"Atheists believe there is no God"

[Talishi]

Many Christians like to say, "Atheists believe there is no God." But atheism is not a belief there is no God because to have a belief is to hold a proposition. There are thousands of other things that Christians, like atheists, do not have a belief in, from Sasquatch to elves. If the mechanism is correct that the non-existence of God is a proposition held by atheists, then both Christians and atheists must also have matching propositions for the non-existence of all other imaginary things, which clearly we do not, since we can only name a few.

So for the record:

Christians believe in the existence of Yahweh and they do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Atheists do not believe in the existence of Yahweh and they also do not believe in the existence of Zeus.

Perhaps the underlying motivation for some Christians to say atheists believe there is no God is a suspicion they have that believing in something is inferior to understanding something. And perhaps it is enabled by the same sloppy reasoning that results in some Christians saying evolution is “only a theory� as if that were a bad thing.

[William]

William said

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

That's been pretty much what I've been doing in my year and a half here on this forum (I don't call it cheating though).

It depends upon one's position as to what one might call it. From my position, it is a kind of hopeless attempt at cheating. It cannot be done that way.

The reason I went that route is because I had tried, for years, to make contact with 'the god(s)', all to no success. I would get people saying to do all sorts of things, I did them all...no dice. I tried prayer, meditation, etc.

Handy data. So repeated enough times, you discovered that what people told you to do, didn't work.
I know what that is like. However, that in itself did not convince me GOD, does not exist.
Perhaps I had the advantage of not expecting anything to happen in the fist event (of conversion into that arena). Something did happen.

When I first found this forum, I read over thread topics and found all sorts of people claiming to have contact with 'the god(s)'. So instead of trying myself, I decided to just start asking point blank for evidence of what they were saying was true.

Which is not actually changing your approach to the way you initial approached it.

In fact, since you're not exactly well known around here (only 54 posts in five years), I might as well clue you in. I have a standing challenge for anyone who claims access/communication to some supernatural intelligence: a sheet of paper with a detail about myself that I have quite literally never told anyone.
To date, I have not had anyone even try, let alone fail.

You have kept the particulars to yourself all this time? P. Q.

Okay, so are you ready to reveal your standing challenge then?

Some data is required re what you mean by 'supernatural intelligence'. I claim to be in communion with this particular idea of GOD....but do not see any of this 'supernatural intelligence' therein. It depends on your definition of that as to whether my position on the matter can be counted as 'supernatural' before we could wander down that particular path together.

Besides, think about what you're saying. You're saying that it's all right for people to make this claim (contact with God) and that they do not have a burden of evidence.

Correct. This is cased solely on the way the GOD in question, follows the rules. It cannot break the rules it is incarcerated within. It can bend them sometimes...but that's a perception thing.

If I claim contact with say...Robert Downey Jr., to pick a name at random, to having lunch with him every other weekend, do I not have a burden of proof? Especially if I go on about how wonderful Downey is, and why others should follow what Downey teaches?

Different parameters not related to that of my idea of GOD.

Perhaps Robert Downey Jr. is your idea of GOD and thus you could make him out to be GOD when telling me about him in that context, then yes, it is up to Robert Downey Jr. to prove to me or deny that it is the case that he is the GOD you claim him to be.

But that is a different set of parameters.

[William]

Supernatural means anything that is not limited by the rules of this universe. Claims

Then all in all, I cannot say for sure, as in terms of the GOD idea being explored, I go with activity which happens within this universe related to the human experience and thus do not regard those interactions as being 'supernatural'.

[William]

[Replying to post 97 by Kenisaw]

We seem to have been like two ships in the night, passing each other without realizing it…

Thus, in relation to the rest of your post, there is no reason for the need to debate anything because that in itself would be illogical, given we are so perfectly separated as you claim.

[Monta]

William said

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

That's been pretty much what I've been doing in my year and a half here on this forum (I don't call it cheating though). The reason I went that route is because I had tried, for years, to make contact with 'the god(s)', all to no success. I would get people saying to do all sorts of things, I did them all...no dice. I tried prayer, meditation, etc.
When I first found this forum, I read over thread topics and found all sorts of people claiming to have contact with 'the god(s)'. So instead of trying myself, I decided to just start asking point blank for evidence of what they were saying was true. In fact, since you're not exactly well known around here (only 54 posts in five years), I might as well clue you in. I have a standing challenge for anyone who claims access/communication to some supernatural intelligence: a sheet of paper with a detail about myself that I have quite literally never told anyone.
To date, I have not had anyone even try, let alone fail.//

It does not work that way.

