Such as. I don't attach anymore importance than Theos Him/Itself. I have been taking a close look at this issue which is why we are discussing it. Some have even implied it is needlessly close. So no, there is no fear on my part. If you're able to pull the rug out from under my feet (whatever that means) regarding my belief, please do. Where did I say that? Yes, I'm okay with that. But I'd like to know, how you would know it would be God, should the evidence (you say is lacking) be forthcoming. That is a misrepresention of the truth. I am looking at the original meanings of the words, and noticing that the foundation upon which the terms atheist and theist are based, are still the basis today, despite the outward appearance of change. Examples please. I think belief in God is natural to humans, as is not believing in God. I believe you exist, but I don't believe in you. You just seem to be an okay guy. You're without Him/It. Are the skeptics with or without God (as per definition)? If they are without God, then no amount of evidence will suffice. I'm making a statement that reflects the meanings of the word Theos, and it's counterpart Atheos. There is no mention of existence or lack of. Only God, and being without God. The idea of God existing from an atheist point of view, is simply an atheists point of view. It doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that it can't be shown to exist as something that we can readily see with our eyes, like we can see tables and chairs. This is why the original terms are so intelligent in their meanings. It explains why you demand physical evidence of God. Please show it. How do they know it's love. Such as? I don't understand the question. You've lost me here. I'd have no concept of you, if you didn't exist, let alone believe in you. Regardless of what is real, what does it mean to believe IN their existence? Isn't it enough to believe that they exist? You need evidence to show that God exists. You said I have no reason to rationally claim that God exists, and I said I do. You're the one who brought it up, and I simply responded. jan.
This has been shown not to be true. There is a threshold for skeptics, and even a lot of reasonable atheists, that a sufficient amount of compelling evidence can be convincing. Note that, like atheists, theists (even you) don't actually know what God is. You have your ideas, as does everyone. But you to require your own evidence that you are among it. You've just found the evidence you've seen is sufficiently compelling (eg. 'complexity of nature'). Theists' notions of God are concoctions too. Your notion of God is a concoction. It's not a negative term, it's simply means you have developed what you think is God. Atheists have developed what they think other people think is God.
Again, false. I am "without unicorns". But if a unicorn walked in my front door, that would be evidence enough. Note: Being "without unicorns" is kind of a strange way to put it. It is not a short-coming, as if I'm missing out on something. Indeed, it is a good stance for the rational person to hold, barring one presenting its existence. And, while we're at it, I have a workable definition of unicorns (based on descriptions), even if they have not presented themselves, and even if there are multiple definitions of them. It would be upon entering my house that I would decide if it is, indeed, a unicorn. Substitute the word "God" for "unicorns" in the above two paragraphs.
It's not going to be enough to be simply convinced. How will they know that it is God? Because you see it like that, doesn't mean that's how it actually is. How do you know? Again. How do you know? Then explain how a person without God can know that the evidence (should it be forthcoming) shows that God exists? jan.
Please, do not presume to speak for others about what is enough for them. Being convinced means being convinced. That door swings both ways. By that statement, you implicitly acknowledge that the way you think of God doesn't mean that's how it actually is. How do I know it's a concoction? What else would it be? Even if you believed that you and God literally talk to one another face-to-face, that is still your interpretation of events. You've determined, at some point since your birth, what God means to you, and how it manifests. The same way any compelling evidence of any other thing shows that thing exists. I've never seen aliens or unicorns, but I think I'll be able to identify them if they walk in my front door and let me examine them.
Point-of-order: (I have to do this occasionally). I often use comparisons between God and such things as unicorns, aliens and leprechauns. This is not intended to be derogatory, dismissive or disrespectful. I acknowledge that the belief in God is a very important part of peoples' world-views, and frankly, an extant issue in our social world, even for a non-theist. That being said, The stance of not believing in something often requires, for the purpose of argument, an analogy to things we all acknowledge that there is insufficient evidence with which to accept their existence. I follow the same logic for both, so if readers can see the logic to something that is broadly not-accepted, then readers can follow that logic about God. If I could find a comparable non-existent thing that does not seem to have derogatory connotations, I'd take pains to use it.
