wynn, Define ''believe in''? Where is your evidence for the claim ''all the information that humans can possibly have about God necessarily comes via other peopl'e''? A gross materialist can only see it that way, just like the colour blue to a completely blind person. What is a ''theistic tradition'' that it makes God a reality? jan.
Yes. people can form their own view of God. People do that every day. Yes. If God gets in contact with them. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
How? Other than having a personal divine revelation, and other than simply currently not being an active member, but otherwise having taken one's theology from an existing theistic tradition: How can a person possibly be a theist without belonging to a particular theistic religion? To believe in God: to believe God exists, to believe God has the qualities as stated in a particular theistic doctrine. Do you have any information which you believe to be about God, whereby this information has not been imparted on you by other people (either spoken to you personally, or heard from talks, or read from books)? So you're saying that it is because I am a gross materialist that I have doubts as to whether everything that self-declared theists say, indeed is about God? So if I would not be a gross materialist, I would believe without hesitation that, for example, Jesus is the only Lord and Savior and that everyone who doesn't believe in him will and deserves to burn in hell for all eternity? And at the same time, if I would not be a gross materialist, I would also believe without hesitation that, for example, Mohammad is God's only true prophet and everyone who doesn't follow his teachings doesn't have much to hope for? ?? Who said it does make God a reality? I'm saying that those outside of a theistic tradition (with the exception of those who have personal divine revelation) are cut off from knowledge about God and cannot but merely imagine things.
Come on, work with me. My aim is to produce an argument that shows that evangelical theism is cutting people off from God and producing atheists.
wynn, You're just loading the questions with your own assumptions. These questions should only apply personally to you. That's not what ''belief in God'' is. To believe something exists, does not mean you believe in that thing. The second option doesn't make sense. Information, doesn't make you believe, or if it does, it only lasts untill the next convincing information comes our way. Believe is gained through experience, and that experience can be indirect. Something that triggers an understanding in the person. From this we move on, if we choose. Read what I said, perhaps a little more carefully. I would simply ask, what is the experience that leads you to this belief? Why would you ACTUALLY believe that? You're saying that one would be cut off from knowledge of God if one wasn't affiliated to an institute. Right. Therefore you are saying that joining these institutes make God a reality, as opposed to just an imagination. :shrug: jan.
Therein lies the problem. Rather than arguing for what is true, you're arguing from a preconception. You're not open to that preconception being wrong.
I would think they apply to everyone who is in a similar position as myself: born and raised outside of theistic religion, and with no personal divine revelation. To you perhaps. To the best of my understanding, I have delineated what I think that "to believe in God" means. What if you would read what I said, perhaps a little more carefully? Huh. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I, like so many other people, was born and raised outside of theistic religion, I have no personal divine revelation, and I am not a member of any theistic tradition. All I have ever heard or learned on the topic of "God," I have heard from people. As far as matters of "God" are concerned, I am fully dependent on other people. Anything that I might conjure up on the topic "God" that is not in line with what other people have told me on the topic "God", I have to dismiss as merely my imagination. Given that theistic traditions are said to originate from God Himself, it is by belonging to a particular theistic tradition that an ordinary person has any hope of having any legitimate knowledge of God. Being outside of such tradition, one cannot have any legitimate knowledge of God (other than in the exceptional case of personal divine revelation).
Again, you're assuming that traditional concepts of God are not imaginings themselves. How do you know the traditions of God are legitimate?
I don't know. That's the point. You're insistent upon formulating an argument that says "A," regardless of whether or not "A" is true. You've decided that you're going to argue that evangelism "creates" atheists, as it cuts people off from God. This is a huge assumption, one that you haven't supported. Feel free to show that it is right. You've only made a claim; you haven't supported it.
I don't know that. For the sake of the argument, I am positing that they are legitimate. If we don't posit that, there isn't really anything to talk about. Like I said, I'm working on it. It is a huge task, perhaps even too much for one person in one life time. You can help me, or you can bow out, but don't unnecessarily obstruct me. I do think there is something grossly unfair going on, from the side of theists. Theistic evangelism is basically sending out the message that those who refuse to make a leap of blind faith deserve to live a life of suffering, and that (at least for some people) the only way to do right by God is to act in ways one finds repugnant. That kind of evangelism paints God as a monster. This can't be right.
