When you purposely seek to offend people, don't be surprised if they get offended. The honorable thing to do would be to stop trying to go out of one's way to offend. But, hey, Rome wasn't built in a day.
On faith
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
I already addressed that in post #569:
"It [the 'unicorn' example] 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."
I'm not trying to convince anyone of atheism. (I'm more of an agnostic.) I'm just expressing my opinion that certain arguments aren't very good. I often criticize atheist arguments too.
And I'm also saying that I see nothing even remotely wrong in using unicorns as examples of non-existent objects. (What example should people use?) The point isn't to announce that God is a non-existent object (that conclusion needs a lot more argument), but rather to say that if God is a non-existent object, then the arguments mentioned above won't work very well. That possibility hasn't been excluded yet.
This is a philosophy of religion forum, after all.
Last edited:
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
As I recall, 500 some posts ago, the original post was asking if faith makes you stronger or weaker. If someone isn't offended by the idea of faith making you weaker is it likely they are going to be offended by using a unicorn as an example of something that is commonly agreed to not exist?
There is nothing that one can compare to God that isn't going to offend someone who feels that nothing does compare to God.
I don't think there is an issue here until it is decided to only have religion discussed in the religion forum just as science is the only thing that is supposed to be discussed in the science forums.
If that is the rule however, I don't think there will be any traffic in the religion forum.
For this particular thread, it seemed like the questions in the OP had little to do with science, and more to do with strictly a faith perspective. I don't try to speculate as to what atheists are thinking, so where the offense comes in for lack of a better word, is that atheists think they can speak for all theists and/or people of faith. Why is that? Science doesn't answer all questions, yet sooner than later, the thread unravels into atheists telling Jan that he's wrong to believe in a God. That's not the point of the thread, really. But, these topics usually end up going OT.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The null hypothesis here is 'things are merely as they appear to be'.
The universe appears to have started off in a very small, very hot, very dense state (because we see everything receding from a fixed point in time).
Stars appear to have collapsed from gas and dust clouds (because we see stars and dust clouds in all stages of evolution between those extremes).
Earth life seems to have followed a progression of single-celled to highly-complex (we see a relatively steady progrsssion),
Life seems to be powered by the influx of sunlight.
etc.
If there is a connection, a force, say, between the supernatural and these things - a connection that spans either vast space or vast time or both - that force would need to be brought to light, so that we can establish that it's not just noise in the data.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Right. He's an invisible dragon. Immune to direct detection.
But, again, what does it have to do with the perspective of the thread's OP? Just seems like many times threads are created with a faith based perspective, yet they turn into science vs theism or atheists vs theists, or some other combination. Are we that incapable as atheists or people of faith to just discuss perspectives, without having to go down these same paths of competing for who has the ''right'' view? That's all I'm trying to say, really.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Who? What atheists thinks they can speak for people of faith? I'll box their ears.
Now, repeating someone's assertions is not the same as speaking for them. So, ideally, what atheists are doing is echoing what has been already asserted.
No one's telling Jan it's wrong to believe in God.
They telling him his logic for believing in God is irrational, but not wrong.
This is a logical debate, not science. There's a diff.
Last edited:
Is this one of those trick questions? lol
But, the topic of the thread isn't ''should one believe in a god or not?'' Is it?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
As I pointed out about a hundred posts ago, if it were only the faithful discussing faith if faith makes one stronger, it would be a very short thread.
I submit to you that the very nature of the thread title calls for feedback from multiple perspectives on the issue.
And finally, why would atheists not have an opinion one whether faith makes one stronger or weaker?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I sure hope you're not pointing at me!
I dont want to box my own ears.No.
But the question of whether faith makes one stonger must needs rest upon the question of whether one has faith in a supernatural power.
Unfortunately, some of the opinions come across as trying to imply that people of faith are somehow illogical or stupid or delusional. These are all rather insulting, and so sure, anyone should chime in but why the need to insult people?
lol No, you are very persistent in being reasonable without going down the path of insults.I sure hope you're not pointing at me!
This is the religion section, so I guess I assumed that was a given. Maybe that's where the problem lies.
Yazata said:
To reiterate↑:
▶ You've illustrated the fulcrum point; what does the historical record say?
Ha... believe it or not i get told im stoopid... a lot... but i know i ant so it dont bother me.!!!
One time a person told me i was goin to hell... an i said yes... thats cause im a good person an i dont deserve to be stuck in heaven wit people like you
Is it fair to say that philosophical arguments are based on axioms that themslves have no percieved origin, and as such are deemed true without evidence of their physical existence?
