Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

It's funny then how the non existence of God, being a positive assertion therefore carries a burden of proof, as does the positive assertion of the atheist bus namely that their probably isn't a God.

Nobody is saying that though: primariliy because we aren't that stupid, and we know we don't know everything. To say that there are no good reasons currently for supposing that claims of 'God' should be taken seriously is a different thing entirely - but you know this already, or you should since it has been explained to you often enough.
 

It is not true imv that there aren't any grounds for believing in God but you seem to be saying that as atheism needs nothing it needs no grounds.

Atheism is just an absence of beliefs about Gods, often arising from patently incoherent and/or fallacious claims made by people such as yourself - nothing else is required.

[Alan Burns]

In which case only the highly credulous will get 'saved'.

It is those who wish to be united with God who will be granted their wish.
I would not want to share heaven with those who do not want to be there.

[Stranger]

It is those who wish to be united with God who will be granted their wish.

If your god exists, it is playing a silly game of hide-and-seek because there is exactly zero evidence that it even exists to wish to unite with. If your example here is anything to go by, one has to give up ones rational thought processes and totally give up on logic and wanting evidence for things before believing that they exist. If we do that, then what we end up believing would be pretty random, so the whole thing is a bizarre circus of the absurd.

Basically your god (if it exists) is running a lottery of the overly credulous and superstitious.

I would not want to share heaven with those who do not want to be there.

Don't think I'd want to spend eternity with a bunch of illogical, superstitious types, chosen at random because they just happened to choose the right superstition to get them there.

That's all before we get to how unpleasant and unjust the god character in the bible actually is.

[Alan Burns]

If your god exists, it is playing a silly game of hide-and-seek because there is exactly zero evidence that it even exists to wish to unite with. If your example here is anything to go by, one has to give up ones rational thought processes and totally give up on logic and wanting evidence for things before believing that they exist. If we do that, then what we end up believing would be pretty random, so the whole thing is a bizarre circus of the absurd.

I can thank God for giving me the freedom to use my rational thought processes and logical deductions which have enabled me to discover God and invite Him into my life.

[Sebastian Toe]

It is those who wish to be united with God who will be granted their wish.
I would not want to share heaven with those who do not want to be there.

And people who have never heard of your god, could they be there?
Do you think they will be asked before admittance?
How do you think that conversation would go?

Or maybe they would be admitted without being given a choice and subsequently find that they don't want to be there.
 In that scenario you would either have to ask to leave or ask them to be ejected, wouldn't you, given your stated wish.
Maybe.......now that your wish is on the record so to speak, you might not be invited in the first place!

[Stranger]

I can thank God for giving me the freedom to use my rational thought processes and logical deductions which have enabled me to discover God and invite Him into my life.

Laughable. You have shown time and time again here that you have no logic or evidence to support you absurd faith claims. What's more you've shown that you're also too bone idle/arrogant/complacent (delete as applicable) to be arsed to learn anything about logical deductions and the avoidance of obvious fallacies.

You may well be intelligent and logical when your faith is not involved but as soon as the subject turns to your god, your whole logical, reasonable mind seems to just shut down. It's, quite frankly, frightening to witness.

[Alan Burns]

That's all before we get to how unpleasant and unjust the god character in the bible actually is.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:15-17

[Gordon]

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:15-17

Surely you realise that some of us regard this kind of sentiment as utter nonsense.

[Enki]

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:15-17

And, of course, that condemns outright all those billions of people who are members of other religions and no religion. As John goes on to say, those who don't believe in Jesus are condemned because they have chosen evil deeds above the light of Jesus. Presumably they will all go to the hell that Jesus regularly refers to in the gospels.

Such a message clearly suggests that this god of yours is a parochial, demanding god who only cares for those who are willing to accept him. The rest, however genuine they may be, he condemns as evil doers and obviously not worth saving. This is such a long way from my moral attitude, Alan,  that I personally find it appalling, not because I believe in this rubbish but because so many people have suffered because of the callousness of such statements as John iterates.

[Stranger]

That's all before we get to how unpleasant and unjust the god character in the bible actually is.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:15-17

Well, exactly. Condemning all of humanity for being how god made us, blood sacrifice, substitution, withholding it all unless we believe absurdities. Then pretending it's a kindness, to boot!

Disgusting, immoral, and unjust, as well as absurd.

