It's not an intellectual thing. I can visualize them and therefore they might exist. If you aren't a believer you might have trouble with this concept I admit.
It's always a bit condescending when people who don't believe in God, feel the need to insert ''the tooth fairy,'' ''unicorns'' or ''Santa Claus'' into these discussions, as if people of faith are somehow too naive (or stupid) to figure out what they've figured out. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I already said. How do you separate holding a concept of a person you know, let alone believe in? It is a forgone conclusion that God exist, that is the answer I have consistently given in this thread. Like the terms say and mean, God, and without God. I believe in me, automatically concludes I exist. Not that I don't believe that I don't exist, I just don't give a thought about whether I exist. I think you see and hear what you want to see and hear. Such as? That's your own perspective, and I apreciate that. But you shouldn't want everyone to be like you. You are an individual. I have explained lots of time, but you don't understand, and it becomes a pointless pursuit. I think the attention should be on you, and your ability to explain what is God, and whay would be considered evidence for God, seeing as you are adamant that there is no evidence for God. That wasn't the question. How do you know what evidence of God is? You do not have a clue what God is. Do you take my word on that? Yes they have an atheist concept of God, which could be anything from talking teapots, to monster made of bolognaise. What value are those concepts? They fit the atheist idea. And anything you say is nothing but a statement of your own belief or lack of belief, which ever designer label suits you. We've discussed evidence for years. You simply don't accept it. The reality is, you have no idea of what God is, outside of your atheist mindset. Good point. The answer is NOTHING. That's your current reality. There is only matter, and in matter you cannot see God, therefore God does not exist. You can't comprehend God because the truth of your label (atheist) defines your real position which is being without God. I think you have an issue with the label because you don't like to think of yourself as being without something to the point of completely not comprehending it, while others aren't like you. I think you see it as being less human than those others. My concept of a unicorn is based on an amalgamation of real animals. Those animals exist. I can only think of things that exist in the way that they exist. I can visualise a teapot beating Usain Bolt in the last olympics, which nobody saw, but me and Marilyn Munroe. But that is me messing around. I understand that that type of messing around is what you do within your conceptions of God, the only difference is, you really are thinking that it could be Theos, because for you there is no actual Theos. Your problem is that you think because it is like that for you, that is what IT IS. Not for me. God just IS. According to scriptures, God is in every atom. Hence God is Omnipresent. In the way that I demonstrated earlier. One develops belief in God. I've no idea what 'which we understand as a kind of trust' means in response to what I said. How does one fall in love? I don't know what atheists are interested in. I gave a personal nut shell of a summary. If you don't get it, don't worry. Start of with something that you get. Then simply answer the questions, then we can move on. Theist can stop believing in God by not serving God, but serve their own senses. They soon forget God if they go all out. They eventually become without God. ATheos -atheist. jan.
It could be that is how they really comprehend God, and their condesention could be born out of frustration. jan.
But I see other way round. Like that color blind fellow, they lack something which hinders them in appreciating the God. Not their fault.
I'm visualizing the unicorn aura. It may be detectable in other wavelengths (I don't know) but it doesn't reflect light in the visible spectrum. It's my belief that life itself comes from the unicorn so as long as I'm alive I'm aware of its presence.
That depends on how the word 'unicorn' was being used. If somebody is equating belief in God with belief in unicorns, it may indeed be condescending and be perceived as insulting by religious believers. But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument. It might be appropriate if somebody is insisting that atheists are without God (and hence in no position to have opinions about religion) while trying not to address the question of whether or not God exists. 'Unicorn' might be part of the reply that being without something illusory is very different than being without something real. (I believe that's how 'unicorn' was first introduced in post #175) Or it might be useful if somebody is trying to insist that belief in God is not an objective matter and is entirely subjective. 'Unicorn' would represent a fairly polite and inoffensive example of a subjective belief with no objectively existing referrant.
Is that in the same way that most of us lack something that schizophrenics have, for example, meaning that we can't appreciate the voices they do? Or perhaps it's that they (atheists) actually have what you lack, preventing them from wandering down a path of believing in myths, fairy tales and the non-existent? Who is to say? You? On what basis, other than faith?
''Religious believers''? Where do you get these descriptions? It is condescending which everd way you use it, because to condescend is your intention. Yes, atheists are without God, just like it says on the tin (if you aren't without God then please explain), but you are are free to question whether or not anything you can think of, exists, or not. It might be. But I doubt it. It could be. But it's not. It is condescending. It always was. jan.
What is the point of presenting the analogy? Why do some atheists feel the need to convince people of faith that what they believe is foolish? It's no different than a religious person trying to convince you of their beliefs.
It seems to me it usually comes as a response to some religious person's statements. In any event, on a discussion forum I see no need to try so hard to restrict what or how people can discuss. If some people are offended by the mere mention, by way of analogy, of something "comparable" to God then it is very hard to discuss God unless it is only a discussion among the religious. In which case it won't be much of a discussion forum. When you only have 7-20 members who can post it seems needless to me to work on trying to control them to that degree. The larger problem is too few in the discussion rather than too many. Maybe some atheist is offended when a theist implies that they can't understand God as you have to be with God first. Should we stipulate that they can't say that? No, of course not. Let's not be so easily offended. There are people who are offended by unicorns who then turn around and actually call people names. Let's just try to be civil and let discussion go as they will.
You're in a thread about faith, and Jan and a few others are people of faith, discussing the topic. I could see if Jan or other people of faith were in the science related sections, promoting Intelligent Design, for example, but this thread is in the proper section, and is about faith. lol The fact that you feel the need to take pot shots at Jan, and pass it off as something else, is unfortunate. But, something tells me we will have to agree to disagree.
If everyone who isn't religious leaves this topic Jan will have nothing to talk about or to. This particular thread or one just exactly like it was going on several years ago the last time I stuck around here for a while. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Although it the purpose of the religious forum is only for discussions among the religious you are correct (and you may well be correct).
I'm not suggesting that anyone leave the thread. I'm suggesting that there's no reason to insult people of faith who are just having a discussion, and are doing so in the proper section of the forum. Jan nor anyone else to my knowledge, is preaching or trying to convert anyone. Those types of postings would be unwelcome. Faith discussions needn't turn into competitions between atheists and religious people. I wish they didn't always seem to turn out that way.
I agree. That usually happens when someone gets offended. When people can discuss things civilly it doesn't seem to happen.