Okay let me elaborate. You said...Note that, like atheists, theists (even you) don't actually know what God is. You have your ideas, as does everyone. But you to require your own evidence that you are among it. You've just found the evidence you've seen is sufficiently compelling (eg. 'complexity of nature'). Firstly, I accept that you don't know what God actually is, but I can't help wondering how you know that any theist doesn't. It's a reason (as requested) to believe in God. It is what you would term 'evidence' or and idea of evidence, if I was in a 'Does God exist'' or similar themed debate or discussion. But personally I just see it the brilliance of God. That is part of how a theist gets insight into what God actually is. jan.
Already explained. I don't see how it is possible to have faith in someone you have no conception of. Realizing that it doesn't matter whether or not I like the idea, would more explain my belief in God. That's not my assertion. I've never stated that God and the universe are one and the same. You make too many wild assumptions about what you think I mean, then you act as though those assumptions are true by interjecting them into discussions as matter of fact. I'm not going to keep asking to show where I said this or that. Why does our beliefs in God have to be based on rational reasons? We aren't entirely rational beings. Is your belief in anyone, including yourself based on rational reasons? How do you know that people believe in God without evidence? You admit you are without God, so how do you know what evidence of God is? If you want to go down the 'just look in scriptures' route, how will know it is evidence of God, should evidence be forthcoming. Answer that if you can. Really? You're going to keep pushing this? Of course a theist believes that God exists, how is it possible to believe in something you have no concept of. There is no need to believe IN the existence of anything. If it exists, it exists. God exists, you just don't get how He/It exists. Of course you could ask me to prove He/It exists, and I will say I can't (in all seriousness), and the song and dance will go on and on. You focus on Gods existence because you are currently without God. jan.
In ancient times it was pretty much a given that everyone believed gods to exist, so the only deviation from this was with regard those people that shunned those gods. When the term was coined in more modern times it was used not to distinguish, among those that believed God to exist, between those that believed in God and those that shunned God, but to give a label to those that didn't even hold the belief that God existed. So that is why the label has moved to one of existence rather than simply being "without God", so as to NOT cover those people that thought God/gods exist but have decided to shun them. Not true. The ancient term "atheos" was with reference to the pantheon of gods that the ancient Greeks believed in. Indeed, the term "theos" meant god (non-capitalised). There was no reference in those terms to God until much later, only to god(s). Thus while God may not have changed (although with regard to our notion of God even this is questionable) the term atheist still actually refers to gods in general, and not specifically to God. You seem to be trying to link the term exclusively to God, despite the ancient use of the term being before those people ever accepted such a monotheistic belief. So please do not start identifying atheism exclusively with God when it refers to god(s). I don't know. I only know I am not aware of anything that, for me, favours the theory of "God exists" over "God does not exist" (although I use the term theory colloquially as God is not a scientific matter). There are indeed many, even if some of them are naive and flawed. They may all have the same key elements at their core, though. My answer to the first would be that it is a concept that aims to answer, to the satisfaction of people that seem to require answers, the fundamental questions that Man currently has: who am I? Why am I here? etc. But many people these days neither need answers nor find that answer a satisfying / compelling one. That it seems to answer these questions satisfactorily for the majority of people, however, often lead those people to believe that this concept actually exists, and it may well do, but it is a concept for which I currently lack any evidence or rationale for assuming its actual existence beyond being a concept. To answer the second: God as a concept exists, and the evidence for this is the fact that we are discussing God. God existing in actuality? I don't know what evidence would support it for me. I know that if you start with the assumption/belief that God exists and created the universe then the universe itself would be evidence supporting that assumption. But I don't generally find such question-begging compelling. Perhaps others do. You'd have to ask them.
Well, think of it this way, dude: Whatever. If you can find a simple word comparable to what the monotheistic godhead represents, go ahead and use it; that would, after all, be more useful. At some point, you really do need to look at function. To wit: Even still, now all you're doing is objecting to an anthropomorphization or similar limitation of a basic idea. However, you seem to object more to the form of the idea than its actual function, when the function is how the idea becomes problematic. Okay, look, you can spend all day excusing yourself and it won't actually help you ... what? I mean, what the hell is your purpose in this anchorless critique? Start with this: What does God do? The fun part is that it's not a difficult question, yet you'll most likely fail, anyway. For someone like you, the key is to put your freaking egocentrism aside for a minute. Because if God does nothing in this context, then why waste time excusing your unicorn?