[Alan Burns]

Surely you realise that some of us regard this kind of sentiment as utter nonsense.

There are many others who regard it as the most important message ever proclaimed to all mankind.
However we all have our God given freedom to interpret is as we wish.

[torridon]

It is those who wish to be united with God who will be granted their wish.
I would not want to share heaven with those who do not want to be there.

In the case of people who do not want to go to heaven, that would likely be a consequence of them having been successfully misled, confused, misdirected by the Devil, which outcome is ultimately sanctioned by God, the creator of all things including the Devil.

Christian theology is incomprehensible absurdity from start to finish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nobody is saying that though: primariliy because we aren't that stupid, and we know we don't know everything. To say that there are no good reasons currently for supposing that claims of 'God' should be taken seriously is a different thing entirely - but you know this already, or you should since it has been explained to you often enough.
 
Atheism is just an absence of beliefs about Gods, often arising from patently incoherent and/or fallacious claims made by people such as yourself - nothing else is required.

The appetite though in atheists for fantastical unprovable and unfalsifiable alternatives to God is gargantuan. Many of these are contradictory the universe just is is contradictory to the universe as necessary entity for instance, Cosmological arguments...many contradictory versus arguments from ridicule, another example and of course it’s rare on this board that any alternative to God, no matter how contradictory to others is challenged by other atheists......It therefore all looks, behaviourally, like Goddodging. What else can it be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:15-17


Well, exactly. Condemning all of humanity for being how god made us, blood sacrifice, substitution, withholding it all unless we believe absurdities. Then pretending it's a kindness, to boot!

Disgusting, immoral, and unjust, as well as absurd.

substitution, recapitulation of the Hebrew theology of sacrifice is not for God’s benefit it is for us and in this sense the tepid, watery Atonement of Abelard comes into it’s own. The effects of sin on people and natural justice are incredible and the remedy needed has to be radical. Why God just doesn’t f“forgive” as conceived by many atheists on this forum is indistinguishable from doing nothing about it. Abelard teaches us then that Christ’s sacrifice is all for our benefit. God takes our transgression on himself. That is the very essence of forgiveness.

[Gordon]

The appetite though in atheists for fantastical unprovable and unfalsifiable alternatives to God is gargantuan. Many of these are contradictory the universe just is is contradictory to the universe as necessary entity for instance, Cosmological arguments...many contradictory versus arguments from ridicule, another example and of course it’s rare on this board that any alternative to God, no matter how contradictory to others is challenged by other atheists......It therefore all looks, behaviourally, like Goddodging. What else can it be?

Incoherent nonsense, Vlad - all 'sound and fury' etc.

For instance this "appetite though in atheists for fantastical unprovable and unfalsifiable alternatives to God is gargantuan" you speak of. I can't think of anyone here who is expressly looking for an "alternative to God", and anyway what would an "alternative to God "look like? I have no idea, and suspect that you don't either.

The old 'Goddodging' nonsense returns - nobody actually does this you know, any more than they actively 'dodge' the wisdom rays that are transmitted by invisible pink unicorns.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Surely you realise that some of us regard this kind of sentiment as utter nonsense.

Translation....Surely you realise that The right sort of people regard this kind of sentiment as utter nonsense ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Incoherent nonsense, Vlad - all 'sound and fury' etc.

For instance this "appetite though in atheists for fantastical unprovable and unfalsifiable alternatives to God is gargantuan" you speak of. I can't think of anyone here who is expressly looking for an "alternative to God",

Your kidding, right?

[Gordon]

Your kidding, right?

Nope.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It's funny then how the non existence of God, being a positive assertion…

...that no-one here makes.

Yet again:

Person A: “God(s)/leprechauns exist, and here are my reasons for believing that”.

Person B: “I have examined your reasons, and found them to be unsound. Therefore I don’t accept your claim about the existence of god(s)/leprechauns”.

Person A is a theist/leprechaunist.

Person B is an a-theist/a-leprechaunist.

Notice here the following:

1. The object of the claim (god(s)/leprechauns) is irrelevant. All that’s relevant is the quality of the arguments attempted to justify the claim.

2. The a-theist/a-leprechaunist does not state the non-existence of god(s)/leprechauns as you wrongly suggest. Either may still exist, but the absence of sound reasons to think they do exist is all a-theism/a-leprechaunism requires. 

