Er ... Um ... You Know .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click for God of Ghosts Why would it not be? No, seriously: It's about as rational a basis for lacking belief as you're going to get. Honestly, if there are questions of life and death afoot, whose fantasy should take precedent over all other fantasies in order to supplant reality? Honestly, let's just go with one easy, can o'corn, obvious example: If I'm going to withhold medical treatment from my child because "God says so", yeah, I ought to be able to prove a thing or two. So, no, I don't believe that God says no chemotherapy I do get the Kingdom Hall thing about blood transfusions, though, and it's pretty stupid because it pretty much requires that God is an asshole so, no, why should we believe that God loves us? See, it all gets really fucked up. As near as I can tell, belief in God is only useful for anything other than emotional comfort when it has exactly no effect on our lives at all. Religion, generally speaking, is a waste of God's time.
Fair enough. But assumptions like those tend to be the staple diet within atheist response. Just saying. Jan.
Right, a ''person of faith'' can be a deist, theist, spiritualist, Buddhist, etc. I try to cast a wide net when using that phrase. You mentioned that 'a-theist'' means ''without God.'' It really doesn't mean that though, Jan. An atheist simply doesn't have a belief in the existence of God. (any god) It's important to talk about this I think, because there is an implication that a theist is ''with God'' and an atheist is ''without God,'' as if God picks and chooses who to ''be with.'' You might not have meant this at all, but it just reads that way, is what I'm saying. Unless you meant that an atheist lives his/her life ''without God'' because of his/her disbelief. Then, that would make sense. Sorry, maybe this is just semantics but it caught my eye. lol
Why do you have to acknowledge God's existence to be "with God"? Can't you be with God without knowing it? Why does he care? You mean he won't cure my fatal disease unless he knows I know he's doing it? If true that makes him kind of a petty tyrant. We often have to make decisions based on incomplete information, and different people make different decisions based on that information. I think that's what you mean by subjective knowledge. Of course, that's a vital aspect of existence, but rational people acknowledge that sometimes their knowledge is sparse, and so their judgement is sometimes a best guess. This type of humility is often lacking in those who think they have absolutely knowledge.
The belief part is for the person of faith, not for God. God's existence (in my view) isn't dependent on my belief, but my belief in God fosters a relationship with Him. Not to water it down, but if you're in a relationship with someone, and that person ignores you, the relationship will not be as good as it could be, if that person took an interest in you. Unless you're into that kind of thing lol
You seem to be under the impression that people who believe that a god may exist, are claiming absolute knowledge. No one is claiming that, but I remember these conversations with you a few years ago, lol and your desire to put things in believers' mouths that they never said, hasn't changed. I'm not here to spar or convince anyone to change their views, just sharing and discussing. I can only speak for my own beliefs, and why I may believe. If you are offended by someone's desire to believe in a god, that is on you. Not that person.
That's what faith is. That's what it is when Spellbound says he's 100% certain that god exists. That's Jan saying God is seated in everyone's heart. I'm not offended, most of my friends are theists too.
I've always thought faith indicates a strong belief in God, but doesn't mean absolute certainty. Although, any person of faith could feel certain that their beliefs are the right ones, but that is still just a belief. I haven't been following this thread consistently, are any theists trying to convince others of why they should believe in God's existence, too?
True. But once again, 'prove' is a very strong word, suggesting logical certainty. Proving something with logical certainty typically isn't even possible in science. What we do instead is produce credible evidence and plausible arguments for the truth of our propositions about objective reality. Our evidence and argument don't make our conclusions totally certain, but they do seem to increase their likelihood of being true. It's like the subject and object in a sentence. Or a speaker and what he/she is talking about. With subjectivity, a person is talking about themselves. "Fish tastes good" basically means 'I like the taste of fish'. The speaker is talking about his/her own tastes. Fish tasting good needn't be true for everybody, maybe the next person hates the taste of fish. With objectivity, a person is talking about something other than themselves. "Fish have fins" is about the anatomy of those streamlined hydrodynamic animals. Objective facts exist in the world that we all share in common and the anatomical assertion that 'fish have fins' would presumably be true or false for everyone, regardless of their subjectivities or how they feel about the matter. Applied to God, if I assert the proposition 'God exists', is that proposition about God or is it about me? Am I really saying 'I believe in God' or 'The idea of 'God' plays a very important role in my personal psychology', or am I claiming that something corresponding to the word 'God' really exists in the reality we all share and isn't dependent in any way on me? I think that most theists would opt for the latter (objective) interpretation. It's certainly implied in their traditions' creation stories, where the entire universe including ourselves is portrayed as being dependent on God, not the other way around. It's implied in their ethics, where one must surrender to God's sovereign will, not just go with what feels good to us. So the questions of how God is objectively known and whether our beliefs about God are true or merely delusions ('unicorns') are important. That's especially true as previously distinct traditions come into contact in our increasingly globalized world, and as atheism, agnosticism and eclectic individual spirituality become more common.
lol I'd agree with that video, but not all who believe in a god follow any sort of religion. Religion takes what should be a private thing and makes it public. For sometimes nefarious reasons, sadly.
