Infanticide

[Nick_A]

Popeye

Intellectual interpretation is all we have. it is fed by the more primordial parts of our brains. The brain evolved from the inside out thus feelings predate the frontal lobes, what you are speaking about is sourcing the reptilian brain and/or the brain stem. Genocide is never reasonable and is considered a crime against humanity, infanticide is sometimes reasonable unless you have some mystical belief that says otherwise. If a fetus is a monstrosity that can be determined today ahead of time, it would be immoral to bring it into this world simply to suffer and expire slowly. Objective conscience still seems to me to be a nonsense phrase what about it is objective?

Obviously we won’t agree but at least we can establish where we don’t. For example I believe in the reality of “anamnesis” or remembrance as described by Plato. what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form. Insignificant facts we may learn during life but the deeper values are remembered as normal for the conscious universe itself.

“How good music and bad reasons sound when one marches against an enemy.” Nietzsche

Who defines what is reasonable? It was considered reasonable for the Nazis to kill Jews or the Turks to kill Armenians or even the Russians to kill Ukranians. Proponents of these genocides can give sound reasons for it. It seems we need something more than reason and the hypocrisy it invites. We need objective conscience.

Is a mother bird wrong for throwing the sick ones out of the nest or a human mother to destroy a badly deformed baby? A good question but answering it requires defining what respect for life is beyond our interpretations which we see is rarely done.

"Universal value of relative existence," does that mean in English giving value to all life forms? "Objective conscience defines values by its place in the universal life process." quote Temporality is one of the most prominent aspect of reality the other being being itself. Do you believe that human life is in some way superior to other life forms? Define for me it you would, the slavery of the self as a whole in which it can no longer feel?

This will probably be another area of disagreement. I believe in the Great Chain of Being as the most reasonable explanation for my basic questions: what is the purpose of our universe and for Man within it? Briefly we normally consider being as something we either have or don’t have. The Great chain of being suggests that there are degrees of being descending from God down into minerals.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Great-Chain-of-Being

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God.

Does animal Man invent these ideas or are they remembered by some and passed on into social life? Is their value invented by Man or inwardly known by objective conscience? If we don’t know, how could man as a whole have respect for the life cycle?

Science accepts mechanical evolution but as of yet avoids the question of its passage into conscious evolution. Can Man evolve from mechanical evolution into a higher quality of conscious being or the New Man? The Great Chain of Being suggests it is possible if not probable.

[Immanuel Can]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There is no god ever believed in

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

I've seen the very wimpy "I just don't happen to believe" defense. The problem with it is manifold, but one chief problem is that if it were true, it would entail that rocks, trees and dogs were "Atheists."

A second problem is that even if we accept it, we have to ask, "Do you mean you personally don't happen to believe, or do you mean you don't think other people should believe? If it's the former, it's unobjectionable but totally weak and feeble; if it's the latter, then it invites the question, "On what grounds?"

And for the Atheist, there is no answer. He has no such grounds.

So either he can't recommend his skepticism at all, or he is is demanding something from others on no evidence. Which form of Atheism do you wish to back?

[popeye1945]

"Obviously we won’t agree but at least we can establish where we don’t. For example I believe in the reality of “anamnesis” or remembrance as described by Plato. what we call learning is actually recollection of facts which we possessed before incarnation into human form. Insignificant facts we may learn during life but the deeper values are remembered as normal for the conscious universe itself.quote

Nick,

Well, you said you were not a mystic, but everything you say indicates that is what you are. Plato himself was a mystic the exact opposite of someone like Democritus, Free speculation is a wonderful thing and mystics spend much time there, but one needs every once in a while to reach down an touch the earth--- reality check.