What difference does if make it one uses a word comparable to the "monotheistic godhead" or not? You're not going to accept that anything is comparable. Yet, that's not the point. The point is that there is no evidence for God so if you don't like to hear that there is no more evidence for God than for a unicorn...how about leaving it at there is no evidence for God? You ask (Dave) what is the purpose of his critique? What is your purpose and anyone's purpose in this long thread? What does "why waste time excusing your unicorn" even mean? Excusing your unicorn? Let's face it, some believe in God and it's not an intellectual pursuit. No one is going to change their mind based on logic, lack of evidence or anything related to this thread. Some don't believe in anything for which there is insufficient evidence. The applies to unicorns as well as to God or if that's offensive to some let's just apply it to God. What more is there to say?
Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Non sequitur, surely? It is not possible to believe in something you have no concept of, of course, but having a concept of something doesn't mean you have to believe it exists. When someone says "believe in the existence of something" they simply mean "believe that the thing exists". You know this is how it has been used in this thread. You have made the point previously and this was explained to you. And reading your posts I would suggest you are also guilty of using both phrases when you mean the latter. Trying to raise an argument based on now choosing to distinguish between the two is rather dishonest. If God exists, then it is a truism that God exists. but if God doesn't exist then God doesn't exist. You certainly claim and believe God exists but that assertion holds no weight with those that do not believe you. And you simply repeating your assertion, or starting from the assumption that it is true, is not going to lead to any greater understanding. You're the one that keeps switching on the record player to get the music going, partly by simply evading issues that might progress the discussion. Okay, so you say you can't prove God exists. So on what basis do you conclude that your concept of God exists? I can understand that once you have concluded that then you might believe IN God, but the first hurdle (for us who don't believe) is the question of existence. I'd prefer you don't start going off about how existence is a non-issue for theists etc, as I am asking to help me understand how one is a theist (belief that God exists), not what is or is not an issue for theists. 'Cos once someone is a theist I can see how faith might come. It's getting over that initial roadblock that is the difficulty. I assure you I would focus on Gods existence just as much if ever I was no longer without God, as that change from being without to being with would be rather significant to me, and the issue of existence (and what changed in my views) would be very high on the things I would like to understand.
Notes on Futility Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's a matter of function. While a bunch of atheists run around complaining about this god or that, their failure to comprehend what they're dealing with renders their efforts pointless unless their whole purpose is simply godless imitation of what they pretend to despise. How about getting a clue? You're so busy writing everyone else's motivations for them in order to avoid having any manner of substantial discussion there's really not anything to discuss with you. Well, some people discuss matters of history and theology, anthropology, psychology, behavioral economics, art, ontology, dialectics, &c. Some others would preach their gods and faiths more or less incomprehensibly. Still others just want to bawl that there is no God and basically make a lot of clueless noise. Look, if the purpose of the critique is just to ridicule what one hates they might as well skip it. Pay attention↑. No, seriously, that one's pretty straightforward. Plenty if we're not so wretchedly selfish. I mean, it's one thing to say Christians, for instance, have been breathing down my neck my whole life. I might even point to censorship campaigns during my youth. But, you know, to be honest I'm uncertain what part of the twenty-five year social revolution my side just won, in which our opponents were primarily Christian―a dispute pitting assertions of religion against the U.S. Constitution―you're trying to overlook. Or, maybe the constant harping against women. Think of it this way, an evangelical Christian conservative, in his zeal to oppose the White House, argued against a jobless aid bill because it was immoral to feed the hungry. Meanwhile, we're supposed to be terrified of Muslims. And, apparently, if you go to a few places around the world where there are a lot of Muslims, there are some problems in the societies that are tied to assertions of religion. And you should watch the faithful factions go at it in India. There's a Christian child army running amok in central Africa. How many terror groups and religious militias running in the east and north of the continent? How about western Africa, where two answers to HIV/AIDS are the superstitious belief that a man can cure himself of the virus by having sex with a virgin girl, and the government's answer to rape is to tell girls to stop being so without godly virtue. And, you know, it's not just abstract politics. The Christian mother in Louisiana who killed her twelve year-old daughter because the girl lost her virginity? Or the Christian mother in Texas who killed her sons because God told her to? How about something a little less spectacular? How about the Christians who can't seem to help their adult daughter fight addiction because actually doing anything helpful is seen as too rewarding to someone who fails to satisfy them? At some point, it pays to understand what's going on. Even simply looking at history and understanding my society, yes, it helps to comprehend a few things about religion. And that means having discussions that you are apparently incapable of engaging because you have refused these issues and aspects. Your entire atheism is anti-identification, isn't it? You don't have an affirmative argument, do you? Why the hell would you let people you don't trust define religion for you? Oh, right, it's easier than going out and reading history and learning for yourself, isn't it? And it's a lot more fun to just ridicule religion and anything more complex than whatever it is you're capable of dealing with, right? The problem is that it's neither respectful nor respectable. But you can't get beyond this intellectually stunted excrement, and there doesn't really seem to be any mystery why. The critique from ignorance just seems an unreliable proposition. And if you don't like that assessment, you can always prove it wrong.
