The tolerant atheist

That is, however, as close to valid as the theist argument will arrive because it is an argumentum ad populum.

That's what the theist argument boils down to.

Absolutely impossible to come to: "there is a god" or "there are no gods" using science, reason, or logic.

Absolutely impossible to come to: "it is more likely that there is a god than that there are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is a god" using science, reason, or logic.

Any of those four can only be obtained via a BLIND GUESS.

That's what many arguments boil down to, but it doesn't my cake.

Mine either.

My posting in this thread is absolutely relevant, because the thread is about Tuna's assertion that he or she is a tolerant atheist unlike PZ Myers.

My point is that atheists whether tolerant or fanatically bigoted has to do with denying God exists, but atheists never take the critical thinking that before they deny the existence of anything at all, they must present the concept of the thing they are denying to exist, otherwise they are talking nonsense.

So, all you folks who are replying to my posts, you all as usual with atheists are into dodging the need to come up with your concept of God; but atheists don't do that, they are essentially into strawman argument by trivializing God, calling God a flying spaghetti monster. etc., and talking to no purpose except to dodge the real issue, prove God does not exist, but first: PRESENT YOUR CONCEPT OF GOD, OTHERWISE YOU ARE TALKING NONSENSE, IT IS ALL DODGING.

I know God exists in the concept of the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

That is a concept, if you deny God exists and you are talking about the God I know to exist, then you are accepting my concept of God, and you are saying that there does not exist God in concept the creator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Do you not notice it at all, that you atheist folks are all the time and essentially into dodging, instead of bringing up first the proof that my concept of God is not a valid concept.

The first exchange then we must go into, you atheists and I a theist, is about the validity of the concept of God as presented by me, namely,

God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Can you understand? No, you cannot because your mind is totally conditioned when the issue is the existence of God, conditioned to go into dodging mode.

What is a dodge?

Here, read Merriam-Webster:

dodge: a clever or dishonest trick done in order to avoid something
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dodge

You atheist folks don't know about critical thinking, but you are like the IS terrorists, they IS terrorists do not want to talk about the worth of their ideology whatever, but they keep on and on and on blowing up fellow humans, in order to extort from mankind their demand to have a Islamic state of their own, a caliphate where their religion in all its fundamentalist rigor is enforced, also yes with terror.

Take up critical thinking, examine my concept of God, namely, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Is it a valid concept? I maintain that it is a valid concept insofar as concepts are concerned.

Your task if you know critical thinking is to prove that it is not a valid concept.

Are you up to examining a concept to show that it is valid or it is invalid? Obviously from your posts I see very clearly that you don't even know anything about concepts as concepts, you instead go into dodging mode, because thinking critically is too much labor for you, and you resort instead to insult God by calling God a flying spaghetti monster, etc.

Dear atheist posters here, examine my concept of God, and see whether it is a valid or for you an invalid concept.

What is a valid concept? Obviously from your posts as with all kinds of writings from atheists, you don't dare to study what is a concept as concept: the validity of concepts is what you are always into dodging from, it is a taboo on your part to take up the concept of God, but if you are accustomed to thinking critically, you should ask yourselves, why am I afraid, into a taboo, when it comes to the study of the concepts of God?

I ask you, Oh atheist folks here, why are you afraid of examining the concepts of God? In particular this concept of God:

GOD IN CONCEPT IS THE CREATOR AND OPERATOR OF THE UNIVERSE AND OF EVERYTHING WITH A BEGINNING.

When you write again, ask yourself, am I into dodging again instead of examining the concept of God for its validity, in respect of truths, facts, and logic?

'My point is that atheists whether tolerant or fanatically bigoted has to do with denying God exists....'

Then you have no point with respect to atheists like me who assert 'God exists for believers' insofar as they (believers) find it a useful idea . You are simply making a religiousclaim for access to 'an absolutist concept of truth', rather than a relative one. Even you must see that constitutes a vacuous tautology.

