Did Laidlaw, Broun, Stoppard, Chesterton...?

Originally posted by LemonJello

I've given you example after example of groups of people aligned by what they believe on any given subject matter....

Again, what does any of this have to do with whether or not it is notionally confused to state that atheists generally stand in willful rejection of God? The only thing in this whole spiel of yours that is relevant is th ...[text shortened]... y". I explicitly asked you for the P. State what it is and show the contradiction; or retract.

I am an a-atheist.
I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist.
It is my belief that every man has an inherent concept of God, therefore making it impossible for any man to disbelieve what he senses to be true.
I understand there are some who call themselves atheist, but in essence, they are simply rejecting God, not disbelieving His existence.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am an a-atheist.
I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist.
It is my belief that every man has an inherent concept of God, therefore making it impossible for any man to disbelieve what he senses to be true.
I understand there are some who call themselves atheist, but in essence, they are simply rejecting God, not disbelieving His existence.

Well, this belief of yours is wrong. Have you bothered to check the empirical evidence for/against it?

At any rate, even if you were right that every man (for whatever reason) naturally had a conception of God in mind; that would not imply that all men are theists. It is always a futher question whether or not some conception is actually instantiated. Perhaps some of these men would be talented enough to stand back from their infixed disposition to form some concept and be able to objectively assess whether or not it picks out something actual. The others, I guess, will just continue to fling their poo around.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, this belief of yours is wrong. Have you bothered to check the empirical evidence for/against it?

At any rate, even if you were right that every man (for whatever reason) naturally had a conception of God in mind; that would not imply that all men are theists. It is always a futher question whether or not some conception is actually instantiated ...[text shortened]... picks out something actual. The others, I guess, will just continue to fling their poo around.

The point, of course, is that a person must first assume the thing exists and then work backward from there to either affirm or deny the thing's existence: you cannot think on the thing that you already consider to not exist.

That would be just as convoluted as you have accused me of being, thus my assertions throughout that the position of the atheist is self-contradictory.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The point, of course, is that a person must first assume the thing exists and then work backward from there to either affirm or deny the thing's existence: you cannot think on the thing that you already consider to not exist.

That would be just as convoluted as you have accused me of being, thus my assertions throughout that the position of the atheist is self-contradictory.

You're deeply, deeply confused. People can form all sorts of concepts about nonexistents. Go ahead and imagine a unicorn. I'm sure you can do this basic exercise.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I am an a-atheist.
I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist.
It is my belief that every man has an inherent concept of God, therefore making it impossible for any man to disbelieve what he senses to be true.
I understand there are some who call themselves atheist, but in essence, they are simply rejecting God, not disbelieving His existence.

...t every man has an inherent concept of God,...

What the 'women' think though is irrelevant and not worthy of mention...

It is my belief that every man has an inherent concept of God,
therefore making it impossible for any man to disbelieve what he senses to be
true.

So you are accusing every atheist, non-theist, polytheist, and anyone not of the
a monotheistic faith to be liars. (at least the male ones at any rate...)

Nice going.

I have no innate concept of god. And never have had.
The fact that you can't see past your own purported experience and conceive that
other people may have experiences that different from you does nothing but demonstrate
the pathetically blinkered world view you hold.

I pity you.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I do not believe there is any such thing as an atheist.

So you hold a belief. What else is new? But it is a belief not grounded in evidence so stop trying to invent evidence to justify your beliefs. Just accept that it is a religious belief and move on.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You're deeply, deeply confused. People can form all sorts of concepts about nonexistents. Go ahead and imagine a unicorn. I'm sure you can do this basic exercise.

Let's use a fictional character, the Easter Bunny.

You cannot consider the EB without thinking of its alleged characteristics: those alleged characteristics must have a source or center from which to exist.

In your example, I was asked to imagine a unicorn. So I imaging the components of the unicorn, commonly held. The two basic parts are horse and horn. Not really all that far-fetched, if you think about it: the major part of the animal has been in existence longer than there've been written records. The horn makes it somewhat problematic as we've never actually had widespread or conclusive evidence of finding a horse with a horn on its head without the aid of an outside agent.

