I desire things (wish for them), but I don't direct that desire at a supernatural entity. Circumstances or my own actions may deliver it, but I don't think there is some entity choosing to deliver it based on whether I'm worthy of it, or to play some kind of sick game with my life like Job.
It's evidence. There's compelling evidence and there's sketchy evidence. Aliens on the Whitehouse lawn would become more compelling as days passed, more people are first-hand witnesses, and video fakery is ruled out. There must be a threshold, even if it requires the skeptic to go to the Whitehouse and touch the critters.
Being "with God" is theology. Believing God exists is theism. Believing God exists but I'm without God is still theism (example: Satanists).
The interpretation of evidence as compelling is subjective. The evidence is strong in that it is difficult to refute. One person sees a sighting as sufficiently compelling to treat it as real. Another suspects video fakery and requires first-hand sampling to consider it compelling.
I can't speak for all atheists, just for myself. (I might be rather atypical as far as atheists go.) "1. God bless you." - This one goes back to ancient times, when the gods were imagined as ensuring good fortune. The early medieval Christians thought the same way about their god. So I'd take it as the speaker wishing good fortune on me with a centuries old traditional formula, and I'd take it as a sign of his/her good feelings towards me. My reply would probably be a smile and "thank you" and I'd be happy. In fact, I might even respond with "You too" or something like that, as an expression of my benevolent feelings towards the other person. "2. I pray for your..." - This one depends on context. If I had suffered a misfortune, such as a sick child, this one might be like #1. As Spidergoat says, it might amount to "I'm wishing really hard for you". Again, I'd be pleased that they care. But occasionally there's a note of disapproval when evangelical Christians say this. They may have been trying to convert me to something and they start praying for me when they realize I have religious ideas of my own and I'm not just a hollow shell, waiting to be filled up with Christ. There's a hint that they think that I'm hopeless. The cycle starts with 'love-bombing', with strangers trying to get really personal with me about my deepest and most private feelings and fears, and ends with them trying to keep their children away from me. "I pray for your..." often seems to mark the break. It's like "You're dismissed." I interpret it as hostile and condescending and usually distance myself from people like this. "3. Wish you a happy..." - I take this one as an expression of good feelings towards me, even if the speaker is referring to a specifically religious holiday or something. I acknowledge that it matters to them. "Merry Christmas" or "Have a happy Easter" are like that. I wouldn't be offended in any way if somebody said that. Bottom line: I think that people have too many chips on their shoulders in this day and age. I try not to be that way myself. If somebody is trying to project positive feelings towards me in their own idiom, so to speak, I'm happy. It's the feeling that counts.
1: Common saying. I take it with a thanks. 2: Depends. Personally, I wonder why anyone who believes god has a plan prays in the first place. I mean, he has his plan, why are you asking him to modify it. But I keep my thoughts to myself. If they are praying for my soul, I usually see it as condescending passive aggressive assholiness. I'll probably avoid them from now on. 3: Happy Hanukah, Merry Christmas, Cool Kwanza, Rockin' Ramadan - all are wishing me good. I take it as such.
The 'empty rhetoric' thing is where the real issue lies. Were the words uttered as just kind of a conventional verbal formula, or did the person saying them really care? You can often tell if you know the person and the context. How does a Christian handle a non-Christian wishing them good fortune, knowing that the wish might implicitly invoke religious beliefs that they don't share?
Because from the theists' perspective, per wegs, they are. Whether the atheist knows, comprehends, believes or not. I'll leave you to discuss accuracy of the point with wegs, though. This is a thread in th religion forum. Apologies if I have made the erroneous assumption that we are discussing matters of religion. Further, when someone uses th expression "person of faith" it is, in my experience, exclusively with regard regions faith. You clearly don't as you are still debating this non-issue. If you are implying a cause and effect between the two then you have them back to front, as explained. And therefore I lack belief in God, yes. The definition of atheist could be whatever it is defined to be, and if that label fit my position I would wear it. I do not form my position around the label, as you seem to be implying. "Backed by"? There is simply the etymology from the Ancient Greek. Many words in usage today may be traced to ancient times but where the ancient roots have little bearing on modern definition. Take Thursday, for example. Yes, it is originally from "Thor" etc, but that has no bearing on modern usage, Yes, there is plenty wrong. It is not that I lack belief in the existence of God because I am without God, but rather I am without God because I lack belief in the existence of God. The lack of belief is the foundation, being without God a result. No, it is "theis" - uncapitalised and not meaning God but god. You are trying to hijack it to mean God. No. Credibility? It has nothing to do with credibility but everything to do with defining the position some people have. Those people all lack the belief in the existence of God. They are atheist because they lack that belief. Whether you agree or not (and clearly you don't) is ultimately irrelevant. Your position is one of affirming the consequent. You said "using existence as a reason" and here you're asking about using lack of evidence as a reason. So I repeat: there is no "using existence as a reason". Lack of evidence is oft cited as a reason. No. The real definition is whatever the definition is at the time. What you seem to be arguing is wholly with regard the original meaning. Under the original meaning yes, I would be an atheist because I am without god(s). People who believed in the existence of God but were unreligious would likely also be atheist under the original archaic meaning. But original does not mean real. The real definition today