3. Atheism no more asserts answers to big questions (like the origin of the universe) than a-leprechaunism asserts answers to where the pots of gold are left. All that either depend on is the rebuttal of the justifying arguments theists and leprechaunists attempt to justify their different claims of fact – a simple matter.     

Now write this down 100 times or until it finally sinks in.           

[Stranger]

Now write this down 100 times or until it finally sinks in.         

You think Vlad will get it after only 100 times.....!? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stranger,

You think Vlad will get it after only 100 times.....!?

I'm nothing if not a cock-eyed optimist Stranger...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

...that no-one here makes.

Yet again:

Person A: “God(s)/leprechauns exist, and here are my reasons for believing that”.

Person B: “I have examined your reasons, and found them to be unsound. Therefore I don’t accept your claim about the existence of god(s)/leprechauns”.

Person A is a theist/leprechaunist.

Person B is an a-theist/a-leprechaunist.

Notice here the following:

1. The object of the claim (god(s)/leprechauns) is irrelevant. All that’s relevant is the quality of the arguments attempted to justify the claim.

2. The a-theist/a-leprechaunist does not state the non-existence of god(s)/leprechauns as you wrongly suggest. Either may still exist, but the absence of sound reasons to think they do exist is all a-theism/a-leprechaunism requires. 

3. Atheism no more asserts answers to big questions (like the origin of the universe) than a-leprechaunism asserts answers to where the pots of gold are left. All that either depend on is the rebuttal of the justifying arguments theists and leprechaunists attempt to justify their different claims of fact – a simple matter.     

Now write this down 100 times or until it finally sinks in.         

First of all let’s address the bollocks statement Atheism is merely the lack of belief in atheism. The bollocks here being the notion that somehow that’s the end of the matter. The problem is that atheism is the lack of belief in everything every God represents or is. No hiding place their then.

The next conciet is that this state is the default position. There is no God. How is this the default?
It’s the default because atheists say it is. Unless you can do better than there is no empirical evidence which isn’t claimed anyway there is no way in logical argument you can legitimately claim the default.

Have a day.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

First of all let’s address the bollocks statement Atheism is merely the lack of belief in atheism.

It’s “theism” (not “atheism”) and that's exactly what it is.

The bollocks here being the notion that somehow that’s the end of the matter.

It is the “end of the matter” inasmuch as arguments you attempt to justify your claim about the existence of a god have been found to be unsound. 

The problem is that atheism is the lack of belief in everything every God represents or is. No hiding place their then.

It’s no such thing – you’re just straw manning again here. Yet again: atheism is merely the outcome of finding that you haven’t made a sound argument to justify your claim that a god exists. 

The next conciet is that this state is the default position. There is no God.

Atheism is not the statement "there is no god" for the reasons I just explained to you. Why is it so hard for you to grasp the difference between "there is no god" and "your reasons for thinking there is a god are wrong"?

How is this the default?

It’s the default position for the same reason that it’s the default position about any claim of fact. If you assert Paris to the be the capital of France the default position is not to accept that claim either until and unless the grounds for it are sound.   

It’s the default because atheists say it is.

No, it’s the default position because basic reasoning says it is.

Unless you can do better than there is no empirical evidence which isn’t claimed anyway there is no way in logical argument you can legitimately claim the default.

Yes there is. If you expect people to accept your claim “god exists” then it’s your job to justify it with reasoning that isn’t wrong. So far at least you haven’t come close, but you never know – one day perhaps? 

[Stranger]

The next conciet is that this state is the default position. There is no God. How is this the default?

Non-acceptance is the default for any proposition.

If you make a bad argument for something, then you haven't established the truth of your proposition - even if it's actually true. For example, if you argued that the Earth was approximately spherical, rather than flat, by saying "well most people in the world think that's true", then that would still be an ad pop fallacy and, if that's the only argument somebody had to go on, they'd be perfectly justified in rejecting your claim.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Non-acceptance is the default for any proposition.

If you make a bad argument for something, then you haven't established the truth of your proposition - even if it's actually true. For example, if you argued that the Earth was approximately spherical, rather than flat, by saying "well most people in the world think that's true", then that would still be an ad pop fallacy and, if that's the only argument somebody had to go on, they'd be perfectly justified in rejecting your claim.

Citations please.

There is no God is a positive assertion and therefore it carries a burden of proof.
It is no good excusing oneself of the burden of proof then claiming to have the  default position which is a  positive assertion.