Near perfect existence

[DaisyDay]

That's an interesting point. Do you have a more objective way of engaging believers and non-believers in discussion about perfect society in order to determine who will mention God first?

But you specifically didn't engage believers. You asked, as you know, only "honest atheists"; so, a more objective way would be to simply ask everyone without regards to their theology or lack thereof to discuss their idea of a perfect society. Wouldn't that be more honest and more objective?

 

[Chriliman]

As I said: Firstly, you don´t mention anything that suggests that your point has something to do with God.
Secondly, you don´t exclude one of the groups you want to make a point about from the discussion, obviously (if group B isn´t permitted to talk, anything will be brought up by a member of group A first). IOW you don´t stack the deck.

Apart from that, no. You will always be left with anecdotal evidence, to begin with.
Next, "atheists (or theists, for that matter) will mention it first" isn´t even offering a precisely quantifiable claim. If one atheist (or theist) mentions it first that doesn´t prove "atheists (or theists) mention it first".

So your thread was, at best, an extremely stupid way of approaching your goal. Actually, even the goal was pretty stupid, in the first place. It can´t be done, and even less on a message board like this.

Well, thanks for your input. still doesn't change the fact that I always notice athiests mentioning God as some kind of defense for their non-belief in God, which doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Chriliman]

But you specifically didn't engage believers. You asked, as you know, only "honest atheists"; so, a more objective way would be to simply ask everyone without regards to their theology or lack thereof to discuss their idea of a perfect society. Wouldn't that be more honest and more objective?

Not necessarily more honest because I clearly outlined what I was doing in the OP. But it would be a better way to do it.

 

[quatona]

Well, thanks for your input. still doesn't change the fact that I always notice athiests mentioning God as some kind of defense for their non-belief in God, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Entirely different point, but OK:
I´m not quite sure how you could possibly defend your non-belief in the concept X without addressing the concept X. After all, typically and hopefully the non-belief is a result of scrutinizing this concept.
Actually, I´m not even sure how one could even only describe one´s non-belief in X without mentioning X.
Already the label "atheist" mentions "God" - and how could it possibly be different, since "atheism" is exclusively about not believing in "God".

 

[Chriliman]

Entirely different point, but OK:
I´m not quite sure how you could possibly defend your non-belief in the concept X without addressing the concept X. After all, typically and hopefully the non-belief is a result of scrutinizing this concept.
Actually, I´m not even sure how one could even only describe one´s non-belief in X without mentioning X.
Already the label "atheist" mentions "God" - and how could it possibly be different, since "atheism" is exclusively about not believing in "God".

That's just it, I never scrutinized the persons non-belief in God, yet they mentioned God. Proofs in this very forum.

 

[quatona]

That's just it, I never scrutinized the persons non-belief in God, yet they mentioned God. Proofs in this very forum.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, and how it possibly relates to what I explained to you.
You almost make it sound like you´d prefer us to simply ignore your claim that a God exists, and reject it without even looking into it.
Please clarify.

 

[Chriliman]

Not sure what point you are trying to make here, and how it possibly relates to what I explained to you.

My point is that the forum was specifically about perfect existence/society. It wasn't specifically about the existence of God. The reason for the forum was to determine if an athiest would needlessly mention God or gods and if they did why? Still searching for the answer as to why.

 

[quatona]

My point is that the forum was specifically about perfect existence/society. It wasn't specifically about the existence of God. The reason for the forum was to determine if an athiest would needlessly mention God or gods and if they did why? Still searching for the answer as to why.

So you have changed your point again, since your last post? Because I was responding to this:

still doesn't change the fact that I always notice athiests mentioning God as some kind of defense for their non-belief in God, which doesn't make any sense to me.

(emphasis added),
and I was explaining to you how it´s impossible to defend/explain your non-belief in X without referring to X, and - seeing how it´s inevitable - it makes perfect sense to mention to do it.

 

[Chriliman]

So you have changed your point again, since your last post? Because I was responding to this:
(emphasis added),
and I was explaining to you how it´s impossible to defend/explain your non-belief in X without referring to X, and - seeing how it´s inevitable - it makes perfect sense to mention to do it.

I noticed athiests bring God into the conversation for no apparent reason which is what inspired me to make this thread and see if I could actually see it happen while expecting it and it did happen.

What do you mean by "its inevitable"?

 

[DaisyDay]

Not necessarily more honest because I clearly outlined what I was doing in the OP.