Nevertheless, 'theos', capitalised or not, means God, as well as gods. Here is a hymn to Amun Ra composed probably a thousand years prior to ancient greek culture.. It seems the concept of God/Theos was around long before the ancient greek civilisation. It's not that the concept of God was unknown to the greeks, it is that the ancient greeks preferred their own religious system, which became purely polytheistic. Socrates was put to death because he was thought of as someone who would upset the apple-cart. According to their particular religious system of belief. They rejected any notion of a Supreme God, and accepted their pantheon as a source of divinity. Ultimately it means 'without God, and, or gods. It doesn't matter. If may have referred to gods, but technically it still refers to God, the creator of gods. Polytheistic cultures are aware of this. It seems you're not. https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1306.cfm http://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm http://biblehub.com/greek/112.htm an atheist, term applied to those who thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. Does it matter whether it God, or gods? And why do you think that is? Because no evidence as yet been forthcoming? But if evidence is forthcoming, how will you know that it is correct? You don't know. To summerise, you can never know, as long as you are on this path. Those key elements can be called the essential attributes of God, and those attributes have not changed. Just look at the hymn to Amun Ra. This is not a new concept, nor is it anything to do with the so called evolution of religion. So this is what GOD IS? Yet you claim there that evidence is lacking. Can't you see how nonsensical your position is? Don't worry. There's not much you can say on this. I apreciate that. jan.
The question was, can I believe in something that does not exist. The answer is no, as I don't have a concept of something that doesn't exist. I have a concept of God, and I believe God exists. Then I suggest we use the proper literal terms. If I made reference to a theory as being nothing more than an idea, in a scientific discussion, I would no doubt be taken to task. In the same way Believing IN something, is different to Believing somethin, is just as important to me. So no, it is not dishonest of me to highlight the difference between the two. It's not an assertion, it is my position, just as your position is you lack evidence for Gods existence. If God exists, as a truism, I'm okay with that. I'm not an evangelist, and I don't believe in going out to try and make others understand my position. It's not my problem if you don't believe me, or you don't get how God could exist. I don't know what you mean by evading issues. Maybe you can elaborate. There is no one basis that I conclude from, it is an amalgamation of events, exprience, reasonings, studying, meditating, prayer, science, art, etc... God isn't only a separate entity, He is within everything as well. Does that answer your question? If you're sincerely asking for help in understand how I became theist, then just ask. I naturally accept God as a concept. That is not to say that I always believed in God. That develops over time. Accepting God as a concept allows the mind to take in information without trying to interpret it. Once the mind can accept what is being purported, one can think more clearly on the subject matter. One's belief, and understanding, develops over time. It can be rapid, or it can be slow, it can be off, on, off, on. It depends on the individual. That is it in a little nutshell. It's not so much a change from being without, to with. It's more a change of your attitude. You believe that there is a lack of evidence of God, yet you don't know what God is (why you need confirmation of existence). This is self deception, as you will never find God as long as you continue to ride this rollercoaster. If you're serious about knowing about God, change your attitude. jan.