relates to belief in the existence of God. I know people get frustrated with your contradictory statements but... Seriously? "I didn't say you are using it as a reason..." "I have maintained all along that it is the reason why you are." And no, it could not be reasonably argued that I am using it as a reason unless, of course, you use fallacious logic in your arguments. To me that wouldn't be reasonable as you could arrive at any conclusion from any premises that way. You tell me as you're the one who is constantly complaining about it. if you don't think it a wrong question then why do you complain about it so bitterly? You tell me. You constantly say that it is, and yet here you are now saying that it is. I struggle with your contradictions, Jan. No, the emphasis is on belief. Issues of proof is up to each individual person to consider, atheist or otherwise, as they see fit. For curiosity, sure, but you can't then decide that you prefer the ancient meaning and try to assert it over the modern meaning. Yes, we all know where the word comes from. We all know that the group covered by the term atheist in ancient times would be different than the group covered by the modern meaning. So what? This does not mean that people who identify as modern atheists did so by a route described by the ancient meaning. Those who identify as atheists today simply lack belief in God's existence. They mostly do so due to lack of evidence. They are therefore without God - this is necessarily the result of the lack of belief, but it is not the cause. I don't follow what you are getting at here. Please can you elaborate? For as long as your style comes across that way, yes. Previously highlighted. Which part in particular and how so? Also, note again how you have simply said: "you're wrong".
Apologies, I should have said "prior to the time of the notion of a single god". iPad autocorrect tries to capitalise it, and I missed the occurrence.
This question actually reminds me of when my father asked me, as the family were celebrating Easter, why as an atheist I celebrated with them when it is such an overtly religious festival. I'm not sure he could understand at the time that we are still people and able to take out of celebrations things other than those elements we might disagree with, such as sharing time with family, friends etc. Plus who am I to pass up on free booze! So it is with these terms: we may not agree with the literal meanings but we are still capable of understanding and respecting the sentiment behind them,
I don't know what you mean by my ''brand of theism''. What is the point of focusing on Gods existence if you're a theist? When talking to atheists, of course the question of Gods existence will arise, becaue for the atheist, at that moment, God does not appear to exist. So we can't simply ignore it. And how does one arrive at that conclusion? Why wouldn't God probably be real? Because there is a lack of evidence (according to the atheist) that points to the existence of God.? What is that God, for which there is no evidence? Please tell me the answer. Why do I need to establish it. We are dealing with terms and definitions. Because I can't see God, it does not therefore follow that God does not exist. I think the truth of the matter is that you have not established that there is a God. That can only be said from the platform of being without God. Without God, one cannot find evidence of God. Every idea of evidence will yield the same result. This isn't God, nor is it evidence of God. Because being without God means you have no notion of God, or the notion you have is a concoction of what you think God should be. You can say, theists are deluded because they have no evidence of Gods existence. But what value is that coming from a person who is without God. You have to admit, that you have no idea of what God is, and any evidence of God that you come upon, you run the risk of not realizing it as evidence of God. God is already there. Didn't you hear. Theos = God Atheos = without God You or I came into this world with that already in place. I'm one one side, and you're on the other. I'm doing as much conjuring as you are, if any conjuring is being done. Going off the two positions, theist and atheist, we're both correct. God IS, and the atheist is without God. Do you think that could be possibily be the case, and we're simply acting out our positions? You're the one that is suggesting that God doesn't exist. This is an easy one for you because you can accept existence purely in the terms that the human senses can percieve it. I don't think that God exists in the way trees exist, according to how we percieve them. God exists more in the way that we percieve love to exist (unconditional love). So it does matter that God exists, or else we would be believing something exists, that doesn't actually exist. You may even feel that to be the case, but then as a person without God, it would be understandable. It's quite simple. If I believe in you, what is the point of believing in your existence. And it sounds incoherent to me that people believe in existence. I mean what is that? Why? No. The existence of complex information within nature is a perfectly good reason. jan.
Pardon me for jumping in on a post not directed at me. You posit a person who believes in God but not in the existence of God. How can that be? To have faith in someone, is it necessary to believe that the someone exists, in your opinion? And maybe you, Jan, do like the idea of there being a God, and that explains your belief in God. Is that right? Is this getting back to your usual pantheism schtick? That is, you assert that the entire universe is, in fact, God, and so the fact that the universe exists and we exists means that God must exist, by definition. But you seldom come right and say that you think God and the universe are one and the same. Why is that? It's because that notion robs God of his personhood and makes him just ... nature. Theism just becomes a belief that the natural universe exists. And if that's the case, there's no meaningful distinction between atheism and theism any more. I get it. People who believe in god without any evidence aren't believing in God for rational reasons, but for other reasons. Like emotional reasons, and indoctrination, and cognitive dissonance and not thinking too hard about the basics of what justifies a belief. You continue to posit a person who believes in God but who does not believe that God exists. You really need to explain how that works.
