommunications.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 4:25:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I am a little less impressed than PureX because of one critical phrase: "The atheist subjectifies his belief in God;" That seems to assert that atheists have a belief in god in the first place to 'subjectify'. There seems to be a tacit assumption that god exists in s-anthony's post when he writes "he [i.e. the atheist] negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination." It is not clear to me what 'negating gods presence' means, but it has overtones of 'denying gods existence'.

In saying, "The atheist subjectifies his belief in God," I am not saying the atheist believes in God; that would be a contradiction in terms; but, rather, I meant to say the atheist believes God is, simply, a product of the subjective mind. I think it would have been better said the atheist subjectifies God; belief is always subjective.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 4:33:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 3:48:08 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination.

Good post again, s-a, however this part needs a bit of tweaking.

If it were not for theists projecting their gods out into the world, there would be no need for atheism of any kind, as the atheist responds to the theists projections. The atheist simply asks for validation and verification of those projections and when none is forthcoming, the atheist dismisses them and thinks nothing more of it.

That is, until the next theist comes along with their projections and then the process repeats itself.

Thank you.

I agree with you, but I would go a step further and say if it weren't for atheists there would be no need for theism.
bulproof
Posts: 36,669
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 5:56:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2017 4:33:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:48:08 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination.

Good post again, s-a, however this part needs a bit of tweaking.

If it were not for theists projecting their gods out into the world, there would be no need for atheism of any kind, as the atheist responds to the theists projections. The atheist simply asks for validation and verification of those projections and when none is forthcoming, the atheist dismisses them and thinks nothing more of it.

That is, until the next theist comes along with their projections and then the process repeats itself.

Thank you.

I agree with you, but I would go a step further and say if it weren't for atheists there would be no need for theism.
Atheism literally means no-theism, so how do you work that out?
Looncall
Posts: 707
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 9:44:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2017 4:33:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:48:08 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination.

Good post again, s-a, however this part needs a bit of tweaking.

If it were not for theists projecting their gods out into the world, there would be no need for atheism of any kind, as the atheist responds to the theists projections. The atheist simply asks for validation and verification of those projections and when none is forthcoming, the atheist dismisses them and thinks nothing more of it.

That is, until the next theist comes along with their projections and then the process repeats itself.

Thank you.

I agree with you, but I would go a step further and say if it weren't for atheists there would be no need for theism.

I don't agree. The con men in fancy dresses would still be fleecing the gullible, with or without atheists around.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 11:09:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2017 9:44:16 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 4/3/2017 4:33:43 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:48:08 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 4/2/2017 3:12:22 AM, s-anthony wrote:
To clarify this, as the theist externalizes that which is on the inside, he projects God out into the world; and, as the atheist internalizes that which falls outside of his own experience, he negates God's presence in the world and reflects it back to the imagination.

Good post again, s-a, however this part needs a bit of tweaking.

If it were not for theists projecting their gods out into the world, there would be no need for atheism of any kind, as the atheist responds to the theists projections. The atheist simply asks for validation and verification of those projections and when none is forthcoming, the atheist dismisses them and thinks nothing more of it.

That is, until the next theist comes along with their projections and then the process repeats itself.

Thank you.

I agree with you, but I would go a step further and say if it weren't for atheists there would be no need for theism.

I don't agree. The con men in fancy dresses would still be fleecing the gullible, with or without atheists around.

I'm fairlly sure that s-ant will have to abandon his rather rash remark! But I am still concerned that what is being said by s-ant and purex in such high-falutin' terms is straightforward. I think I can restate it as saying that theists interpret their intution about god as a revelation of a truth while theists interpret their intution about god as a figment of imagination.

A Huxleyite agnostic might say that neither the theist not the atheist is dealing with "fact" - they are both interpreting their intuition. According to Huxleyites, the facts of gods' existence/non-existence is not knowable so neither the theist or the atheist is justified.

My answer is that theism and atheism concern belief, not knowledge. I am an atheist because I believe god does not exist. The huxleyite may well say that I don't know that god does exist, and I willingly concede that is so. But for practical purposes it is my belief that matters, not what I know, because in the end nothing (except trivial tautogies) is truly knowable - but there are things one can be very confident about!
GrimlyF
Posts: 1,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:19:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 6:00:38 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 4:39:17 PM, GrimlyF wrote:
This site never ceases to amaze me with its sheer banality. Put the word "impossible" on a forum and we automatically have to discuss religion.
How to discuss a subject that has been done to death a 1000 times. What new information has anyone got that is irrefutable proof of Gods existence/non-existence? None. I believe/I deny and that,s that, game over bar the squawking.

Give it up, amis, give it up.