"Universal value of relative existence," does that mean in English giving value to all life forms? "Objective conscience defines values by its place in the universal life process." quote Temporality is one of the most prominent aspect of reality the other being being itself. Do you believe that human life is in some way superior to other life forms? Define for me it you would, the slavery of the self as a whole in which it can no longer feel?[/ This will probably be another area of disagreement. I believe in the Great Chain of Being as the most reasonable explanation for my basic questions: what is the purpose of our universe and for Man within it? Briefly we normally consider being as something we either have or don’t have. The Great chain of being suggests that there are degrees of being descending from God down into minerals.quote

The above again is mysticism, it sometimes has in common with religion the lack of evidence to accompany its claims--kind of free-flight of the imagination. This can be productive if one comes down to earth occasionally for an orientation of where one has been and where one is going

Great Chain of Being, also called Chain of Being, conception of the nature of the universe that had a pervasive influence on Western thought, particularly through the ancient Greek Neoplatonists and derivative philosophies during the European Renaissance and the 17th and early 18th centuries. The term denotes three general features of the universe: plenitude, continuity, and gradation. The principle of plenitude states that the universe is “full,” exhibiting the maximal diversity of kinds of existences; everything possible (i.e., not self-contradictory) is actual. The principle of continuity asserts that the universe is composed of an infinite series of forms, each of which shares with its neighbour at least one attribute. According to the principle of linear gradation, this series ranges in hierarchical order from the barest type of existence to the ens perfectissimum, or God. Science accepts mechanical evolution but as of yet avoids the question of its passage into conscious evolution. Can Man evolve from mechanical evolution into a higher quality of conscious being or the New Man? The Great Chain of Being suggests it is possible if not probable.
[/quote]

The question is a legit one, Certainly Carl Jung touched on this with his archetypes of the unconscious, where the species have certain experiences in common through time. It is my opinion that the essence of all life is of the same nature and there is much adaptation of the past locked up in our biology which we may one day be able to set free----the regrowth of limbs..etc, This mysticism is the wall between us, if nothing else I can recognize that it is intellectually stimulating for you.

[jayjacobus]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There is no god ever believed in

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

I've seen the very wimpy "I just don't happen to believe" defense. The problem with it is manifold, but one chief problem is that if it were true, it would entail that rocks, trees and dogs were "Atheists."

A second problem is that even if we accept it, we have to ask, "Do you mean you personally don't happen to believe, or do you mean you don't think other people should believe? If it's the former, it's unobjectionable but totally weak and feeble; if it's the latter, then it invites the question, "On what grounds?"

And for the Atheist, there is no answer. He has no such grounds.

So either he can't recommend his skepticism at all, or he is is demanding something from others on no evidence. Which form of Atheism do you wish to back?

The atheist might say, "There is no God. My mind is my shepherd."
Ok, but your mind is not my shepherd.

[Immanuel Can]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There is no god ever believed in

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

I've seen the very wimpy "I just don't happen to believe" defense. The problem with it is manifold, but one chief problem is that if it were true, it would entail that rocks, trees and dogs were "Atheists."

A second problem is that even if we accept it, we have to ask, "Do you mean you personally don't happen to believe, or do you mean you don't think other people should believe? If it's the former, it's unobjectionable but totally weak and feeble; if it's the latter, then it invites the question, "On what grounds?"

And for the Atheist, there is no answer. He has no such grounds.

So either he can't recommend his skepticism at all, or he is is demanding something from others on no evidence. Which form of Atheism do you wish to back?

The atheist might say, "There is no God.

If he does, you should ask him if he means just for him, or for everyone?

If he just means "for him," then all it says is he doesn't know God...which we knew already.

If he says, "for everyone," then everyone has the right to question him as to how he gets so dogmatic as to what others are allowed to know.

Either way, he's in trouble.

[RCSaunders]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There is no god ever believed in

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

What's the claim? It's just a phrase with nothing asserted about it. If you hadn't taken it out of it's context, so you could tell your lie, it would have been obvious:

There is no god ever believed in, when those that believe in it actually describe or define their god, that is not as absurdly impossible as any god in history or any other impossible superstition popularly embraced.

I can rephrase it so even a simple minded Christian manipulator can understand it:

Every god ever believed in, when those that believe in them actually describe or define their gods, that is not as absurdly impossible as any god in history or any other impossible superstition popularly embraced.

It doesn't say or mean there is no god.