Not impossible, but certainly not likely, either. The real problems come into play when we're talking about the healing and/or magical abilities of the alleged animal. There's really no way to confirm or deny these abilities, since we can't find the animal. The abilities are definitely supernatural which doesn't cause too much trouble: it's not too much of a stretch to get to supernatural powers as being existent. Certainly no one seriously believes that everything can come from nothing!

So I can suspend my belief on the unicorn--- even to the point of being ambivalent on its existence--- until I get to the point of relevance. What bearing does the unicorn's existence make on life in general or my life specifically? Absolutely nothing, even if all the legends of the past are considered true. Zip, zero, nada.

That makes the conjuring and the conviction two separate animals. Anything I ever learned about a unicorn was taught. Same thing for the EB, or any other member of the cast of fictional characters. In fact, you could say the same for any fictional character I make up myself: I have to use bits and pieces of existing ingredients from all kinds of sources to create the imaginary thing... and then teach it to myself.

Not so with God. No person on the planet has ever needed to be taught to consider God, as all people who reach the point of self-consciousness at some point also reach a point of god-consciousness. Regardless of further teaching/learning, this is an innate aspect of man.

This is precisely why we don't have groups who form around their disbelief in fictional characters, whereas we do have groups who form around their rejection of the notion of God: God has relevance if for no other reason, that man has that most basic of questions about Him.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
...Certainly no one seriously believes that everything can come from nothing! ...

Wrong.

Physics absolutely allows for, and detects, and predicts, things arising from nothing.

And plenty of people accept that as being true.

Including me.


Your claim that nobody thinks that everything can come from nothing is thus false.

Originally posted by googlefudge

...t every [b]man has an inherent concept of God,...

What the 'women' think though is irrelevant and not worthy of mention...

It is my belief that every man has an inherent concept of God,
therefore making it impossible for any man to disbelieve what he senses to be
true.

So you are accusing e ...[text shortened]... ou does nothing but demonstrate
the pathetically blinkered world view you hold.

I pity you.[/b]

The term 'man' has long been considered the proper way to address all of (hold tight, little one, this is going to hurt) mankind.

If you wish to use your self-righteous shoehorn and force all of the people into the supposedly generic personkind, then you'll have to come up with something that answers the question of why you honed in on son for the root.

The same thing holds true for human, mankind, and etc..

Oh, did I mention woman?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Wrong.

Physics absolutely allows for, and detects, and predicts, things arising from nothing.

And plenty of people accept that as being true.

Including me.


Your claim that nobody thinks that everything can come from nothing is thus false.

things arising from nothing.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]things arising from nothing.

I don't think that phrase means what you think it means...[/b]

Well if it means the sum totality of everything, the laws of physics, spacial and
time dimensions, and all matter and energy spontaneously coming into existence
from a total and utter absence of anything at all...

Then that is exactly what I mean.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Not so with God. No person on the planet has ever needed to be taught to consider God, as all people who reach the point of self-consciousness at some point also reach a point of god-consciousness. Regardless of further teaching/learning, this is an innate aspect of man.

This dogmatic assertion underpins your argument entire. Is there empirical evidence for this "god-consciousness" or is it to be taken as self-evident?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The term 'man' has long been considered the proper way to address all of (hold tight, little one, this is going to hurt) [b]mankind.

If you wish to use your self-righteous shoehorn and force all of the people into the supposedly generic personkind, then you'll have to come up with something that answers the question of why you honed in ...[text shortened]... thing holds true for human, mankind, and etc..

Oh, did I mention woman?[/b]

We are all homo-sapiens, we are all human... We are not all men.

And I will continue to pick you, and anyone else up, when you use male specific
gender pronouns when you mean men and woman (Yes the string man appears
in woman too... apparently the string man appearing in a word doesn't mean what
you think it means.)

I really don't give a damn that the common usage has been male centric and to
ignore an entire gender as not being relevant.

That's what I am fighting and trying to change.


The words people use are both informed by, and inform their thoughts.

If you don't like it. Tough cookies.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This dogmatic assertion underpins your argument entire. Is there empirical evidence for this "god-consciousness" or is it to be taken as self-evident?

No need to ask.

I don't have it. It thus can't exist universally. His argument is thus wrong.

Period.