In this post by the stone god, Ark, in a response to Nan, Becky tells us
Nan, if God doesn’t exist, then He doesn’t exist anywhere. You can’t pick and choose about existence. A thing (or a person) either exists or it doesn’t exist. You say God doesn’t exist, so that means nowhere in all of known and unknown existence, there is no God. Sorry. That’s beyond the scope of anyone’s ability, unless they are omniscient. At best an honest person who doesn’t believe in God would have to be agnostic. The atheist position is simply untenable.
Of course I believe the evidence I’ve studied. It would be silly to study it, say it is true, then not believe it. But that’s no different than any other person. Some choose not to study. Some think they’ve studied when they haven’t even scratched the surface. But at some point we all have to say we believe whatever evidence we think is most convincing. It’s all a matter of choice.
I agree with her that a thing either is or isn’t. It would be fallacious to claim a thing both is and isn’t at the same time. That seems to be how far our agreement goes. She then claims that because Nan isn’t omniscient she can’t know if god isn’t hiding somewhere beyond Pluto. But this argument is weak. The claims about gods have been made here on earth. The religious people claim there god does things around us daily. The atheist only need ask for demonstration or proof that these claims are true here to declare the claims true or false. Asking us if we have visited unknown worlds or better every crook and cranny sounds clever but is really a silly ploy.
Agnosticism, as Bob will tell you if you can’t read for yourself, is not about belief. It is a knowledge claim. The agnostic lives their life as an atheist. All they claim for themselves is that whether god exists or not and its nature is not knowable. I would suggest, in all this, the position that is most tenable is ignosticim/ igtheism.
It is only proper that a person believes as they are convicted/ convinced. Nobody begrudges her for believing what she has read. My only comment that maybe your study material is limited to those that support your belief. And I know so many people who haven’t studied but believe the bible is true. It’s hardly a matter of choice. I agree, however, that most people once they are convinced they have attained truth, seek no longer.
It was Dr David Eagleman who expressed the situation most elegantly.
‘We don’t know enough to rule out there being a god of some sort. But we know far too much to believe in the gods of any of the world’s religions.’
LikeLiked by 6 people
i think that was so well put
LikeLiked by 1 person
If this god can’t be found everyplace one looks, considering that Christians claim that it is omnipresent, then this god doesn’t exist because it fails in the attribute claimed for it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
maybe they should strip their god of omni powers
LikeLiked by 1 person
It certainly would help their arguments. It always amuses me that they essentially do remove their god’s powers in order to try to make it exist. Their god becomes a worm on Ceti Alpha 5, because no one can show that those don’t exist either.
LikeLike
I think the problem is worsened by the fact that each person is working independently. One person makes the god omni another removes these powers
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is a wonderful observation. And it’s sometimes even the same person doing both things.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That, I think, is the height of cognitive dissonance
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mak, if you TRULY studied and read up on the TRUE god, you’d realize it exists in a timeless, spaceless, limitless wonderland of magic that can’t be seen, touched, or experienced yet clearly must exist because apologists say it does. So, there you have it. Hope this clarifies reality for you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
what would I do without you my friend?
LikeLike
You’d still be drinking water. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
hahaha, that’s a good one
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for flagging that discussion (and I agree with your analysis). Though it is without content on any other account, the conversation is interesting from a psychological standpoint.
The believers who answered were all fideists who lacked the courage of their convictions. That is the most common and pernicious malady of the religious. You also see a bit of objection to religious belief on the basis of its harms.
Just as it is vital to ask, “Exactly what is it that you are proposing?” , at the beginning of conversations about God, I think anti-theists need to be able to answer, “Exactly what is it about theism that you oppose?”, before their statements about universal harm, impediments to progress, bigotry, etc. can be taken seriously. Sadly, most do not have an explanation much better than the characterizations of God given in that thread.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Spot on , Keith! One sees this all the time.
LikeLike
There is nothing more to add to this. You say it quite eloquently
LikeLike
Agreed with Peter above, and god of the gaps arguments are never convincing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That quote is apt
LikeLike
Very aptly put Mr. Mak.
LikeLike
It needed to be said, I think
LikeLike
Good post.
LikeLike
Mak, this last comment of yours needs to be slightly edited: ” … most Christians once they are convinced they have attained truth, seek no longer.”
LikeLike
That would leave out many goddites, political party ideologues, alien abductees, and so many other groups
LikeLike
Well, yes. You do have a point. But IMO Christians are usually the least likely to continue seeking since they have “the truth” all wrapped up in a nice little package … and they are loath to tear it open lest they discover “truth” has actually been camouflaged as a “lie.”
LikeLike
You have not Paarsurrey, I guess.
LikeLike
Excuse my ignorance … but what is Paarsurrey??? I asked the Google god but didn’t get a satisfactory response.
LikeLike
He’s silence of mind’s bff. They’re like two peas in a pod, though, if I remember correctly, SoM is Catholic and Parsley-man is Muslim.
LikeLike
Interesting. I did notice Google took me to a forum where an individual referred to him/herself as paarsurrey, but I assumed it was a reference to a real object. Now I understand, it’s just another kook putting forth kooky ideas. 🙂
LikeLike
Yeah. Google took you to comments by the man himself. He’s a winner, I’ll say that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
that’s the guy. I think he even has a blog
LikeLike
Your recollection is correct
LikeLike
Paarsurrey is some Muslim guy who comments on most of our blogs.
LikeLike