Do you believe in Zeus, Allah, Thor, or Wooden? Are you an a-Zeusian, a-Thorian, an a-Allahian, or an a-Woodenian? Absurd? It is, just like your insistence that anyone who doesn't believe in your god is an atheist. It's just a hateful manipulative epithet.

Nobody, least of all I, really cares if you want to call anyone who doesn't believe what you believe some name, like, "atheist," then define it in a way that does not describe what others believe at all. It's spiteful name calling, especially when you pick out the names of a few well known crackpots who call themselves, "atheists," like Harris or Dawkins and attempt to paint everyone who does not swallow your lies with the same brush.

If everyone who doesn't agree with you is an atheist, then everyone who agrees with you is a religious hustler and con man, like Aimee Semple McPherson, Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swaggart, Paul Crouch, Ted Haggard, Oral Roberts, Billy James Hargis, who use their lying religion to manipulate others for personal gain. All Christians use threats of suffering and promises of unearned blessing to make others believe and do what they want for their own personal gain and aggrandizement. Every Christian is a positive hustler.

I've seen the very wimpy "I just don't happen to believe" defense.

Really. Where did you see that. People who don't believe in astrology, messages from the dead, fairies, or supernatural beings and happen to mention it are defending themselves? Against what, exactly?

Perhaps you mean defending themselves against the hateful attacks of Christians on anyone who does not believe or live they way Christians want them to, wishing to see them suffer (in their perverted idea of justice) accusing them of evil because they refuse to buckle under Christian threats and lies. It's what you expect, but it's not that at all, because other's do not take Christians or their empty threats and promises seriously.

The problem with it is manifold, but one chief problem is that if it were true, it would entail that rocks, trees and dogs were "Atheists."

By your definition of atheist, that's exactly right. You call anyone not gullible enough to swallow Christian lies an atheist. Since rocks, trees, and dogs are all immune to your prevarications, you'd have to call them atheists which is as absurd as any others you call atheists.

A second problem is that even if we accept it, we have to ask, "Do you mean you personally don't happen to believe, or do you mean you don't think other people should believe?

There's the deceit. Turn everything into some kind of, "personality," thing. What I, or anyone else, "personally," believes is irrelevant. We're talking about slandering people who don't happen to believe what you believe with the pejorative insult, "atheist," as though it were some kind of sin or disease. There is no interest in what anyone else believes or does and no thought or intention of changing anyone else's mind. That thought is just projecting you own view and intention of converting everyone to your views. You just cannot imagine others are not infected with your evangelistic zeal.

And for the Atheist, there is no answer. He has no such grounds.

So either he can't recommend his skepticism at all, or he is is demanding something from others on no evidence. Which form of Atheism do you wish to back?

I don't, "back," any ideology or view of any kind. I have no interest in convincing anyone else what to believe or not believe, or how to live their lives. It would be wrong for me to do so, just as it is wrong for you to do so. But that's your gig. You are the one who has an ideology to promote and a program to put over and choose to call anyone who does not buy into and support your views an atheist, so you won't mind that others call those who support your views CCM, Christian Con Men, which in fact, is exactly what they all really are.

[Advocate]

[quote=RCSaunders post_id=565531 time=1648130004 user_id=16196]

<a metric fuckton, plus;>

I don't, "back," any ideology or view of any kind. I have no interest in convincing anyone else what to believe or not believe, or how to live their lives. It would be wrong for me to do so, just as it is wrong for you to do so. But that's your gig. You are the one who has an ideology to promote and a program to put over and choose to call anyone who does not buy into and support your views an atheist, so you won't mind that others call those who support your views CCM, Christian Con Men, which in fact, is exactly what they all really are.
[/quote]

You wasted a lot of energy trying to convince someone who either isn't capable or doesn't care to follow reason. Faith is unreasoned belief, and he just really really wants to believe atheists are irrational. Because he's actually wrong, rhetorical tricks and linguistic manipulation are all the tools he's got to work with.

You're wrong on one critical epistemological point. When someone is actually right they have no choice but to try to make others believe them. Truth only loses in compromise. The rules are all different when you're actually right.