[rikuoamero]

William said

You cannot try cheating and demand that those who say they have some kind of contact with 'the gods' need to prove it to you before you too can 'believe'. It doesn't work that way.

That's been pretty much what I've been doing in my year and a half here on this forum (I don't call it cheating though). The reason I went that route is because I had tried, for years, to make contact with 'the god(s)', all to no success. I would get people saying to do all sorts of things, I did them all...no dice. I tried prayer, meditation, etc.
When I first found this forum, I read over thread topics and found all sorts of people claiming to have contact with 'the god(s)'. So instead of trying myself, I decided to just start asking point blank for evidence of what they were saying was true. In fact, since you're not exactly well known around here (only 54 posts in five years), I might as well clue you in. I have a standing challenge for anyone who claims access/communication to some supernatural intelligence: a sheet of paper with a detail about myself that I have quite literally never told anyone.
To date, I have not had anyone even try, let alone fail.//

It does not work that way.

So...is this a not so subtle admission that when it comes to debating the existence of your god, you quite simply are unable to substantiate the claim?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 99 by William]


[center]Not going to church on Sundays anymore.
Part Three: Quest for Knowledge = if it ain't true, forget about it[/center]

I do care about the truth. It is one of those things which is very well hidden and requires a lifetime of getting to the bottom of - At least for me, that is the case. It is a work in progress.

Hmmm it seems you think that religious "truths" are very well hidden, and that so MANY people claim to have them.

Why is that?

You got that wrong. I said I care about the truth. Not 'religious truths'.

You don't care about "religious truths".

Well then, so much for discussing the truth of any religious beliefs, and that, my friend would include any of yours.

I seem to have lost interest in your theology all of a sudden.

[Kenisaw]

If you get a chance William, I think it would help this particular debater if you clearly define what you mean by "GOD" since you mention in frequently. I would like a specific answer to this please, no links to other threads. Thanks in advance.

Sure.

When I use the term GOD it reflects ALL ideas of 'God'.

In relation to our shared position (human beings experiencing life on the planet earth, in a galaxy in a universe.);

When I used the term GOD, I am specifically referring to the Planet Entity, which is experiencing being a planet, and that involves the simultaneous experiences of all the living creatures on the face of the planet.

In relation to that, GOD is the expression of all living things on the face of the planet.

eta
For The Readers Convenience, I elaborate on this, in this thread

Thanks for answering that question.

I don't mind telling you that I find your concept of "GOD" to be impractical, irrational, and full of logical paradoxes.

[Kenisaw]

Supernatural means anything that is not limited by the rules of this universe. Claims

Then all in all, I cannot say for sure, as in terms of the GOD idea being explored, I go with activity which happens within this universe related to the human experience and thus do not regard those interactions as being 'supernatural'.

Based on how you defined "GOD", that is not true. You incorporate all ideas of "GOD" into your concept, than that must include the supernatural ones. Even just the ones related to "human experience" include claims of miracles, oracle-like visions of the future, etc., hence supernatural claims.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 97 by Kenisaw]

We seem to have been like two ships in the night, passing each other without realizing it…

Thus, in relation to the rest of your post, there is no reason for the need to debate anything because that in itself would be illogical, given we are so perfectly separated as you claim.

???

Your lack of response to what was written is duly noted...

[William]

[Replying to post 97 by Kenisaw]

We seem to have been like two ships in the night, passing each other without realizing it…

Thus, in relation to the rest of your post, there is no reason for the need to debate anything because that in itself would be illogical, given we are so perfectly separated as you claim.

???

Your lack of response to what was written is duly noted...

Are you in the right mind Kenisaw?

There was certainly a response from me in regard to what was 'what was written'.

You even went to the trouble of replying with three question marks, as if to say you had some problem comprehending my reply.

Just ask if you need clarification, okay?