From the theist perspective, if they considered everyone to be "with God" then it is irrelevant what the other person thinks about their own position, because the theist position in such a matter is with regard to how they themselves see the world and is with regard their own view of Gods relationship with everyone else, and nothing to do with how the atheist views their own position. Thus irrelevant. Yes, I mean wegs, but the iPad autocorrect is often too keen and I fail to spot in time. I am using the example where wegs explicitly states the theist / "person of faith" perspective. As for equating "person of faith" with theist, maybe I was too hasty in that, but I think the point otherwise stands. The etymology is certainly from "without gods" but the modern meaning is different: "lack of belief in the existence of gods/God". It seems you have an issue with this but that is just semantics when you should surely be discussing the position the atheist holds, not what label they use and whether they use it, in your view, correctly or not. The "true definition" is the one in use at the time, not the archaic origin. If someone believes God to exist but doesn't "believe in God" due to wearing such shoes, that person is a theist for believing in the existence of God, but is someone who has turned away from the God they believe to exist. This situation is not covered by the modern meaning of the word "atheism". It's not a matter of plausibility but of cart and horses: why concern yourself with belief IN God if you can't first be comfortable with the notion that God even exists. Odd: you say something is "more plausible" and then ask me to tell you what it more plausible than? Do you not know? Yes, your tone is belligerent, defensive and with no actual discussion. How many people do you know argue against God because of the colour of the person's hair? Yes it is. You simply don't want to accept it. Yes, the original meaning was "without gods" and could be applied to those that still happened to believe that those gods existed. But meanings change. You are clinging onto an archaic meaning, creating an argument where none should be found. Yet per your definition those who are "without God" might happen to believe in the existence of God. And thus you would refer to them as atheist. Because you are sticking with the archaic meaning. The reason you give above is now the defining aspect of the atheist - it is the definition: they lack belief that God exists - this is the primary position - and as such they also lack belief in God / are without God, which is subsequent to their atheism, albeit directly linked. But someone who believes that God exists is a theist, even if they are subsequently also "without God" or do not believe in Him, rare that such people might be. I'm sure my dog thinks so, too. Simply put, because I don't believe you when you claim that there is nothing more that you can say that would give a better sense of why you believe. And through that you confirm to me that you really aren't here to discuss. Instead you seem you're here just to score points against those you see as being on the other side of the conflict.
Ok. So I've got a minute to spare. Why not argue definitions with Jan and shoot the breeze eh? You're mixing the subjective with the objective, perhaps. It seems fairly obvious that for a person who believes in God, God exists, and for one who does not, God does not exist. That's subjectivity. More often, though, we're interested in whether God objectively exists, independent of what any given individual believes about the question. I can't speak for your particular brand of theism. But as I understand the term, an atheist lacks a belief in the existence of God. That is, the atheist sees nothing that leads him to assent to the claim that God exists. This is not the same as holding that God does not exist, of course. Many atheists leave the door slightly ajar. It is always conceivable that God might exist after all. New evidence might come to light. Who knows? Atheism is a belief claim, not a knowledge claim. I don't particularly see why your concentration on the etymology of the words "theist" and "atheist" is important. They are, after all, just labels for particular belief systems, just like "cup" is a label for a particular kind of drinking vessel. And this is important because ...? There are lots of examples of the same kind. Consider, for example "periodic" and "aperiodic". One word describes something that repeats regularly; the other describes something that does not. It's just a Greek derivation of some English words. You shouldn't read into it more than is there. It's not like you'd argue that there is no word that translates as being with period, only a word for being without period, like that was some kind of deep distinction. And by the same argument we become theists whenever we choose to be, because theist means somebody who believes in God. You're assuming that all people choose their beliefs by some mechanism, I suppose. I'm not sure I'm parsing your example correctly. But the gist seems to be that because you believe that God exists, you think atheists must be wandering the world oblivious to God's wondrous presence in all things. Any atheist would argue, to the contrary, that you're wandering the world harbouring a delusion that you're in magical touch with a supernatural force that probably isn't real. You should not assume that all atheists are the same. The only thing that two atheists can be guaranteed to have in common is that they share their lack of belief in God. Some atheists spend quite a bit of time contemplating the question of God; others don't give it much consideration. I'd say that the more important question to most atheists is: what implications does it have for human beings to believe in a god or gods or God, or whatever you like, vs not believing in any of those? What follows from what people believe or do not believe, independent of the objective truth of the matter? For example, is religion a net force for good, or ill? The best definition of atheism would follow from what atheists say about themselves, would it not? You insist, after all, that the best definition of theism is the one you yourself hold to. I hope you can see that those are different. In case (1), one is without God because there is no God and so it is impossible for anybody to be with God. In case (2), one is without God because one has rejected a presumably-extant God. Of course, in case (1) it could be that one believes that the in-fact-extant God does not exist, and so one is only subjectively without God, which would put (1) closer to (2). It could also be that one only believes that an actually-non-existence God has crappy shoes, and so one would be rightly rejecting God but for the wrong reasons. Or something. Or the reason, they claim, is that God (probably) does not exist. A subtle but important difference.
