Sarkus, It is unlikely that this is your first involvement on this topic. So please honestly answer could a specific single argument from theist either here or somewhere else, sway you a little bit from your position?
How do you know I'm unaware of what God is. In what way have you made a mess of it? Didn't you just describe God? If the atheist walks away in disgust, so what? How does that change what God is? The purpose of this discussion is not win an argument. It is to show that faith in God is not without evidence. That the type of evidence atheists require, is never going to be evidence of Gods existence, because they can't recognize God. The reason being they are without God, as their label suggests. Not sure what you're getting at here. ??? I assume you mean in the first part of the quote, that I have failed, despite it being immaterial in this case. I would be interested in why you think that. If I'm mistaken, then apologies. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. It's lengthy, because that's the flow of the discussion, and as you say it isn't my fault. What would you regard as 'concrete' (information I presume) in this regard? jan.
So you use an issue that I've actually covered as an example of me evading issues. Seriously? Oh! I get you. You're gonna try and catch me out, so that you can say ''hey look he's evading''. I'll tell you what just pull out one of the (obviously according to you) many issues I've evaded. Judging by your demenour there should shed loads, in this thread alone. jan.
Oh I get it, God is everything. I believe in everything. So why don't I believe in God? Because if God is everything, the word is interchangeable with "universe", so why bring all that God baggage into it? And what's the point of praying to everything? Obviously, you think there is a personality there, which is different from merely "everything". You undermine your own claim when you say that.
You evade the need for evidence by saying it's a special thing that only theists can see. I guess you don't realize theists aren't some sequestered monks one cannot talk to and who never change their minds. I've seen and heard reams of testimony from theists, former theists, atheists and former atheists, etc. It's not some esoteric thing.
Sure. I feel the same way about big-foot. I don't believe in the literal existence of bigfoot, but if a dead one was discovered out in the forest and delivered to the biologists at some credible university, I'd quickly change my tune. God is more problematic in that sense, since I don't know what kind of evidence would ever convince me of something's divinity or holiness. I'm not sure whether divinity or holiness are objective qualities at all, or whether they are subjective qualities that we attribute to whatever elicits the corresponding feelings or that we want to worship. (It might be like the feelings of creepyness that we attribute to things like haunted houses.) The existence of divinities, including big monotheist ones, might arguably be a psychological matter concerning what people choose as an object to receive the projections of their religious emotions. So a rock could be a god if people think it holy and worship it. I think that strangeness is due to Jan believing that God (or the imprint of God, or something) can be found in the deepest level of the human self, and that humans are already in some sense divine (or have an inherent relationship with the divine). Different Hindu sects have different views on that. And Jan seems to think that the goal of religious practice is to 'realize' this inner divinity ('Krishna consciousness') by joining our worldly phenomenal selves with that transcendental divine self. (Hindu sects differ on the precise nature of that apotheosis too.) So if somebody lacks a divine atman, which seems to be what Jan means by the phrase 'without God', a state that s/he's apparently attributing to atheists, then they will never be able to realize God consciousness. (I don't think that ISKCON or orthodox Hindu tradition would agree with that, since the idea seems to be that everyone has this divine spark, even if they never realize it.)
Jan, Use of word 'win' here is bad. The point is to convey your message with some degree of acceptance by other side. In this case despite such lengthy exchange things are unmoved, what I am stressing is that a theist should be careful in getting into an argument with atheist on this issue. You don't argue faith and you should not question beliefs and faiths, because we do not know how they manifest. This simple line should close the discussion before it becomes a rational Vs irrational argument, which it is not.
I have an explanation. The same feelings of ecstatic transcendence are a natural aspect of the human mind. We have historically and pre-historically accessed these states using rhythm, music, drugs, pain, solitude, meditation... often in a communal setting. Atheists do it too.
What is your religious background? Were you raised in a particular religious tradition by your parents? Which one? You seem to want to think that you are Sciforums' authority on religion and that pretty much everyone else here is not only wrong but totally lost when they write about the subject. So where did your current views come from? What tradition do you currently adhere to? Who were your teachers? Or alternatively, did you just kind of invent all of your current religious views on your own? Does anyone else in the world agree with your theology or are your religious ideas unique only to you?
Well, you're a good example. I don't think, in all the discussions that have occurred, you've been able to tell us.
You know what Yazata, please stop this. You know that's not what I said, and I'm sure you know it's not what I mean. Didn't have one. No. I'm sorry you think that way, but you are mistaken. My current views come many different sources, too numerous, and varied to go into here. Does that satisfy you? jan.
None. Self taught. I don't have many religious views. Yes, I reason with like-minded people all the time, and we tend to come to the same, or very similar conclusions on quite a few ideas. jan.
So you're another who simply sees it as an "us and them", with no possibility of either side simply trying to further their understanding of the other? Why should it be a matter of trying to sway one from their position? Why can it simply not be a matter of engaging in a discussion about why some people have faith, why others don't, what that faith means to some people, what the lack of faith means to others, etc? Not everything in this world need be a pissing contest. Sometimes questions raised are simply to gain an understanding of, an insight into, something that the person doesn't fully understand, not to try and change the other person's views or to have their own changed but because, heaven forbid, they are simply curious about the other people that share their planet and why what makes them tick is different. But as soon as questions are asked around here: shutters go up, defensive lines are drawn, trenches dug, preemptive barrages are fired, and all we end up with is page after page of thick impenetrable mud from the shells each side fire. Yes, I'm likely as guilty of perpetuating the current state of affairs as anyone, and I'll likely still wade in out of instinct (or boredom), but for now at least consider me tired of what usually goes on. No, we're not going to change each other's views. We're almost certainly going to disagree on rather fundamental issues. But that's okay; we're allowed to disagree. But I would like to understand where we disagree, where those differences are and how deep they go, perhaps understand what leads us to have those differences, etc. So, any chance of a civil conversation with someone? A mutually respectful exchange of ideas? Or is this asking too much? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
That wouldn't be evading the need for evidence, that would be you not knowing evidence for God, even if it punched in the nose. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Theos = God A-theos = without God Notice that Theos doesn't mean with God, only God. So what is a theist? Someone who believes in God. Belief is only the starting point, it's advantage is that you are in a better position to know God, than if you're without God. That's why I'm not advocating elitism, because belief in God doesn't necessarily make you a better person, unless you act on those beliefs. Some people aren't prepared to go to the level of monks, and sadhus, or Yeshua. Some put their belief on hold, because they want to enjoys certain fruits of life. Some will accept believing in God up to a certain point, then they will cap it. jan.
It doesn't work like that here, as you have no doubt experienced. Things are always unmoved. If your intention is to come here and make moves, you're wasting your time. Part of the fun is that it doesn't move, there 100% opposition. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Can you elaborate please? jan.
Evidence which you can't explain or even describe? Reliable evidence is observer-independent. Evidence that only occurs in your mind (conveniently off-limits to investigation) is inherently subjective. How is it not just a thought that originates in your mind? Or one half of your mind experiencing the other half as other? How do you know it's not a delusion?
