Responsibility of the Theist

Again, though, proving the existence of God as a way of belief should be a refuted stance regarded via understanding how a lone person would believe god. If for example I wanted to go about and state that I haven't a reason to assume Gods belief without asserting it then if I already believe in him it is my stance. Alone and isolated and conformist etc seems potential yes indeed it does-

the issue or problem would be only:

How does one assert prove it to oneself alone in a situation where he knows he believes? How does a natural man isolated or lonely find god to himself? That would be a highly responsible position to discuss with regard "religious responsibility" and is extremely existentialist position to take.

Part of the parcel of the position in the question of the thread is knowing or believing ho one would isolated in given position of lonelyness. If it can be proven there is a time or stance in which any individual existed without any real impact to harm himself or effect him negetively it is seeming possible to entirely be free from contstraint regard the phenomonological pespectives of today being optimistic here.

The responsibility would be to prove in a position of war or any other how precisely one would go about any perspective. I see that as the thread question itself.

To prove to oneself that he exists when alone.

To assert to oneself when alone how one goes about being responsibile to his nature.

That follows that the person would need to hold on to him in a position of safty or lonelyness wherein he couldn't believe without fear of him not existing- and this is a valid assersion with refrence to the nature of god- for god has a given nature and in many or most of the intepretaions which exist today of god

they do confine by a strict deterministic perspective.

One stating that the existence of god must confine with all and entirely the modality of the persons full existence. Not a break not a restriction to his nature. So the responsibility of gods existence is very great.

I could only assume myself that it would be sometimes or accasionally a problem of proving to oneself if one desired to devote himself to the existence in this manner. Quite the controversy apparently is raised here. Why would one not want to prove the existence of god in position x or y. Would it not appear reasonable to do so. Would it not be responsible to examine the physical requisits of this position first and if so why would it?


Intersting to me I can say to myself that the responsibility would be to prove or provide reason for faith in times of letting go if the person held positon x or why

my opinion

jessc

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, because people learn from experience that linked to atheism or communism in my country can get them jailed or killed :shrug:

I've never heard that it was actually a CIA inside job, but OMG, why am I not surprised?! Here is what I think... whether it was a PKI job or not, a CIA job or not, it's very difficult to investigate an event that took place almost a half century ago. Some people that experienced that event are still alive, but I think they are traumatized just like what happens to any holocausts observers anywhere. Nobody were ever held responsible, but whoever were responsible are probably 70-100 years old now (if they're still alive). What people can do is to look forward. After two or three generations, people will be completely replaced by new generations. And while the main culprit will probably never known, history is not to be forgotten, the event is still commemorated nationally every year, and will continue to do so, so people will learn not to repeat the same mistake.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am still skeptical about the premise of the OP. Neverfly has asserted that he has been confronted by missionary types in some significant numbers. Do others here really experience this? Do they actually approach you in the manner of the OP? Does it matter if the OP - which is presenting a specific situation and suggesting a specific kind of response to it - is not based in reality?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That would make me afraid of the jailers and killers, not the atheism or communism.

What mistake was that? To believe the propaganda of a military junta, and kill your neighbors on their urging?

Apparently what is being commemorated nationally every year is significantly, if not entirely, fictional. That is a continuing problem, with continuing effects unlikely to be good for anyone involved.

Which brings us to the thread topic: are theists responsible for clearly acknowledging their theistic beliefs, accurately describing what they believe and on what basis?

 

Well if we are talking about faith in superstition I would agree (although I would also suggest that technology can also be approached in a similarly blind fashion).

As for technology being falsifiable, its falsifiable by the methods used to establish knowledge and expertise in the field. To suggest that something doesn't exist because the knowledge and expertise of technology cannot approach it is something else however. That suggests that all things that can possibly be knowable can be revealed by the methodologies that surround science/technology. And to press a sore point, this is the position of (blind) faith you are arguing from.

 

Technology is not falsifiable.

If you are talking about the theories generated within scientific disciplines, etc, then of course you are correct. Reason, logic, argument from evidence, and the necessity of agreement with intersubjectively verifiable evidence, are prominent among those methods, and you are indeed well advised to exclude such methods from the permissible, in the realm of theological discussion.

 

take it up with neverfly

 

I have had that or similar happen, but not very often. Perhaps about 20 different people in about 30 years. I am not counting repeated assertions by the same person, though.

