And I hold myself answered. You are, indeed, unreliable. That is to say, since the simple formulation confused you last time, your assessments of history, theology, and religion, as well as behavior, psychology, and anthropology, are unreliable. And that's just fine with me. Indeed, it helps me understand your posts. Thank you.
You aren't someone who sees it as "us and them" ... but this is how it is ... so you do see it as "us and them"? But heck, I see that your defences are erected, your trenches are dug, and you even went in with a preemptive barrage. Not if they go into those discussions with the attitude of not being able to. But if they go in with the genuine intent of at least exploring the differences, why those differences arise, etc, then while full understanding might not be achieved at least some grater understanding. I expect it only of those who wish to convince me of the truth of their position, for those who wish to argue that their position is objective. But when it is accepted by both sides that no one will, or is trying to, convince the other of what they see as the truth, one can start to at least trying to understand why they think as they do. And there you go with further barrages, expressing the superiority of your position. Can you not help yourself in this regard? All this is is "oh, we can't discuss with you as you can never have comprehension of it" without bothering to try. Do you not see how elitist and condescending this comes across? Again you wish to treat this like I am here for conversion, or to agree with your position. That is not what I am requesting but rather a civil exchange of ideas, of examination of positions, to better understand what makes people tick in this regard. So no, I don't need to unlearn anything. I can understand why some people might like a piece of art (if they take the time to explain to me) for example, but I don't need to agree with them or unlearn anything. I may learn something new, though, and change view slightly, and the other person might do likewise, but that is secondary to the main aim of simply understanding (or at least trying to) their position. But if you're not capable of lowering your defences, or of holding such a civil conversation, so be it. Thanks for your time.
Assuming you mean complete colourblindness, as in only seeing in grey-scale (this is a rare form of colourblindness)? I'd explain it as the inability to observe certain properties (or beyond certain levels) of the lightwaves emitted by objects. I'd show them the properties of the lightwaves of what we called, say, an orange, and then of something grey that the person thought was the same colour/shade etc. By comparison one could show them which properties the person was unable to interpret, or was effectively blind to. In terms of explaining what colour does, how it is used, it is really just a matter of additional identifier beyond the shape and brightness of the object. It can be shown to be useful to people by being able to identify specific objects that may have the same greyscale appearance to a colourblind person. If it had no practical use then it might be harder to understand. And within that additional identifier are the possibilities of subjective emotions when we see them. A colourblind person might well have experienced those emotions themselves, although caused by the grayscale that they observe. But until one discusses it with them, one will never know exactly what they are able to understand or not. Can they experience colour and truly know colour? No. Can they still learn something about colour? Yes.
Color blindness is a medical issue, usually it's the inability to distinguish certain colors from certain other colors. You can explain color to a color blind man. If nothing else you can show them a chart with the electromagnetic frequency range with the visible light range in the middle and microwaves on one side and radio waves on the other. The green part of the spectrum would peak around 555 nanometers. You could point out where the red part of the spectrum is and then the blue end. The same thing could be explained to a blind person but the concept of color might be harder to get across if that person had never been sighted.
Yes, no, and maybe. It's all a matter of definitions. For instance, if we go with a definition of God set, generally speaking, by the Bible, it depends on how we define the effects. If we attend a more functional, less anthropomorphized, less limited definition of the monotheistic godhead, sure, why not? In that case, physicists are already measuring the effect, and the mysterious name of God is a mathematical expression defining some linchpin of why this Universe and not some other. The shoebox deities are generally useless; the underlying proposition of the monotheistic godhead represents an abstraction we still cannot mathematically express. And who knows, if the human experience continues long enough, we might actually figure it out.
How do they know what evidence of God is What do they think God is? There lies the problem. I don't believe you. What do you mean by willing to consider? Yes. Growth is part of what grass is, no need to believe in grass. Show me any questions that I have evaded in this discussion. Jan.
Many atheists have been trying, but the theists won't take their blinders off. That's OK, many of us were once theists too. It's hard to abandon a long cherished viewpoint.