If you're sure you're right about something, and you're sure your epistemology is sufficient to justify that claim, your responsibility to the world, if anything at all, is to insist on the truth for the Reasons you know it to be true. You're doing no one any favors by letting them believe in bullshit.

There is nothing available through unreasoned or badly reasoned belief that's isn't better available in a manner compatible with truth. Everything that rose us and maintains us above the primordial ooze is relative to how well we've valued truth - direct correlation.

[RCSaunders]

You're wrong on one critical epistemological point. When someone is actually right they have no choice but to try to make others believe them. Truth only loses in compromise. The rules are all different when you're actually right.

The only purpose of knowledge is to make it possible for the individual who has it to make right choices in living their own life. No one is born with some obligation to anyone else, except to not interfere in anyone else's life uninvited.

Truth and knowledge are not some kind collectivist social/political thing. Those who believe the world just cannot get along without their educating or informing everyone else are the cause of almost all the social horrors in history. The first principle of social relations is, "mind your own business." Everything else is meddling and intrusion.

If you're sure you're right about something, and you're sure your epistemology is sufficient to justify that claim, your responsibility to the world ...

No one is born with any responsibility beyond their responsibility for their own thinking, choices, actions, and life. The socialist altruistic nonsense that someone is born with unearned and undeserved obligations makes the purpose of an individual's own life something outside himself, making it possible for those who choose to oppress him able to justify any oppression as for the sake of society, or mankind, or the world.

[jayjacobus]

You're wrong on one critical epistemological point. When someone is actually right they have no choice but to try to make others believe them. Truth only loses in compromise. The rules are all different when you're actually right.

The only purpose of knowledge is to make it possible for the individual who has it to make right choices in living their own life. No one is born with some obligation to anyone else, except to not interfere in anyone else's life uninvited.

Truth and knowledge are not some kind collectivist social/political thing. Those who believe the world just cannot get along without their educating or informing everyone else are the cause of almost all the social horrors in history. The first principle of social relations is, "mind your own business." Everything else is meddling and intrusion.

If you're sure you're right about something, and you're sure your epistemology is sufficient to justify that claim, your responsibility to the world ...

No one is born with any responsibility beyond their responsibility for their own thinking, choices, actions, and life. The socialist altruistic nonsense that someone is born with unearned and undeserved obligations makes the purpose of an individual's own life something outside himself, making it possible for those who choose to oppress him able to justify any oppression as for the sake of society, or mankind, or the world.

Atheists are spellbound to religious beliefs but they have no knowledge about the mysteries in life. Yet they make it their business to meddle in religion's business.

[Nick_A]

Popeye

The above again is mysticism, it sometimes has in common with religion the lack of evidence to accompany its claims--kind of free-flight of the imagination. This can be productive if one comes down to earth occasionally for an orientation of where one has been and where one is going

I have a chess player's mind attracted to the big picture rather than becoming caught up in details. Where some are caught up in fighting over the trees, I prefer to contemplate the logic of the forest.

I contemplate God, not as a personal God but as the ineffable ONE described by Plotinus which emanates the universe as a necessity through the logic of vibrations and the relative densities of matter creating levels of reality. Can it be proven logical? Here are two conceptions of mysticism:

1. belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
"St. Theresa's writings were part of the tradition of Christian mysticism"

2. belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies.
"there is a hint of New Age mysticism in the show's title"

We are writing of two different concepts. You seem to suggest that mysticism is escapism into altered states of consciousness. I am suggesting that beginning with the ONE and verifying its logical involution into everything is possible through sound deductive (top down) rather than inductive reason (bottom up) normally used by science.

Since the ONE is not bounded by space and time and we are, it is impossible to contemplate it, but can a person contemplate the inner direction which leads to it in their need for "meaning" or is this just escapism? Are they drawn to the inner light much like a moth is drawn to the external light?

[Immanuel Can]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There is no god ever believed in

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

What's the claim?

You can read it for yourself: your words are "There is no god...that is not absurdly impossible... etc." We could also add that belief in God is an "impossible superstition."