This is one of those lengthy threads, which will just prepare Jan to argue better in future, giving away nothing concrete to others. Not his fault It is the irony of this thread, in fact of such arguments, that a person (theist) is attempting to explain to another person (atheist) what God is. The point is the teacher in this case (theist) himself is unaware of what God is. I am a theist, absolute obeisance to God, acceptance of unquestioned supremacy of God as explained in Gita, but if an atheist asks me what God is, I will make a mess of it, because for me God is everything (a laughable proposition for atheist), the concept of creation to destruction is God (atheist will walk away in disgust). These are all worldly definitions of God, cannot win any argument against a reasonably intelligent, calm and poised atheist. So at the end he is the God in which a theist has absolute faith, seeing and visualizing and even praying without fixing the form or in different forms as per his upbringing and exposure. A theist failure in the argument, is immaterial in this case. An atheist insistence for evidence is nothing but incredulity, lack of understanding of faith aspect.
Thank you for clarifying. It helps, but slips do happen, by yourself as well as others. Castigating others for what you are also guilty of...? Rather we should surely seek polite clarification if we are unable to make sense of the phrase used in the context given? The issue is not in highlighting the difference: you have done that and the point has been taken. The issue is that you are clearly aware of what was meant given the context and who was saying it, yet you deliberately chose to argue as though it had the unintended meaning, because this provided you with the easy rebuttal and evasion of the actual point being made. Given that you have also not been always precise in which phrase you have used, your eagerness to pick up on the point when it suited you also works against you. Do you know what an assertion is, Jan? It's a confident statement of fact or belief. Your position is, I presume, what you believe? Are you not confident in your position? If you are, your position, when you state it, is an assertion. Okay? "If God exists" is not a truism and can not be a truism. The truism is "if God exists then God exists." Do you know what a truism is? It is simply a statement that is obviously and trivially true that says nothing new about anything outside the truism. It is trivially true that if X exists then X exists. The latter certainly explains your posting history, the confusing nature of some of what you post, not to mention the contradictory statements. I never said it was your problem that I don't believe you, nor mine that you don't believe me. But I do get how God could exist. I just don't have the belief that God does exist. Seriously? After years of responses back and forth you don't know what I mean by evading issues? I guess you have covered the issue raised (several times) that you think belief is a choice, then? Can I suggest you lift your head from out of the sand? And maybe I'll simply remind you of this comment of yours at opportune moments. Had you put a wink at the end at least then I'd know you're just being sarcastic. No. First, "basis" is a singular noun that can cover multiple individual things that, together, form the basis. Secondly, all you have done is say where the basis/bases are to be found, not what they are. What is it about your experience, your reasonings, etc that leads you to conclude - or adds weight to the conclusion? How has the studying, meditation, prayer led to it, and what is it about science and art that does the same? The question has been asked of you many times in the past, Jan. You always treat it as an attack even before any shots could have been fired. Your defences rise and thus endeth any further value of the thread. I'm asking, Jan. It doesn't honestly say much, though. I accept God as a concept. I did when I was younger and I still do. Heck, I believed IN God when I was younger. Then I thought more clearly on the subject matter and I no longer believed IN God but perhaps still IN the ideals espoused in the Bible as distilled through the religion I was part of. Then I questioned whether God even existed, and I am still questioning, and I no longer have the belief that God does exist. So no, your answer isn't exactly enlightening as to what goes on and how it happens, other than catch-all activity that leads some to become atheist, others to theist. It is the reason for that difference in outcome that I am looking to understand. Maybe what I'm looking for is more a matter of psychology than anything that can be called objective truth. It's not a change, but it is a change? Surely the change of attitude, if that is what you think would work, results in a change from being without to with? It is not self-deception, and it is arrogant of you to suggest it is, although I can understand from your lofty view that it might seem that way. And again you misunderstand: The reason I seek evidence for existence is not because I don't know what God is but because God is just one of a number of competing theories regarding the questions it seeks to answer. And what I seek is be able to rationally apply evidence presented against just one of those theories. If it can be placed against multiple then they remain no better/worse than each other, But there is nothing I am aware of that can be put solely against "God" and not another concept. And what attitude do you think one should adopt in order to know about God?
So what is it that causes you, if that is the right expression to use, to have absolute obeisance to God? What compels you to do so while others do not?