Do you use logic to define logic?
Is someome without logic (formal training) an illogical person because he or she was not trained in logic?
'Without God' is like someone withoout logic. It isn't an insult, it is a position. An atheist, by definition is someone who lacks belief in God (for whatever reason).
Is a person who lacks belief in logic, bereft of logic, or do they apply logic naturally to everyday situations without knowing that it is the law of logic that are working with their reasoning?
I see it as arogant because your assumption of the world as you see it, is the way the world is. Everything outside of that, has to be proven ( proof is what you desire) to your specification.
It is understandable why you can and do use unicorns, or talking teapots, as a reference to God. Because for those that do, God is merely an object, just like the unicorn would need to be.
If He exists, God should be able, to be located within the universe.
The atheist has trouble with the idea that God is outside of the universe, while being the essential mover within the universe.
The atheist asks to see this essence, seemingly devoid of him/her self, including the enquiry, as an expression of that essence.
The atheist may percieve that kind of talk as woo woo, and demand phycical evidence of the essence they use to express that demand.
I think the term ATheos is a good description of the atheist perspective, because the atheist is mentally without God, in the same way that someone is mentally without logic.
jan.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
In post #157, Jan wrote:
It is a forgone conclusion that God exists. You are, without God. Atheos-Atheist.
You have no knowledge of what it is you are without, and as such your analysis becomes an excercise of speculation.
At least with the notion of physical existence you can always jump back to this physical evidence thing, thereby instant, false, justification.
It is what it is. You are without God, and you always will be without God, until you accept God. Then there's a chance you can start to believe in God.
Theos = God
A-theos = without God.
and in post #171:
Whatever it is, you are without it.
Do you agree?
Then Dave very reasonably wrote (in post #175):
Is it any less meaningful to say I am "without unicorns"?
Or I am "without evil"?
Or I am "without the desire to torture"?
Not "having" something is not equatable to a shortcoming.
That to the best of my knowledge was the first time that the word 'unicorns' was used in this thread.
Upon seeing the word 'unicorn' Tiassa's left knee jerked and he/she got hysterical, throwing out crazy insults and flames in all directions (along with inexplicable Japanese cartoons). The thread acquired the new focus of who had offended who and who was a 'bigot'.
Jan seemed to be insisting that atheists are in no position to discuss religion since they are "without God" and hence don't have a clue what they are talking about and can only 'speculate'. Never mind that Jan's etymology is a bit misleading. The Greek word 'a-theos' doesn't exactly mean 'without God'. It's the negation 'a-' appended to the word 'theos' and can just as accurately be translated as 'no God'.
The difficulty is that Jan's 'I'm with God while you're only speculating' line of argument only works if being "with God" means being with something real. But if 'God' is a non-existent object (like a unicorn) and if being "with God" is merely another way of saying 'deluded', then Jan's boast seems to fall apart.
It is a forgone conclusion that God exists. You are, without God. Atheos-Atheist.
You have no knowledge of what it is you are without, and as such your analysis becomes an excercise of speculation.
At least with the notion of physical existence you can always jump back to this physical evidence thing, thereby instant, false, justification.
It is what it is. You are without God, and you always will be without God, until you accept God. Then there's a chance you can start to believe in God.
Theos = God
A-theos = without God.
and in post #171:
Whatever it is, you are without it.
Do you agree?
Then Dave very reasonably wrote (in post #175):
Is it any less meaningful to say I am "without unicorns"?
Or I am "without evil"?
Or I am "without the desire to torture"?
Not "having" something is not equatable to a shortcoming.
That to the best of my knowledge was the first time that the word 'unicorns' was used in this thread.
Upon seeing the word 'unicorn' Tiassa's left knee jerked and he/she got hysterical, throwing out crazy insults and flames in all directions (along with inexplicable Japanese cartoons). The thread acquired the new focus of who had offended who and who was a 'bigot'.
Jan seemed to be insisting that atheists are in no position to discuss religion since they are "without God" and hence don't have a clue what they are talking about and can only 'speculate'. Never mind that Jan's etymology is a bit misleading. The Greek word 'a-theos' doesn't exactly mean 'without God'. It's the negation 'a-' appended to the word 'theos' and can just as accurately be translated as 'no God'.
The difficulty is that Jan's 'I'm with God while you're only speculating' line of argument only works if being "with God" means being with something real. But if 'God' is a non-existent object (like a unicorn) and if being "with God" is merely another way of saying 'deluded', then Jan's boast seems to fall apart.
Last edited: