The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case. — Foghorn

Yeah, not interested anymore.

I am interested to really know... who is God - the logically refuted one by atheists — Iris0

I apologize, but I won't be able to answer the "who is God" question. Would if I could, but I am not myself a god, so...

Yeah, not interested anymore. — Hanover

Ok, cool, thanks for your clear answer.

"no-one is able to answer the "who is God" question - neither the atheists who then refute what they do not know - more or less.
:rofl:

The OP of that thread was mine.

I know, and I'd step back from that because we don't prove things by pure logic alone in many instances (ala Descartes) — Hanover

Descartes said God exists by definition.

but for those who have had "personal God experiences" it seems they do have the notion that God is completely real - even if invisible to our eyes (we do not have excellent sight now do we :rofl: )--- but as an atheist has never had that sort of experience they refute that other have? That would be the same as if I who have never had a depression or angst would say: it does not exist even if humans say they experience that - it's all made up. — Iris0

I have a notion that maybe you don't have or share. My notion as notion is perfectly real. The theist - or many theists - isn't satisfied with the reality of notions as notions. They want the subject matter of those notions to be accorded status as matters of fact - and never mind the incoherence.

Its not one particular god an atheist for which they lack belief, its all of them. Not Zeus, not Odin, not Ra, not Yaweh…none of them. Not mother nature, not Giaea, not the combined love of all mankind or universal mystery. All colourful flights of fancy the atheist does not believe in.
Asking an atheist to define the god they do not believe in is like asking someone who doesnt watch TV which shows they don’t watch on TV. None, they don’t watch TV.

The price tag for hearing what I would propose is… — Foghorn

Please explain what would be logical, constructive or useful about providing an alternative to the God debate to those who feel no need for one. It seems wiser to just let sleeping dogs lie.

But it is still a religion, with practices that can come in conflict with pure reason and rationality. Like, reincarnation, how do we combine that with atheism? — Christoffer

The modern definition of 'rationalism' is 'provable by empirical science' or mathematicazation of same. Basically it always comes down to one or another form of positivism. The Greek rationalist tradition started with Parmenides, and was utterly different to what is nowadays known as 'rationalism'. In fact, scientific rationalism is irrational, in that it disposes with any notion of purpose, telos, the why of existence.

yep.

Just start a new thread. If you build it, they will come.

But only if what you say is worthwhile.

Just start a new thread. — Banno

That's ok. You start it. :-)

You start it. — Foghorn

What?

I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate. Or is that debate a comfortable familiar routine which provides the entertainment users seek? Is the debate as it is sufficient, and thus there is no problem here which requires a solution? — Foghorn

SO this had no real content? You've nothing?

You've nothing? — Banno

If I were to start such a thread....

This is what you'd do with it.

So the thread would be just for me? How thoughtful.

Yeah, not interested anymore. — Hanover

Indeed.

We're now all in agreement that none of us are interested.

We're now all in agreement that none of us are interested. — Foghorn

None of us are interested in fishing out whatever genius you're withholding, now or ever. It's kinder I tell you rather than passively ignore you, which is what comes next.

None of us are interested — Hanover

Right. None of us are interested. We're in agreement. There is no melodrama here folks. Time to move along.

We could continue your little game of posts-last-wins, if you like.

Yes you are right, the notion is real - but then the God believer says they also thus know the sources - the cause - of their notion. And during all times everywhere - regardless of country, culture and if they were atheists or not - they have experienced the same God. And the experience and this notion that is real they all identify with the very same God. And when they identify who this God is they normally have a experiance of inner cognitive and emotional growth.
This is recorded by the Church and they call these humans saints.
The God they identify - regardless of where they were born or if they were atheists, secular, jews, muslims or what ever they were is Jesus.
Most of these humans (and I have heard lots of these testimonies on youtube and such) did not go to christian gatherings or such - but had a direct unexpected experience and identify this entity the same way.
Why can there be no credibility for this?

But I am interested. I have always - this is the correct way of handling philosophy according to all the great masters - both Greek and European: have an open mind, be open to all and learn from all.

So whatever you are suggesting that will bring some new thoughts to mind: go for it - and I will want to see where this takes us --- and I will maintain a critical mind. So, go and we will see where this then ends. I will follow and speak my mind in regard to what ever you propose.

Foghorn can't read for shit. When Hanover says "none of us are interested in fishing out your genius", he quotes "none of us are interested" and changes what Hanover meant. He does this rather regularly which is why I've started ignoring him. You should do the same.

so you mean to say that the atheists do not know how to distinguish between gods made in the image of humans that are many or fictive figures like Superman and Batman and if there would be a real God?
This is really a very strange reason you are giving me - and if this is the reason "atheists reject all gods regardless, even if we do not know how to distinguish between them" it seems childlike to me.
Just like a little child saying: no no no I don't --- and you ask: what more exactly do you not - and they say: whatever.
Seems irrational to me, thus illogically to refute all you do not even know how to distinguish between.

If you do not know something you refute it?!
Right?
Well, yes, this is what I have encountered when I started studies within philosophy - that most humans reject and refute some sort of mental image of metaphysics - like bogus - and what they refute is their own lack of knowledge of the subject matter they normally when I ask them: can you please define what you think metaphysics is? They actually have no answer to it and react like children and say: well I refute that ...
What?
Metaphysics..
Yeah, but tell me what you think that is...
No, just accept I refute it...

Okay... :smile:

I do not like when people tell me to ignore someone they - with their own minds or what ever they have judged - have a preset conception of, that is normally called: to be bias. And if you state - like the member Foghorn did - what you actually understood from what another member wrote - this is the correct manner to proceed. You then - by doing this (stating in short what you think you understood the other was trying to communicate to you) shorten the endless misunderstandings that normally occur when we read others.

So this sort of proceeder to state what you think you understood - is a good way to go. I will not ignore anyone. That is some sort of child play and immature. Do not want to partake there. But thanks for that invitation. Would not apply it to anyone though in this time of cancel culture. Do not partake in ignoring those who might give me inputs I do not even seek out - because they are unknown to me.

Want to be open and be able to discuss all with a critic mind and form my own opinions.

I wasn't telling you, I was telling Banno. Run along.

so, then your comment - not for me, makes it alright to be biased and apply cancel culture manners?
Explain so that I can understand how you think... because I cannot understand that sort of behavior? Do you folks only want to get your thoughts verified by those who say what you want to hear or listen to?

ELSIE: Hey! What were you going to say?

Foghorn: Nothing.

ARTHUR and FRANK: Yes, you were.

ELSIE: Yes. You were going to say something.

Foghorn: No, I wasn't. I'd finished.

ELSIE: Oh, no you weren't.

ARTHUR: Oh, come on. Tell us before you go.

Foghorn: I wasn't going to say anything. I'd finished.

ELSIE: No, you hadn't.

BLIND MAN: What won't he tell?

EDDIE: He won't say.

BLIND MAN: Is it a secret?

Foghorn: No.

BLIND MAN: Is it?

EDDIE: Must be. Otherwise, he'd tell us.

ARTHUR: Oh, tell us the secret.

Foghorn: Leave me alone.

YOUTH: What is this secret?

GIRL: Is it the secret of eternal life?

EDDIE: He won't say!

ARTHUR: Well, of course not. If I knew the secret of eternal life, I wouldn't say.

He does this rather regularly which is why I've started ignoring him. You should do the same. — Benkei

You don't seem to be doing a very good job of ignoring me. :-)

My reason was in my post. You're making a lot of stuff up that has nothing to do with that reason. But keep it up, you'll be the next person I'm going to ignore.