Who's game?

Originally posted by Red Night
Interesting again to see the Atheistic Belief system.

And again, the failure to grasp the concept that "belief" in no God is in fact a "belief" in the god of atheism is astounding.

That's a "no" then.

You seem to confuse not believing in any God with believing in some God. I do not believe that any God exists. However, I'm willing to cede that I may be wrong.

“I could be wrong... But I don’t think so.” (Mr. Monk)

I think the underlying question (which you raised) is that of defeasibility (falsifiability). Not so much what particular defeaters a given person would admit, but, first, whether the principle of defeasibility is admitted at all.

One can, of course, undermine any putative assent to the principle of defeasibility by then setting an impossible standard. Once a supernatural category is admitted, that seems pretty easy to do; any conventional epistemology can simply be supernaturally overridden. For example, once supernaturalism is assumed, how does one test miracle stories?

I am just thinking out loud, and perhaps not very cogently, but it seems to me that the acceptance of supernaturalism can render any belief system indefeasible—which may well be what such a game is about.

Originally posted by Red Night
Interesting again to see the Atheistic Belief system.

And again, the failure to grasp the concept that "belief" in no God is in fact a "belief" in the god of atheism is astounding.

And again, the failure to grasp the concept that "belief" in no God is in fact a "belief" in the god of atheism is astounding.

I don’t see the logic here. If I do not believe in hobbits, that means that I actually believe in the hobbit of a-hobbitism?

Originally posted by vistesd
I don’t see the logic here. If I do not believe in hobbits, that means that I actually believe in the hobbit of a-hobbitism?

Now you made me curious - are you an ahobbitist?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Let me be the first to say it.

I might be wrong.

There may be a God. I could be completely mistaken in my atheistic lifestyle. I don't think I'm wrong. But, thinks I, the world is too crappy a place to be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.

But I might be wrong.

How many theists (and other atheists), I wonder, will ...[text shortened]... uivocally that they might be wrong about the whole God thing?

Consider yourself challenged.

"But, thinks I, the world is too crappy a place to be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god."

First, you are absolutely correct to say this crappy world cannot be the work of God. It isn't. God didn't create the world this way. The world became a crappy place in the hands of the deceiver and man.

Second, I would like to think that by saying "I could be wrong" would give everybody here the impression that I'm "open minded", but it would be disingenuous of me to do so.

God is as real to me as the sky is blue and the grass is green. And anything I might say to prove to you that I'm right only seems to make me look more closed minded.

I don't think the atheist is closed minded because he doesn't "know there's a God", and it's not meant as an insult when I say he is blind to the obvious. I'm just being as honest as I can.

I'm sorry if that is offensive.

Originally posted by josephw
"But, thinks I, the world is too crappy a place to be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god."

First, you are absolutely correct to say this crappy world cannot be the work of God. It isn't. God didn't create the world this way. The world became a crappy place in the hands of the deceiver and man.

Second, I would like to think that b ...[text shortened]... obvious. I'm just being as honest as I can.

I'm sorry if that is offensive.

No, not offensive. Thank you for your honesty.

However, you see the intellectual bind. You have basically said (a) "I am absolutely correct on this with no exceptions", and (b) "no amount of evidence or logical discourse could ever change my mind on this". Perhaps you are stating that God has no need to be logical, but if that is the case, I don't believe that you can really attribute God's actions any logical basis at all, since they could be completely random. Noah's flood; cleanse the world, or random massacre?

Originally posted by vistesd
“I could be wrong... But I don’t think so.” (Mr. Monk)

I think the underlying question (which you raised) is that of defeasibility (falsifiability). Not so much what particular defeaters a given person would admit, but, first, whether the principle of defeasibility is admitted at all.

One can, of course, undermine any putative assent to the princip ...[text shortened]... aturalism can render any belief system indefeasible—which may well be what such a game is about.

No, you are pretty much on the money.

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, I will take a stab at this. I have tried to explain my position in previous threads so here it goes. Faith has less to do with a mental acknowledgement that God exists as it does being relational in nature. For example, there are many Biblical examples of situations where God has provided evidence for his existence to people yet they lost faith in him. ...[text shortened]... You still believe in them because you love them no matter what everyone else may say about them.

I will come back to this whodey, perhaps later or tomorrow, but I have to go teach me some Engrish soon!

Originally posted by Starrman
I'm astounded that you cannot see the difference between having beliefs about the concept of god and his non-existence and having beliefs about a god of atheism.

I'm just stounded... as in: "I was stounded and I missed it" 😵 It's all so much self-delusional apologeticism...