Now, everybody has the right to ask you how you get to be so dogmatic about what they can or cannot know.

And you don't actually know any of that at all.

It doesn't say or mean there is no god.

The fault is in your wording, not in anybody's reading.

Do you believe in Zeus, Allah, Thor, or Wooden?

"Woden," you mean?

No: I believe in the real God.

...your insistence that anyone who doesn't believe in your god is an atheist.

Show me where I ever said that. I promise you, I never did.

I know full well that some people are merely agnostic, and not Atheist at all. And I know that many people who are even monotheists believe in false gods, like those you name. They, too. are not Atheists.

So you're just mistaken. And you won't ever find I said what you say I said.

...you pick out the names of a few well known crackpots who call themselves, "atheists," like Harris or Dawkins

I didn't "pick them out" at all: they put down in publications, or stood on platforms, or loaded up their videos on YouTube declaring, "God is a delusion." They picked themselves out. I just point to them doing it.

I've seen the very wimpy "I just don't happen to believe" defense.

Really. Where did you see that.

On the PN forum, actually. As soon as I started talking to Atheists. And now, it's here too. So you can see that wimpy defense getting recycled all the time.

...defending themselves against the hateful attacks of Christians

I have yet to run into any Christian who did that here. You'll have to point me to the post. But I can point you to dozens of venomous messages by the other side, including your own last screed.

The problem with it is manifold, but one chief problem is that if it were true, it would entail that rocks, trees and dogs were "Atheists."

By your definition of atheist, that's exactly right.

Well, not my definition -- it's by way of their own very vulnerable "I just don't believe" defense.

We're talking about slandering people who don't happen to believe what you believe with the pejorative insult, "atheist,"

Show me where I did that. I've never in my life said "all people who dont happen to believe what I believe are Atheists," or anything like it. But I have said that all people who don't know God are under His judgment -- and that's just telling the truth so people can escape from the danger they're putting themselves in.

I have no interest in convincing anyone else what to believe or not believe, or how to live their lives. It would be wrong for me to do so

Objectively "wrong," or just "wrong in RC's mind"? Which do you mean when you say "wrong" here?

For example, are you not trying to say it's "wrong for me, IC, to do?" But if you're saying that, you're invoking objective morality...and you don't believe in that stuff. Moreover, you're not just telling me what I can believe, but even what I can rightfully say.

So to float your criticism, you have to admit you believe in objective morality...or else it's not "wrong" for me to do at all!

What a very interesting paradox.

[Nick_A]

Advocate

You wasted a lot of energy trying to convince someone who either isn't capable or doesn't care to follow reason. Faith is unreasoned belief, and he just really really wants to believe atheists are irrational. Because he's actually wrong, rhetorical tricks and linguistic manipulation are all the tools he's got to work with.

Faith IN something or someone like faith IN Christ is unreasoned belief. However the Faith OF Christ is a quality Man has in potential. It is the quality which makes it possible for a person to psychologically connect levels of reality (above and below) A person can then experience the mechanical hypocrisy of animal Man from the higher perspective of conscious Man and grow towards a conscious perspective with the whole of oneself

[RCSaunders]

Not believing (or even considering) something, like not believing in astrology or the transmigration of souls or the Phoenix being a rare bird in Arizona, in the demented mind of a Christian becomes, "a positive knowledge claim."

No, it becomes a positive knowledge claim because of what "Atheism" literally means, and because of what self-declared Atheists like Harris and Dawkins say they believe. They want to "recommend" their disbelief to others...they want to say that God is a "delusion." Those require a positive position on the non-existence of God.

There it is! That's a positive knowledge claim, made by you, right here.

What's the claim?

You can read it for yourself: your words are "There is no god...that is not absurdly impossible... etc."

The consummate Christian con-man, faking innocent ignorance. Though already explained in a way any 12-year-old would understand, the Christian hustler can't understand (he pretends) that the phrase, "There is no god ever believed in," does not say or imply there is no god and only introduces a negative assertion about any god ever believed in. It might have been, "There is no god ever believed in that is not reasonably believable," or, "There is no god ever believed in that does not have some truth about it." But a Christian con man will always rip a statement out of its context to put over a lie about other's meanings and intentions. They are so slick and so used those slimy tactics, they cannot even be honest when it is in their own interest.