So this is as good a thread as any to ask this question: I agree that consensus is not proof of anything. But what do atheists attribute the widespread belief that there is a God or higher power? This does not mean they are church going people obviously.

Just going along with the crowd or wishful thinking does not seem that plausible. Gallup poll puts the U.S. figure at over 90%.

Dear fresco, you see, I am not getting you to focus on my request, namely:



Tell me, is it intelligent or un-intelligent for a person with the faculty of reasoning to talk about God this and God that without first giving his concept of God?

I give my concept of God, but you do not, and at least not even examine my concept of God, and find out whether it is a valid concept or not.

So, will you present your concept of God, or at least examine my concept, and tell me whether it is valid or not, and mind you; we are into concepts, not into anything else at all, in particular not proving that there is an entity that in reality corresponds to the concept.

Please, can you just work on the concept, present your concept, or examine my concept, to determine whether it is a valid concept or not.

Here is my concept of God, pardon the repetition:

God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

I think that, for the most part, it boils down to the need to explain why **** and serendipity happens, and that explanation has been reinforced societally.

Please everyone: when people undertake together any transaction at all, in particular to agree on something, they first know what they are going to transact on; and that means they have the same concept of the object they are going to deal with, like buying and selling.

You want to buy or not, you want to sell or not: and both parties know what is it, the object, the buying or selling is covering or touching on.

If they have an example of the very actual object, then well and good, then both see what they are dealing on.

But when the object is not present, then they have in their mind the concept of the thing to be bought or sold between them.

In regard to the long long long debate of the existence of God, atheists do not present their concept of God, but I am presenting my concept of God; and I ask atheists, please present your concept of God, so that I know what God you are denying existence to.

So, addressing atheists, do not already, any further, no longer continue to dodge from presenting your concept of God, so that people who know God according to their concept of God, will see what kind of God you deny existence to by knowing your concept of God.

If you atheist folks insist on not presenting your concept of God, then at least examine my concept of God, and tell me whether it is a valid concept insofar as concepts are concerned.

Pardon the repetition, my concept of God is:

God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe of of everything with a beginning.

And examine the validity or invalidity of the concept from the aspect of truths, facts, and logic.

The truth is that you're begging the question in regard to your concept of God because you're asking us to accept it as a given. It is not a given, it is merely a supposition.

The above statement is a fact based on logic.

I've answered you with exactly the kind of answer you've been pestering us for. What's your motive in pretending my posts don't exist? Your proposed definition of a god is inherently logically flawed. It contains a logical fallacy of special pleading. You wanted a response using logic; there it is.

I wish we had this as a smiley option:

Special pleadin aint no fallacy. It's just what it is, a special pleadin, that's all. Don't make it wrong. If God aint subject to *special* rules, wouldn't NOBODY never be, eh?

InfraBlue says:




There is a confusion in your mental working on the meaning of the verb 'accept'.

To accept means to receive simply, as when you receive a bank check physically so that you have the bank check in your pocket, that does not mean that you take it for granted that the issuer of the check has cash in his bank to back up his check.

To accept also means to receive the worth of the thing you are taking into your pocket or in our context into your mind.

When I use the term accept, do you notice that time and again I say that my concept is only as far as concepts go, it is not any imposition that you take for granted that God corresponds in reality to my concept of God.

Can you understand my point?

Perhaps I should just use the phrase, 'verbatim concept of God', meaning thereby just the words as they stand for meanings, and not as already representing the actual existence of the thing the meanings of the words refer to, if the thing at all exists in actual reality outside of words.

I see that you are not susceptible to the nuances of words; language is a communication mode for humans, but as with many an instrument of mankind, it is liable to be misunderstood; so, to avoid misunderstanding, always read the context of the use of a word: say 50 words to the left of the word used, and 50 words to the right of the word used.

Okay, suppose I ask you t fill up a form, and in the form there is this entry, sex, and you write down "three times a day."