Exactly. It's a useless exercise. If an argument relies upon something you still can't demonstrate, you're getting ahead of yourself.
Even if we don't know whether something is true or not, we can still make arguments that appeal to morality. This is precisely what I am doing. I am appealing to the moral sensibilities of theists that they should not place people into absurd decision-making situations as they (ie. the people) seek happiness. I grant the theists that they may have legitimate knowledge of God; but I appeal to their moral sensibilites in how they present that knowledge and what expectations they have of people.
wynn, I would be inclined to agree with you if the ''everyone'' in your statement had the exact same experiences as you, and understood them the same as you. But I doubt very much that is the case. Then explain how one actually believes in God via your descriptions? Then I would. But I asked you to, because you response was unrelated to my point. Maybe you are the type of person who depends on others for revelation. I'm not, and I know alot of people who aren't. That doesn't mean we don't learn of others. It means we process the info, and come to our own conclusions based on our present state of mind. That's your thing, and nothing to do with theism, religion, or scripture. For your hypotheses of theism to be correct, you need to show some kind of consistency that is asociated only with theists. Good luck with that, because you first have to determine what it is to be a theist, and then identify that thing in all theists. What if those traditions, are just saying that for effect? Above. jan.
What? Are you now playing The Big Atheist?? Have you forsaken your Founder Acharya and the disciplic succession?! This is the disciplic succession that I have so far been under the impression that you follow: 1. Kṛṣṇa 2. Brahmā 3. Nārada 4. Vyāsa 5. Madhva 6. Padmanābha 7. Nṛhari 8. Mādhava 9. Akṣobhya 10. Jaya Tīrtha 11. Jñānasindhu 12. Dayānidhi 13. Vidyānidhi 14. Rājendra 15. Jayadharma 16. Puruṣottama 17. Brahmaṇya Tīrtha 18. Vyāsa Tīrtha 19. Lakṣmīpati 20. Mādhavendra Purī 21. Īśvara Purī, (Nityānanda, Advaita) 22. Lord Caitanya 23. Rūpa, (Svarūpa, Sanātana) 24. Raghunātha, Jīva 25. Kṛṣṇadāsa 26. Narottama 27. Viśvanātha 28. (Baladeva) Jagannātha 29. Bhaktivinoda 30. Gaurakiśora 31. Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī 32. A. C. Bhaktivedanta Svāmī Prabhupāda And read this: Qualities of the correct epistemology for perceiving God - a thread started by LG.
What you fail to realize is that by granting them the existence of their God, you also grant them the authority of their God. Yes, making women secondary citizens is gross. Yes, advocating the systematic murder of homosexuals is gross. Yes, the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is gross. But you're not going to win them over from that stance, because it is intrinsic to their faith. I'm not saying it's the only way to read scripture, I'm saying it's simply the way they understand it, and appealing to their sensibilities won't sway them because they have the authority of God on their side, contradictions and all. The only argument against this crap is to demonstrate the wrongness of their belief.
Do you think you could answer the question with digressing? What if the ''theistic traditions'' (ccording to your understanding of what they are), are saying that for effect? jan.
That pattern is simply a holdover from when most people were illiterate. Nothing more. The Catholic priests that read Latin were not "special", aside from being educated. That is just blatantly untrue. Just because you do not seem to trust your own lights on the subject does not necessitate that others could not. Just like there are people who come up with ideas and understand things you do not, it is possible that there are people who come by their knowledge of a god naturally. How else would we explain the origination of religions in isolation?
That would give knowledge. Faith is when you believe. Religion is fanaticism just the same. God needs faith to exist on earth, as far as religion goes... what has religion given us but a hell of a party and all our friends? What exactly tic for tac is your belief in God, then follow it with your choice of religion.