We could also add that belief in God is an "impossible superstition."

Why not. One more lie can't hurt.

I never said, "God is an impossible superstition." I actually seperated gods from impossible superstitions, and even provided examples of the gods in history even a Christian would agree do not exist like Zeus, Allah, Thor, or Wooden. Just so everyone can see how you lie by taking things out of context, this is the original:

Every god ever believed in, when those that believe in them actually describe or define their gods, is as absurdly impossible as any god in history or any other impossible superstition popularly embraced.

It doesn't say or mean there is no god.

Do you believe in Zeus, Allah, Thor, or Wooden? Are you an a-Zeusian, a-Thorian, an a-Allahian, or an a-Woodenian? Absurd? It is, just like your insistence that anyone who doesn't believe in your god is an atheist. It's just a hateful manipulative epithet.

Now, everybody has the right to ask you how you get to be so dogmatic about what they can or cannot know.

I'm not sure anyone has a, "right," to do anything, but I certainly don't mind any question, even an absurd one that intentionally amounts to an accusation, like, "when did you stop beating your wife," or, "how do you get to be so dogmatic." without a hint of what it is I'm supposedly dogmatic about unless it is my insistence I have no ideology, no program, no view of my own to defend or promote and have no interest in changing anyone else's views. Believe, or (which is much more likely) pretend to believe in any god you like. Promote your religious scam and attempt to deceive everyone, scaring them with hell and promising instant unearned virtue and paradise, teaching men they can get away with anything if they embrace your religion and, "confess their sins." It's an open market and it's full of suckers just waiting to taken in by the great Christian scam.

How did you get to be so dogmatic? [The question is rhetorical. I'm nt interested in any more of your hustle.]

[Nick_A]

There is something about the word "God" which inspires so much negativity. This probably because it has objective value which will always inspire negativity. I've learned to use the word "meaning" in place of God. Meaning doesn't inspire negativity. Yet People pursue the depth of religion because of their need for meaning not provided by the world.

Some find meaning in their pursuit of money, sex, and fame along with other worldly goals. These goals are their God. Some outgrow them and feel empty inside. They need something which doesn't come from the world. They are searching for the inner vertical direction which leads to our source.

Some hate the word God but need meaning. What is the difference? What does an atheist need or does the atheist find sufficient meaning in societal goals? Can the atheist find answers to the questions of the heart like: who am I and why am I here?

Nietzsche said God is dead. How do we replace it? Will Communism as the ultimate goal of the Great Beast and it goal of utopia on earth fill the bill? Of course it can't but who understands why and why we cannot understand the meaning of respect for life.

[Immanuel Can]

...the phrase, "There is no god ever believed in," does not say or imply there is no god...

That makes zero sense.

So what you're saying is it allows that perhaps there IS a God, one that really exists, but nobody believes in this God that actually exists?
Well, if such a God existed, by your own definition, you would not be one of the people who "believes in Him" either, so nobody does, and we can't talk about such a possibility, because nobody believes it exists.

We could also add that belief in God is an "impossible superstition."

Why not. One more lie can't hurt.

It's your mistake. I'm quoting you verbatim.

I never said, "God is an impossible superstition." I actually seperated gods from impossible superstitions,

Perfect. Then tell me about this "god" of yours who is not an "impossible superstition."

Wooden

Woden. Or Odin. Take your pick.

Now, everybody has the right to ask you how you get to be so dogmatic about what they can or cannot know.

I'm not sure anyone has a, "right," to do anything, but I certainly don't mind any question... Believe, or...pretend to believe in any god you like.

I'll believe in the true one, thanks.

You should too: but you've told us that it's (presumably objectively) "wrong" for me to warn you that the choice not to know God leads to a destiny of getting exactly what you're asking for...no relationship with God. I simply recommend against that, in your interest.

Resent it or not, it will turn out to be true. And deep down, I'm pretty sure you even know it will.