Then you are obviously missing the whole context of a for example birth certificate, or an application form for employment to a job.

Can you understand what I am trying to tell you?

Now, tell me do you have a concept of God at all, I mean by 'have' insofar as the words are concerned in their meanings, but not thereby implicating at all that you are subscribing to the existence of God in reality, as corresponding to the concepts of the literal words by which you tell people that you do 'have' a concept of God, like that you get the concept from a dictionary, but you do not admit that God exists at all.

Can you understand what I am telling you?

FBM says:




I read your post where you mention special pleading; I did not react to it, if memory serves, because you are into a matter that should be brought up later if need be, unless and until we have agreed to accept the literal concept of God, after we have worked together to mutually take a draft of the concept as to be the one understood in our exchange, on whether God exists or not.

But tell me, just the same, what exactly in my concept of God, namely: "God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning," is there an element of special pleading? Or how do you want your concept of God to be formulated in words so that there is no instance at all of special pleading?

There is always this blockage in exchange of thoughts with atheists, they in good faith hopefully lean toward missing the already established nuances of words, and thereby they pose objections which are founded on their missing the meanings of words used by their correspondent debate partners.

For example, with the phrase special pleading by which FBM accuses me of resorting to in my concept of God, perhaps he can tell readers what is the special pleading in my concept of God, namely: "God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Then also, dear FBM, please as you deny God exists, tell readers what or which god you are talking about which does not exist, and also avoid special pleading.

1) Have I denied that your or any other god exists? You seem very prone to jumping to conclusions and over-generalizing, stereotyping and the like, saying "all atheists" this and "all atheists" that. I recommend caution there.

2) Your definition, "God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning" presumes that the universe and everything in it was created, but that your god was not. That's special pleading. How is it that everything else has to have been created, but not your god? I already linked you to a full explanation of the fallacy in an earlier post.

But did you read it first?



PS: This post aint for FBM. He has me on ignore. It's for anyone else who may care.

I hope posters and readers in particular atheist folks here notice that I am as per critical thinking exerting my utmost effort to establish meanings of words mutually agreed on, so that we can have a good connection in the exchange of thoughts on the issue God exists or not.

This issue has been going on for millennia, and if you read the history of the debate, you will notice that it is atheists who are always into getting meanings of words incorrectly, in good faith hopefully, but with some very intelligent and learned atheists, there are very good grounds to incline to the suspicion that they are acting in bad faith.

For example, with Bertrand Russell, he was into quibble when he writes that God is like an orbiting teapot in some circle of outer space, etc., therefore as it is foolish to believe in such a teapot. so also to believe in God.

If you ever come to the short article ordered by a magazine but never published by the magazine, you will realize that Bertrand Russell was into deliberately dodging the issue, God exists or not: by never presenting his concept of God; however right away he goes into comparing God to a celestial teapot orbiting in some spot in space, and therefore according to him, as the celestial teapot is ridiculous to believe in, so also God is ridiculous to believe in.

This logician, general philosopher of knowledge, and deep mathematician, very learned. still he stooped down to pull a trick of the reductio ad absurdum on God.

As he he was an intelligent thinker and writer, he should have known better than to make God ridiculous by resorting to a reductio ad absurdum argument on God.

He fooled his audience of plain folks, but with people who are accustomed to read critically, they notice right away that the man was into some very unworthy quibble, compromising his merits as a philosopher and mathematician.


If you want to do a reductio ad absurdum, you must first present the concept of the thing that is absurd upon an examination of the ingredients of the concept; otherwise you are just playing fools of your audience and readers.

So, I invite again readers and posters here to present your concept of God.

My concept of God is that God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

The confusion is on your part seeing as how your vocabulary is severely limited.

The word "accept," as I used it, means "to regard as true."

You're asking us to examine the validity or invalidity of your concept from the aspect of truth while regarding it as true.

You're wanting us to engage in circular reasoning, e.g. your concept is true, so it's true.