Of course. No. I'd need to see evidence. I've never seen France but I've seen evidence that France exists. I've never seen evidence that Narnia exists - or God. No. Subjectivity can be evidence-based but it is only personal evidence. What you see is subjective unless the other people around you see the same thing. The vast number of different descriptions of God are evidence that the God experience is subjective.
Jan: I mean your particular beliefs about God, as opposed to other theists' particular beliefs about God. Don't you care whether what you believe in exists or not? I understand that you may be scared to take a close look at the issue because it threatens to pull the rug out from under the whole edifice of your belief. But do you think you're being honest with yourself turning a blind eye to the question? Sorry. You've already said you're not interested in questions of evidence or lack of evidence, so any discussion with you concerning rational reasons to doubt God's existence is likely to be a waste of my time. Don't you read all those "scriptures" you constantly refer to as authorities on God? Don't they set out what God is for you? For the sake of argument, why don't we assume that God is what the scriptures describe? You shouldn't have too much complaint about that. Firstly, you are trying to tell atheists how they ought to define themselves, in contradiction to how they actually define themselves. And actually, you're off base on how the vast majority of theists define themselves, too. Secondly, you have repeatedly tried to import the debateable assumption that God exists into the discussion, so you have moved the discussion away from one that is merely about terms and definitions. One wonders, then, how anybody ever comes to believe in God. How does it work for children, for example? Or do you think that everybody magically starts off "with God", and then some people make a deliberate choice to turn away from God? Children start off with no notion of God, so according to you no child can ever come to be a theist. And yet, strangely enough, lots of them do. Except, of course, the ones who believe that God exists yet don't believe in God, which you tell us is a meaningful possibility. Can't I read your scriptures to get an idea of what God is? Or I am immune to those? How did that happen? I see the word "God" there, but no God. Where's the God? What? The word "God", or the God? It's fine to tell us all what you personally believe, but please realise that your proclamations do nothing to convince a skeptic. "IS" is a statement about existence, from the verb "to be". When you say "God IS", you're making a statement about God's existence. You are not correct unless you can establish that your statement is true. It's one thing to say "I believe that God IS", but when you make a blunt assertion that "God IS" you just sound arrogant - like other people should just accept your proclamation on the matter, without you having to make a case. What else could we do? Disingenuously pretend to beliefs we don't hold? Play devil's advocate? Perceiving love is a function of human perception not a lot different from perceiving trees, when it comes down to it. Also, disinterested observers can often see objective signs that love exists in other people. Love has visible effects on the world. And God? What does God do that is separate from nature? Anything? And again, here's your cue to argue that God is nature, but then that makes God a non-person. Also, God is traditionally supposed to be supernatural - above nature. Could you believe in me even if I didn't exist? Rather than get into another round of dueling definitions, how about some examples? Here's a short list of stuff: The Statue of Liberty. The Pleasure Gardens of Mars. The number 17. A fear of snakes. A giant sausage long enough to reach from Earth to the Moon. Now which one or more of these things, if any, is real? If none of them is real, then people are probably babbling incoherently when they talk about existence. If, on the other hand, one or more of them is real, then it might be reasonable to talk about existence after all. It could even be that we could invent rational criteria by which to judge whether or not something exists. Does that help you at all? It sounds like you're almost talking about evidence there, Jan. But you and I both know that we don't need evidence to show that God exists. Right?
Nothing has changed regarding God, since ancient times. God has suddenly become an issue of existence, thereby shedding the ''old'' view of God. So anything to do with God can not change, unless there is an attempt to do so. Why is the issue now related to existence, and lack of evidence of? God, Theos, hasn't changed, and neither as without God A-theos. How will you know God, should evidence come forward. Without changing also, the definition of God? Or are you going to maintain there are innumerable definitions of God? If I asked you What is God, what would your answer be, and what evidence would support the belief in the existence of this God? jan.
I'm not sure of your question. How does an atheist handle what? The fact that when you wish me a Merry Christmas that it is linked to God in your heart. As I mentioned it's not a problem. I don't care that you are religious. That is not a problem for me at all. I'm just not religious so it can be presumptuous for a theist to respond as if everyone else is in agreement. Most people (atheist and theist alike) get this. It's no different with politics. Most people don't greet everyone with "Hello fellow Democrat!" or "If you aren't feeling well I'm sure our trust in the Democratic Party will help get you through this". That's because we realize that not everyone is a Democrat or a Republican, we don't know their polities and therefore we don't presume to know these issues as they are personal. Keep your religion personal and there is no issue. You don't have to keep it personal just as people are free to speak about politics but you may end up less popular than you thought you were. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nonsense. It changes with every culture that conceives of a god or gods. Existence wasn't an issue as long as theists held cultural hegemony. That is what has changed, religion no longer holds exclusive political power, people can question it and survive.
Agree, and that's okay with me. I don't feel the need to ''prove'' my beliefs so they are ''accepted'' and affirmed by everyone.