In what way was it clear that you were waiting to see whether the Christians - ie you - or the honest atheists would mention God first? While some saw it right away, I thought it was obscure, not clear.

But it would be a better way to do it.

More honest and more objective?

 

[Chriliman]

In what way was it clear that you were waiting to see whether the Christians - ie you - or the honest atheists would mention God first? While some saw it right away, I thought it was obscure, not clear.

More honest and more objective?

If I suspect you might for no apparent reason say something and I question you regarding something else and sure enough you say the thing I suspected, how does that make me dishonest?

 

[DaisyDay]

Still searching for the answer as to why.

You don't see why? Do you even see how he brought god up?

 

[DaisyDay]

If I suspect you might for no apparent reason say something and I question you regarding something else and sure enough you say the thing I suspected, how does that make me dishonest?

If that were what had happened, it would not, but that is not what happened...which makes you seem so dishonest.

You keep changing the claim which makes it hard to talk to you. You said you wanted to see who would bring up God FIRST - the person who is aware that this is what you were waiting to see - you - or the atheists invited to participate. You also said this was clear what you were doing when in fact it was deliberately hidden.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I suspect you might for no apparent reason say something and I question you regarding something else and sure enough you say the thing I suspected, how does that make me dishonest?

You're being dishonest because that wasn't the "truth" you wanted to reveal...

If it was, I'd expect you to have some explanation for why you set this whole deception up...but you haven't. You claimed it was a "truth" even though you admit that your methodology was flawed from the start. If your methodology was flawed, obviously so are the results of that methodology....so no "truth" got revealed.

Explain why you didn't invite theists to the discussion? Why the repeated emphasis on wanting "honest atheists" to respond to the thread? Why did you want to focus on the responses to the OP that involved "free will" and ignore those that didn't?

It's all pretty obvious to anyone who thinks about it...but you're still trying to deny it anyway.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My point is that the forum was specifically about perfect existence/society. It wasn't specifically about the existence of God. The reason for the forum was to determine if an athiest would needlessly mention God or gods and if they did why? Still searching for the answer as to why.

I already told you why.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not necessarily more honest because I clearly outlined what I was doing in the OP. But it would be a better way to do it.

Lol it's not a better way...it's the only way.

You're telling me that had no atheists mentioned god in this thread...you would've just kept the discussion going? To what end? You would've just waited till the thread died down and then mentioned that you wanted to see if any atheists would mention god? The topic of a "perfect existence" had nothing to do with anything?

Why choose a "perfect existence" as the topic? No offense, but you're a christian...when christians bring up a "perfect existence" they're generally speaking about one thing....god.

Why not make the topic something that doesn't suggest you're talking about god? You could've made the topic "What does purple taste like?"

 

[Chriliman]

If that were what had happened, it would not, but that is not what happened...which makes you seem so dishonest.

You keep changing the claim which makes it hard to talk to you. You said you wanted to see who would bring up God FIRST - the person who is aware that this is what you were waiting to see - you - or the atheists invited to participate. You also said this was clear what you were doing when in fact it was deliberately hidden.

Right if I suspected you would for no apperant reason say something, then I wouldn't need to tell you to not say it, I would just question you regarding something else and just let you say what I think your going to say. It's up to you to say the thing that I think you're going to say.

 

[DaisyDay]

Right if I suspected you would for no apperant reason say something, then I wouldn't need to tell you to not say it, I would just question you regarding something else and just let you say what I think your going to say. It's up to you to say the thing that I think you're going to say.

You keep changing the claim which makes it hard to talk to you. You said you wanted to see who would bring up God FIRST - the person who is aware that this is what you were waiting to see - you - or the atheists invited to participate

 

[Ana the Ist]

Right if I suspected you would for no apperant reason say something, then I wouldn't need to tell you to not say it, I would just question you regarding something else and just let you say what I think your going to say. It's up to you to say the thing that I think you're going to say.

Or you could just pick anything anyone says and claim that's what you "expected" to happen.

"See! I knew that a male would bring up "pickles" first! That's the truth I was trying to prove..."

If you had at least told a non participant what you were hoping to prove here, you'd appear credible...but you didn't think to do that either. Im pretty sure I know why too....

 

[Ana the Ist]

You keep changing the claim which makes it hard to talk to you. You said you wanted to see who would bring up God FIRST - the person who is aware that this is what you were waiting to see - you - or the atheists invited to participate

Daisy, it's not going to make any sense because he invented this purpose for the thread once his real purpose fell apart.

I can explain what i think his real intent was...and it's going to make a lot more sense than his story.