Jan Ardena: They read your scriptures, or talk to believers like yourself. The rationalist allows for a wide range of possible Gods. These might include, for example, an omniscient, omnipotent Creator of the Universe. It might also include the Gods described in the various scriptures, such as Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu etc. What problem? I can't tell what you're talking about unless you put a certain minimum effort into explaining yourself. Your one-liners in this response to my two previous posts come across to me as deliberate rudeness towards me on your part. I hope that is unintentional. willing: disposed or inclined towards to: a common preposition consider: perceive or think about in a particular way Have you suddenly lost your ability to speak and understand English? Are you feeling ok? This is your only comment on the difference between believing that and believing in? Well, you might start by answering the ones I asked in my most recent post prior to this one, which you appear to have completely ignored. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/on-faith.156832/page-26#post-3401135
There is no elitist or condescending approach on either side, at least thats how I take it. Point is objectivity Vs Faith. I do not know how I became a theist, but I am. I have a group of children, all are theist, and they do not know why, at least they are not in a position to think objectively the way you or me can do. So, the start of faith in God is not a decision for most theists. Continuity also is not, because it helps in finding some kind of strength to move on when you are in trouble, or may be there is no need to discontinue or think hard. The start of belief is kind of natural progression, the child sees his parents or elders pursuing this faith and involving him/her in the process. He picks up the thread and it progresses unquestioned. So if interested even after this prolonged thread, let me change the direction. What about kids of an atheist, are they atheist too? Why the kids of theist, in some cases, are atheists? Are they intellectually more calculative then the others or what ?
I didnt so much convert... but when i got old enuff to understand words i had no reason to believe that the Jesus people talked about was not real... so i just accepted that Jesus/God was real.!!! How about you... what caused you to believe that God was real.???
You asked if atheists could explain colour to a colourblind person, did you not...? Post '505? I replied by not only implying that I could, but by also explaining how I would go about it. What were you expecting when you asked the question?
Just out of curiosity, what was yours? There is a weird presupposition in balbutive religious advocacy that no atheist has any idea about religion, and while most days discussions like these would reinforce that suspicion, it is also true that many atheists were, once, trained up as theists. This point is already on the record somewhere in this thread, I think, but, you know, whatever; it's not like anyone has any obligation to actually pay attention or make sense. There's even this brilliant moment earlier in the thread in which an atheist reasonably and appropriately asks, "Can't I read your scriptures to get an idea of what God is? Or I am immune to those? How did that happen?" and all I can think is, Yeah, actually, that would probably be helpful. To the other, just how much criticism can I lay on those people? After all, the religious folks don't seem to have much of a clue, either. You can take a certain amount of comfort, though; the "atheists" driving you so batty will, when history looks back from some removed literary era, be considered just another religious group caught up in a relativistic bacchanal. In the end, these discussions, generally speaking, are just a bunch of religionists evangelizing at one another.
You seem to have a short term memory problem. (Something I would never expect from "The God".) I've already answered that question earlier in this thread. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/on-faith.156832/page-7#post-3399162
I confess the phrase "intellectually more calculative" is a bit hard to read but in any case there should not, as I understand it from atheists, be any substantial connection between thesim or atheism ot the one, and intellectual calculativeness to the other, though again, the attribute of being intellectually calculative is a bit vague.
Tiassa, Your multiple posts. You made a mess of it. In your early posts, your angry stand apart, you appeared to be a theist, but the messing started when your position as Mod became questionable while being the active contributor on this thread. 1. You questioned the intellectual ability of theists here. You sounded as if theists here are intellectually compromised and not able to defend the position cogently. Suggesting that you don't know that a theist is not required to give any defense or ground for his faith in God. You do not understand that a theist cannot support his faith objectively, and he is not liable to convince atheists about his faith. That's not his failure, thats how it is. You must be knowing that an illiterate tribal fellow may also be a theist, he is not required to answer why, he will appear a fool here in front of these so called educated objective atheists. 2. There is no difference between your supposition and DaveC's. By referring to shoelace deities and making them useless, you brought yourself in league with him, and lost the basis for taking him on so harshly. IMO both of you do not understand the manifestation of belief and faith. In Hindu mythology, there is a form or representation of God with lion head and human body. So unicorn is certainly not a 'no go'. The ways of faith may appear total weirdo. 3. Your comical reference to mathematical expression of the God, deserves total contempt. This shows that while you can type well, you have no idea about what faith in god means. You are susceptible to surrender your point of view or may appease others if cornered. Yes, it is a fact that a theist may appear weak in defending his faith, but then he is not required to. Thats the point, does not matter how you call them or how atheists take this. PS : intellectially calculative, people who are extremely objective, need evidence or basis for faith also. Absence of true faith in them, inability to accept anything which does not appear rational to them.
You are an exception that study of bible made you an atheist. IMO you do not become atheist by reading Bible, Quran or Gita. So what made you convert in 20s ? Overdeveloped rationality ? Or some incidence where you expected the God to support you and he did not ?
