[Pants-of-dog]

Not until you answer my question.

I am not certain that you are not a bot. Answering my question would help dispel such suspicions.

[Besoeker]

Not until you answer my question.

I am not certain that you are not a bot. Answering my question would help dispel such suspicions.

i have answered your questions.
The word "objective" is one you used in relation to Thor and the FSM. There is nothing objective about either of these.
I don't imagine anyone believes that the FSM exists. It's a notional entity to show that you can't prove or disprove its existence. The same applies to deities. No proof either way. No objective evidencee.

So, how can you possibly make objective comments about either? That's just nonsensical.

[Pants-of-dog]

No one is asking you to make an objective comment.

I asked you if you believe that the FSM objectively exists.

Do you understand what I mean when I ask that?

[Besoeker]

No one is asking you to make an objective comment.

I asked you if you believe that the FSM objectively exists.

Ummm - isn't that asking me to make an objective comment??

Do you understand what I mean when I ask that?

Not a clue. It makes no sense. I have already made that point clear.
And you staunchly decline to explain what your intended meaning is.

No problem whether it's can't or won't.........

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay.

If you do not understand what I am asking when I ask if something objectively exists, then I feel that my time would be better spent elsewhere.

Have a pleasant evening.

[Besoeker]

Okay.

If you do not understand what I am asking when I ask if something objectively exists, then I feel that my time would be better spent elsewhere.

And you can't understand why "objective" and the FSM don't belong in the same sentence, that's your problem, not mine.

[Drlee]

The word objective was correctly used by POD.

You have gone way to far. (Let's use the Christian God for convenience sake.) There is no doubt that the Christian God has an existence. He (or at least the concept of Him as a real individual) is vastly more powerful and exercises a power far greater than yours or mine. You can not objectively deny that this God exists as a concept, and belief and that these concepts and beliefs profoundly affect billions of people. There is an objective reality called Christianity and it is predicated upon an objective belief in a God. Odd to use those two words together but beliefs cause people to act and that action gives them real power on the world in which we live. For example our almost universal rejection of plural marriage. Based upon what? The force exerted by the beliefs people have.

Now. You have decided that this reality is not supported by the evidence. You have specifically said, "The same applies to deities. No proof either way. No objective evidencee.(sic)". So why are you arguing with POD? You have already said that you have no evidence. You have simply come to the conclusion that this Christian God we are discussing has no physical existence and your decision to believe this is based upon this absence of apparent evidence.

Do you feel this way about alien beings in space? They suffer from the same lack of evidence so have you chosen to apply the same standard to them that you apply to the Christian God? Is it your contention that they simply do not exist? Surely not. Our own existence argues for theirs. So how much more powerful and wise must they be before they take on the attributes that would qualify them as Gods to a great many people on earth? No you say. That could not happen. They would have an objective reality. Sure they would. And, of course, this scenario could play out.

We are Gods compared to Chimpanzees. To them we can take or give them life. We can provide food from nothing. We can magically heal their illnesses. We can disappear and appear. We can manipulate their very genes. To them we would appear as Gods. And judging from the egos of some people it might be wise for them to conciliate our good will. I will leave their method of worship to them and those of my fellow Gods who feel the need for this affirmation.

Here is what an agnostic is:

...a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

That is probably what you are. It also makes the point that many of us have been making. Atheism is not an abstract absence of so much as the concept of God. It is a conscious decision based upon a great deal of information rationalizing that, in this case, there is no God because there is no evidence. And that my friend is a belief. Of course I must hasten to add....no evidence of which the person deciding to reject the concept of God is aware. And that is not the same as no evidence.

You just have not thought this through. Perhaps some day you will.

[Besoeker]

The word objective was correctly used by POD.

You have gone way to far. (Let's use the Christian God for convenience sake.) There is no doubt that the Christian God has an existence.

I, as an atheist, doubt it.
People may believe that he exists but there is no objective, testable evidence to show that such an entity does.

[Godstud]

Yes, and at the same time there is no proof to the contrary, so unless you're leaving a little room for a "just in case scenario", you're being just as silly.

[Besoeker]

Yes, and at the same time there is no proof to the contrary, so unless you're leaving a little room for a "just in case scenario"...........

I have. Several times.
That's is meant by "I doubt it" rather than claiming to KNOW .
Now who is being silly?

[Pants-of-dog]

“Doubt frees us from illusions of having captured God in a creed; it calls into question every religious symbol.”

This is a quote from my favourite theologian, the late Ian Barbour.

Not only was he a respected theologian, but he also had a doctorate degree in physics.

Here he is discussing the role of doubt in religion. Doubt is a safeguard against dogmatism.

[Besoeker]

Here he is discussing the role of doubt in religion. Doubt is a safeguard against dogmatism.

And is valid, not just for theism but also atheism and in a lot of other fields too.

[Drlee]

I, as an atheist, doubt it.
People may believe that he exists but there is no objective, testable evidence to show that such an entity does.

No you don't. Read what people post here before you troll the thread. Read what I posted and tell me that you doubt that belief in the Christian God does not exist. That is what I am asserting. As to evidence. Christians should not, in my opinion care about evidence one way or another.

“Doubt frees us from illusions of having captured God in a creed; it calls into question every religious symbol.”

Yes. And a devout person may believe that doubt is the mechanism that God uses to call us to question the nature of faith itself.

[Besoeker]

I, as an atheist, doubt it.
People may believe that he exists but there is no objective, testable evidence to show that such an entity does.

No you don't.

Fancy yourself as a mind reader do you?

From Wikipedia:

In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

[Besoeker]

No you don't. Read what people post here before you troll the thread. Read what I posted and tell me that you doubt that belief in the Christian God does not exist.

I already posted that some people have a belief in a Christion god. There was no question of my doubting that.
As an atheist, I doubt the existencs of a Christian god - or any god for that matter.

[Drlee]

I get it.

You doubt. That is a belief. Therefor atheism is the BELIEF that there are no gods. Not the absence of them.

[Besoeker]

I get it.

You doubt. That is a belief. Therefor atheism is the BELIEF that there are no gods. Not the absence of them.

Don't think you did get it

the absence of belief that any deities exist.

It's quite an important distinction. Perhaps you will get it. Eventually.

[Drlee]

I'm finished with you. You obviously can't understand what the rest of us are saying and are just restating a distinction without a difference.

Now post something. It will be important to you to do that.

Have a nice day.

[Drlee]

Not important at all. What you are claiming is not what your argument supports.

But I am through with your nonsense. It will not doubt be important for you to post something in reply to this. I have wasted enough time with your one line "answers".

Bye.

[Besoeker]

Not important at all. What you are claiming is not what your argument supports.

But I am through with your nonsense. It will not doubt be important for you to post something in reply to this. I have wasted enough time with your one line "answers".

Bye.

Check the actual definition of atheism that I gave. And try to understand what it says.

Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Not a belief as you and others erroneously claim.