I think that the OP is more about the psychology of theists and atheists rather than the fact of gods existence or otherwise.... theists project their belief out into the world while theists internalise their lack of any perception of an objective god - or something like that. Another way to put it is that theists believe god exists because they fail to distinguish between what they believe and what is necessarily real while theists do realise that 'wishing don't make it so'. I think I get the point, but shorn of the over-done language I am not sure there is much mileage to the idea.

Meanwhile PureX is busy pushing his agnostic (in the Huxleite sense) agenda.

In all the hundreds of discussions I have taken part in there always comes a point where the one impassable, impregnable, unshakeable barrier rears up and bites the atheist. Blind Faith cannot be argued away, cannot be rationalised or reasoned with and is what makes the believer unassailable.
The atheist always has to prove their point but the theist doesn't because they KNOW they are right. They have no need to prove anything because to themselves it is blatantly obvious and you cannot move them. The game is over before it's begun.

I take part in these threads because it's fun and gives me a chance to use the God-botherers own weapons against them. I don't believe for a moment that I will convert anyone to my way of thinking but now and then I come across a Gentorev or Sidex, both old-school, old testament, fire+brimstone, damn you to hell Zealots. They quote reams from the Bible and I quote the same Bible right back at them and prove them wrong. It is fun and makes me smile but that, really is all it does.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:27:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree with you, but I would go a step further and say if it weren't for atheists there would be no need for theism.

Atheism literally means no-theism, so how do you work that out?

The reason I say that is because I do not believe atheism is a response to theism as though theism, at one time, existed without atheism. I do not believe theism created or initiated atheism; theism without atheism makes no sense; saying, "I believe in God," in the absence of any doubt, is meaningless. You cannot know something's existence if you have never known or imagined its nonexistence. Therefore, I do not believe atheism is a response to theism; I believe atheism and theism coincide with each other, and as long as you have one, you will continue to have the other.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,462
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:38:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm not familiar with the terminology you're using, but if you're talking about priests in their robes, why would they have to convince anyone of the existence of God if everyone already believed in God? How can you con someone into believing something which he already believes?
keithprosser
Posts: 8,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 12:44:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/3/2017 12:27:09 PM, s-anthony wrote:
... saying, "I believe in God," in the absence of any doubt, is meaningless.

I am not at all sure about that. I think that if someone said "I believe in god" in a world where everyone believed in god the response he would get would be 'Well, Duh', not 'That makes no sense'.

There is little doubt that, say, 1+1=2. There are no disbelievers in 1+1=2, but it not meaningless to say 'I believe 1+1=2'. It may be a fairly pointless thing to say, but it is not meaningless.
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 1:21:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 10:04:05 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/2/2017 9:01:23 PM, PureX wrote:
At 4/2/2017 8:42:36 PM, keithprosser wrote:

I really don't like the over-complicated language here. It seems to me that the idea is that theists believe god exists so they assume god is part of reality while atheists do not think god is part of reality so they don't believe in him.

Who's 'reality' are we talking about here, though? To the atheist, true reality is objective. It is what exists APART from our needs, desires, perceptions and conceptions of it. While for the theist, true reality is derived FROM our needs and desires, and our perceptions and conceptions of it.

Both are true, of course, as our needs and desires and our perceptions and conceptions are just as much a part of reality as whatever exists or occurs apart from them.

No amount of (say) me needing to breathe underwater or wanting to fly will change reality. The same goes for perceptions and conceptions of mine or those of anyone else. Reality is what it is and it is hubris to suggest humans can affect the fundamental nature of reality with their minds alone.

Who is suggesting that humans can effect the fundamental nature of reality? Then again, who is deciding what the "fundamental nature of reality" is? Oh, wait, it's we humans! All I'm saying is that our perceptions and conceptions of reality are our reality, and they are a part of reality, through us. They are derived from reality, they occur within the physical nature of reality, and they effect physical reality as a result of their occurrence. So how aren't they "real"? How aren't they "objectively real"?
PureX
Posts: 4,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2017 1:34:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/2/2017 10:23:01 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 4/2/2017 9:01:23 PM, PureX wrote:
...While for the theist, true reality is derived FROM our needs and desires, and our perceptions and conceptions of it...

I'm not a theist, but I wonder how many theists would agree that true reality is derived from their needs and desires. Untrue reality now, that's a different matter....

As far as any of us knows, only we humans care to, and try to determine what "true reality" is. And we are each doing it according to our own criteria and agenda. I'm sure that you think your criteria and agenda is superior to those who have chosen some other. But I am sure they think the same about theirs. I'm sure you can 'prove' your's to be superior according to your criteria and agenda. But I am also sure that they can do the same according to theirs.

Thus, the debate becomes unresolvable.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.