If I believe in Dog, then Dog must be responsible for all my problems ... and therefore I'm not personally 🙄

Originally posted by whodey
Ok, I will take a stab at this. I have tried to explain my position in previous threads so here it goes. Faith has less to do with a mental acknowledgement that God exists as it does being relational in nature. For example, there are many Biblical examples of situations where God has provided evidence for his existence to people yet they lost faith in him. ...[text shortened]... You still believe in them because you love them no matter what everyone else may say about them.

Okay, I can appreciate your position.

It sounds to me a lot like you have built up a lot of reasons to justify your belief. I bet you didn't start to believe based upon logic, but rather based upon something else (parental control, perhaps).

We have discussed your proofs from Daniel before, but they needed a lot of interpretation and flexibility in order to come close to being real.


Whodey, out of interest, what argument, what proof, could ever prove to you that God does not, in fact, exist and is merely a delusion?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Okay, I can appreciate your position.

It sounds to me a lot like you have built up a lot of reasons to justify your belief. I bet you didn't start to believe based upon logic, but rather based upon something else (parental control, perhaps).

We have discussed your proofs from Daniel before, but they needed a lot of interpretation and flexibility ...[text shortened]... what proof, could ever prove to you that God does not, in fact, exist and is merely a delusion?

That is just it, there is no one arguement to get me to renounce my faith. To say that there is one arguement that could make me not believe in God would be to say that my faith is based upon an arguement which is in itself a fallacy. Having said that, I think what you are asking is what we all wonder about here. What single bit of evidence or reason has caused you to believe for or against God? That, of coarse, is assuming there is one single bit of evidence. I am not smart enough really to answer this quesiton and neither are you. Therefore, lets here what Christ said about the matter.

Christ used the parable of the sower sowing seed by throwing it on the ground. The seed represents the word of the kingdom of God. Some fell by the wayside and fowls came down and devoured it. Some fell on stony ground and there was no earth to support its life and the sun scorched it to death. Some fell among thorns and it choked the plants as they came up. However, some fell on good ground and it produced much fruit.

Now the first example of seed falling by the wayside represents those who hear the word of the kingdom of God and does not understand it. Then the Wicked one comes and snatches away the word given to them. Those that received the seed in a stony place represent those who hear the word and recieve it with joy but after a while of tribulation or persecution they become offended at the word they had recieved with joy at one time but then decide to reject it. Those that fell among thorns represent those that recieve the word and become a plant but are choked by the cares of this life and the decitfulness of riches and they become unfruitful. However, those that become a plant and later produce fruit are those that hear the word, understands the word, and through perseverance and focus continues in that word to produce what is desired.

Now if Christ is accurate in his analysis of faith, I have already recieved the word and understood the word of the kingdom of God. Therefore, the Wicked one was unable to snatch the word from me through unbelief etc. Therefore, all that remains is for persecution to arise and/or great riches to be given to me to try and snatch the word from me. This is assuming, of coarse, that Christ's analysis is accurate. Could this be done by a mere arugement? I don't think so.

Edit: If you are willing, you could approach me by tempting me with great riches. I could give you a P.O. box number through which you could mail me a check. 😛

Originally posted by scottishinnz
..... out of interest, what argument, what proof, could ever prove to you that God does not, in fact, exist and is merely a delusion?

What I find to be a more interesting question is why do atheists feel the need to 'convert' theists and vice versa. Is it a complex of some kind?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Let me be the first to say it.

I might be wrong.

There may be a God. I could be completely mistaken in my atheistic lifestyle. I don't think I'm wrong. But, thinks I, the world is too crappy a place to be the work of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.

But I might be wrong.

How many theists (and other atheists), I wonder, will ...[text shortened]... uivocally that they might be wrong about the whole God thing?

Consider yourself challenged.

I don't understand.
Isn't having faith in something by definition a declaration of you thinking it's right? If I didn't think it was right I wouldn't have faith in it.

Originally posted by chappy1
I don't understand.
Isn't having faith in something by definition a declaration of you thinking it's right? If I didn't think it was right I wouldn't have faith in it.

But thinking it is right doesn't preclude the possibility that you are wrong, that's the point. You can have faith in something because you think it's the most likely option, and thereby declare that it is right in your eyes. But you must concede that there was also a probability that you could be wrong, it was just outweighed by that of you believing you were right.

Originally posted by Rajk999
What I find to be a more interesting question is why do atheists feel the need to 'convert' theists and vice versa. Is it a complex of some kind?

I'm trying to convert no-one. I just want to understand psychology of these people.

You are right though, it is an interesting question. Theists, I guess do it because it is the "loving" thing to do to ensure people do not suffer eternal hell-fire. Atheists, I guess, because they think devoting your life to a non-extant being is a waste, and compassion is something we can all, theists and atheists, have.