You claim that God does not exist, part 3

What mountains of objective, scientifically verifiable evidence would these be again?

 

I dumb my terrorist friend in education and he dislike both UK and USA.

 

Why do you believe that no one has figured out your shallow attempt to shift the burden?

You have a god? Present it and define it. In the mean time, I lack any belief in it whatsoever, I dismiss, without any burden of evidence upon me, any assertions made without evidence.

 

Well, if you don't do your definitions correctly, they are all correct statements, although meaningless, as long as nobody else recognises the definition.

 

I don't know what that means.

 

2000 years of testimonies, logical proofs, documentation, and billions of humans finding agreement in faith.

Seems like YOU are out of the loop.

 

Show me what you have that Muslims and Hindus don't have.

 

Logical proofs? Documentatio? Let's see it.

 

Agreed

 

Those billions of humans severely disagree in mutually exclusive ways about "god". Why should conflicting subjective evidence be considered accurate?

 

Former polish friend likes Bin Laden, Stalin and Mao 3 enemies for USA and UK.

 

A specific theist's definition of a specific god has no bearing on my beliefs. The very concept of gods is a creation of man's imaginings.

It makes no difference if that god concept was created by people 50,000 years ago and died out with them, or if that god concept was created 2000 years ago and has spread around the entire world.

 

Yes - that's why it's incumbent on those who believe something exists to define that which they believe exists.

 

I think if it is you who has to define what someone else believes, you will always be subjected to the accusation that you got your definition wrong.

I suppose one could try to create a definition so abstract as to cover all possible specific definitions and then try to establish that as being the point of the discussion. But, I don't see many religious posters accepting that.

 

No, I don't presume God doesn't exist, I only don't believe in God or in other words I lack belief in God.

How do you know almost all atheists believe any of this?

False dichotomy: Only seeing is believing, and having faith based on no evidence.

Rational alternative: Belief based on logic or evidence even if it isn't visual.

No seriously, its just a joke. Do you understand what things like "humor", "jokes", and "funny" are?

Ok, well Jews aren't atheists.

 

It is unfortunate that very basic and simple concepts presented to you cannot be understood....Allow me to try again in a language you may find less complex:

See dis Gawd thangy looks ta be sumtin' peeeples made up an so days all donkypuck. Aint a matter whichn gits ya ornery.

 

And yet so many seem to think that they get to decide which definition is the truth. Without regard to what others think.

Seems completely one sided with the decision going to who decides. No evidence, no proof, no allowing for anything different from their positions,

That seems fair and logical, not.

 

I agree. OTOH, you and I and most atheists use the theists definition of god to describe the concept of god. There is no avoiding it since one cannot define or describe something that one believes does not exist.

 

Well, ideas need to be solidified, otherwise, how can we say anything about them?

I don't know that this goes very far in terms of a definition. Divinity is in itself defined in terms of God, so that's a bit circular. I'm not really sure what moral power means, and I don't know how to measure life (i.e. what it means for anything to be the "apex" of life). I'm not that interested in what various aspects can be represented as, or its relation to Christ or any authors of the Bible.

In short, this seems to me not so much a definition as a bunch of jargon.

 

Well, I see no reason why that has to fall on you. When people say "the burden of proof is with the one who makes a claim", that claim should provide a definition. Indeed, how can something be proof of anything unless it has been defined?

Or one can do what I do, I reserve judgement of anything (including variations) until I've heard and assessed the definition. I consider myself a theological non-cognitivist rather than an atheist, I am not shackled to the idea that God needs to be rejected. If someone invokes cosmological arguments and say that the cause of the universe is God, then sure, that God exists. Of course, if they want to refine that definition to have a will or be a being, rather than a concept, then they would have to argue that too. In the end, my opinion on the most popular gods are the same as that of an atheist.

 

People are free to redefine things (although they should be made clear to anyone they're talking to). For instance, your set of definitions are going to be different in another language, but it's still perfectly possible to construct arguments in another language (although anyone listening needs to know those definitions, i.e. speak the language).

Anyone who makes an argument is free to make up the definitions in that argument (although they should be clear). Evidence won't change the definitions, definitions are a declaration of what one means by a certain word. They are not a statement about reality, and so are not subject to evidence. You can use the definitions to construct an argument, which also might rely on evidence, but that's a completely different problem.

Whoever makes an argument should make sure that the definitions that go into it are agreed upon. We shouldn't disregard an argument just because someone else made a similar but incorrect argument. The fair and logical thing is to allow any definitions, as long as they're clear.

 

And you continue to insist that definitions, especially yours, are correct and others are "misunderstood" and therefore questionable. Disregarding what others say to reinforce your own position.

 

I agree, as long as things are clearly defined within the framework of the discussion and the definitions are not then subsequently altered in order to bait and switch then I am also OK with it.

I disagree that definitions are not by definition a statement about reality, they are the very things that link abstract words to reality and make language a means of communication. Without definitions, words are just vibrations.

 

I don't see in what sense I do that. Any argument needs to come with definitions. A lot of the time, English (or whatever language you speak) provides those definitions, but sometimes it does not, or one might want to redefine a word for a certain purposes.

I don't know that I have provided any definitions, so I don't know why you think I insist a particular definition is correct. Also, if another definition is in effect, that's not really a problem, so it isn't questionable except if it's not made clear which definition is in use. My entire point is for people to declare their definitions, so that I can take them into regard, I don't see how that means I disregard what others say.

 

Well, I guess they are a part of reality, insofar as the words we use are a part of reality. However, if we disregard that, I would still say that it's not about reality but about the words.

For instance, let's say we have the word "car" and it refers to the vehicle that we know as car. Let's say we then redefine the word car to mean the yellow fruit normally known as a banana. If you look at your metal vehicle, it will not have turned into a yellow fruit by this redefinition, the only thing that happened is that the word "car" no longer is used to refer to it. As such, definitions are not a statement about the vehicle, but about the word "car".