The incidents, although relatively few, can be quite powerful.

Like I said, these incidents can be very powerful. Once a person is made sensitive to the issue, they can become more likely to see it in different contexts, even if these contexts do not directly involve them - such as feeling personally addressed when two characters in a film are having a conversation about the existence of God, or when this happens in a book, if there is a news report on some religious topic etc.


It seems the "theistic issue" starts out as one person's word against the other's, and then a person begins to abstractly brood on theistic arguments and counterarguments, and even directly seeks to discuss these things (such as posting at a forum). Which seems to be the point when it can all start to feel overwhelming and scary. It is as if the "theistic issue" begins to have a life of its own in one's mind, and won't let go.

 

*Crickets chirping*

Still waiting on you to explain the meaning of said havoc and/or produce it on demand as you implied you could. No answer then to my charges that your beliefs were taught to you by fallible people, that you should stop preaching to others like you're some kind of prophet? Your silence is deafening.

 

The most common cause of 'tinnitus' is 'noise' induced 'hearing' loss.

 

It's funny but the only people, other than Jehovah's Witnesses, who have approached me were Jews for Jesus. Once I told them I was not Jewish, it was as if I had become invisible.

Sure. But frankly I am more sympathetic to someone dealing with the OP scenario who has some interest, even if it is not the specific religion being sold at the time. With a completely disinterested party, it seems like simply walking away or saying not interested should be quite effective.

The dialogue struck me as unreal, and since it was suggesting a good response, this made it seem silly to me.

Of course if someone is rude, being rude back can be fair game. It just seems to me that if you are not remotely interested, there really is no need to raise things to an aggressive level, unless it is already there.

Sure.

If this is the case with the writer of the OP, then I think it would have been important to have included it.

If someone who cares about the issues and who has unresolved feelings and thoughts about them, engages with someone who pulls some conversational BS on them in a discussion related to these ideas, then I feel like rudeness and a social repulsion of that person is more appropriate. In such a situation one person was open and the other was predatory. And it was an intimate interaction, at least for the person who was open.

I hate being approached by people selling things on the street. They are often quite aggressive. But if they accept a blurted 'I'm not interested', I see no reason to get rude with them. If they don't, I may get surly. These people even call me at home!

In a sense I am saying that if you had written the OP, my reaction would have been rather different.

 

I agree. I think such exchanges rarely just happen. But they do happen, easily, if one goes out looking for them.



EDIT:
I just thought of a kind of incidents when a person is indeed directly confronted with "Your God is wrong".
For example, I know a Hare Krishna devotee who sometimes chants and plays in the street. He writes a blog about those street session. He sometimes mentions how a Catholic nun approaches him and gives him a pamphlet for the Catholic church, or that some people stare at him sternly, making the Catholic gesture of a cross over him or themselves. This is the nonverbal way of saying "Your God is wrong".

Yes, but at the same time, that would require that the poster admit their own vulnerability, uncertainty, fears etc. Which I suspect would be far more than they are willing to do. It is that proverbial "can of worms" or "the hornets' nest". And attempts to resolve a problem without actually naming what it is.

I think people who are into religion/spirituality are often predatory like that.

Sometimes, I think I would have to have the attitudes and skills of a Jason Bourne to make it through that predation.

As I am sure would be many other people's as well.

 

But then the context is very different and the ending is strange or the result of a desire to just dump on people.

Though, again, the context is radically different. Here we have someone making a proclamation - the chanting. The OP makes it seem like he is approached by 'cold callers', so to speak.

Oddly enough, I hadn't considered that. I actually thought it was someone making up a situation to justify an online outburst. To set up a way to describe, if not to actually have, a catharsis. But you may in fact be right. In fact I think this makes more sense.

I agree. I think seekers are vulnerable. Also people seeking to extricate themselves from a religion - whether or not they intend to find something else spiritual or not.

I enjoyed those movies, especially the second. In fact it is not at all simply an analogy. He is looking for his maker and he feels a great deal of guilt. He is trying to be/become a good man at the same time. I actually found the second film moving -which I hadn't expected. I wondered if there was a real connection between the character and Matt Damon - who has always struck me - or fooled me into thinking - as having a tight lid on himself in ways that, less dramatically, mirror Bourne.

The series also has a reincarnation aspect. He is 'killed', reawakens, and find he has all these skills that relate to a 'former life'. He tries to remember this former life to improve his current one.

And then, yes, I agree. I think one needs to be very skilled to ward these people off. Unlike physical fighting, I think if you learn how to ward off a specific attack, you don't need to later. The hook inside you is gone. But it can take many fights to get all the nuaces and depth of that internal hook out of the system. After that you can just ignore the attack, it elicits no pain, doubt, etc. But a physical fighter still must block the punch, as it were, even if it is easy.

 

I have been approached by such "cold callers". Like once when I was waiting at the bus station, heavy grocery bags in my hands. An old lady approached me and started preaching to me about Jesus and the Heavenly Father. As I soon discovered, the woman was almost completely deaf, and despite her hearing aid, I had to shout to get her to hear me. And she wouldn't stop talking. She was asking me questions, but either didn't wait for or didn't hear my replies.
That was extremely frustrating. And rather characteristic of communications with Christians in general.

I may tell a young Mormon to go away, but what does one do with an old lady?

I remember that Superluminal has a history with "theistic issues", so this thread came as no surprise.
History or not, I think all such online outbursts are motivated the same way.

He is like that in all his films I have seen - also in Good Will Hunting, The talented Mr. Ripley, Courage under fire, even in the Ocean's series.

Many fights, yes, unfortunately.

 

The same thing one would do with an alcoholic talking about....whatever. The symbolism of this encounter is perfect by the way. Though I am sure it was unpleasant.

yes, that's true. I have seen most of those. Generally I don't find him compelling, though he is competent.

 

It depends on the particulars of their beliefs. Some theists see their way as the only right way, and that there is a dire punishment for those that stray from it. Their attempts to spread what they see as "The Word" is in an effort to be truthful and helpful to as many people as possible.

However, not all theists are like that. I don't believe that my religion is the only right one. I may believe that polytheism is objectively true; but, on the other side of the coin, I don't think the gods punish people because they don't believe in them. I don't believe in any negative consequences to nonbelief in the gods. So there is no imperative to spread Wicca by the word or sword; it's there for people that want to join it, so the basic info is made public, but that's about it.

 

I say I disagree. As a theist, my only responsibility is to myself. I don't believe I have to teach anyone anything other than to be kind to themselves and otheres. I feel no need to "prove" my beliefs to anyone else as I don't need anyone else to prove theirs to me. I have my personal beliefs. Others have theirs. Some will mix and some will be completely different. But no one has the right to tell others that they are wrong for what they believe because when it comes down it it, NONE OF US will know until we're dead... and even then we may never know.

I believe in a higher power but I also am open to the possibility of beliefs being wrong. I might be right, I might not. It's the risk of having faith. If I'm wrong and there is no God, then hey, no big deal. If I'm right, then hey, look at that, I took a gamble based on personal experience and it turned out to be true. But again, no big deal either way.

I'm past the point of agnosticism and do consider myself a believer in a higher power. What exactly that higher power is, I don't know or really care. Why? Because it cannot be proven. I don't worship a god though I do believe in him/her/it/whatever.

My opinion is that people on Earth spend way too much time trying to fight a losing battle. "My god is the right one". Sorry, I call BS. You don't know that, neither do I. So don't go making unsubstantiated claims. Life, to me, is about making the best of worlds for ourselves and others. Fundamentalist religious doctrine/teachings only separate people and create conflict. People can't think for themselves so they go to the extremes. "I have to be a "pure"/"true" Christian/Muslim/Jew/whatever" And so they follow their books like a fly on sh*t. Instead, I follow me. I don't care what one book or another says. I don't care what one preacher or another preaches. My beliefs are purely, IMO, formed on my own life and personal experience.

Ok, I'll stop ranting.

 

You have some interesting thoughts IMO. I used to be a theist, now I'm agnostic. If you would care so much as to spell out why you believe on the following thread i'd appreciate it, not that you need to, and not that you care what I appreciate.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101965

 

i wouldn't say i know abraham lincoln, though i've studied american history. when you say you know someone, it's because you have experienced them. and i know god because i have experienced god.

if you have faith in someone, what does that mean? it means you trust them to do this or that, because you know them. i have faith in god.

i don't understand why you are looking to some people to "prove their god to you", when don't you think that, if god is actually god, then god could handle proving himself (itself) to you just fine on his (it's) own without any help from us at all?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lori -

Do you know what solipsism is?