On faith

[Sarkus]

It is the meaning of religion. Re-ligare which mean to link, bind, again with God.

The etymology of religion is actually disputed. It certainly comes from the Latin word religio (meaning a number of things including superstitious) butbeyond that it is disputed, with Cicero believing that it came from re-legere, meaning "to read again".

Note for any idiots who will maintain that I am advocating 'One must believe in God, to believe in God' - I'm not.

You can indeed claim not to advocate anything you want, but to do so straight after advocating it merely speaks to your penchant for contradictions. And if you want to refer to me as an idiot for pointing it out, then guilty as charged.

But hey, I like the tactic of insulting anyone up front who might disagree with you. I might try that one day when I, too, lack the ability to provide actual cogent arguments.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The meaning of "without god" was its original meaning and covered those who believed in the existence of God but didn't worship etc.
The modern usage, as you well know, means lacking a belief that God exists, deriving its definition from theism (belief that God exists).

Atheist = a theos = without God. Nothing about existence, or lack of. Period.

You are simply designing an explanation that suits your world view. Period.

And if you want to refer to me as an idiot for pointing it out, then guilty as charged.

I think that lying to yourself is pretty idiotic.

I think it is an idiot who continues to lie to himself, and try to pass that lie of as real knowledge and understandidng.



jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

It then follows that Theist literally, and simply means, with god.

Well, OK. I suppose it is possible for some one to believe in some thing without any further defining of its properties.

The conversation would be of this sort:
"I believe in God."
"And what is it you believe about God?"
"I have no idea."
Seems kind of vacuous to believe in something when one has no properites of it in which to believe.

On the other hand, an atheist does not require much in the way of definition:
"I do not believe in God."
"What is it that you do not believe?"
"Any aspect that is supernatural."
"What about all the other properties? The nuances? The flavours?"
"Are they predicated on a supernatural being? Yes? Then doesn't matter."

But if the theist tries that, it still makes little sense:
"I believe in God."
"And what is it you believe about God?"
"Any aspect that is supernatural."
"What about all the other properties? The nuances? The flavours?"
"Are they predicated on a supernatural being? Yes? Then I believe it, whatever it is."

The onus is on the believer to define what it is that constitutes their belief.


Never mind. This thread has made the inevitable turn toward insults and accusations of lying.

I'm out.

 

[The God]

Detailed and complex argument. Let's simplify it to conclude. I don't know what others would conclude, if there are any gradings/scale about being theist, but I am a theist. I will write down why I put myself in this category, I urge an atheist to come forward and do the same.

1. I pray everyday morning for few minutes.
2. Whenever I venture out to something new, I just think of God for success.
3. I think of God during take off.
4. I think of God and pray for safety when the aircraft is in turbulence, despite having sound understanding of flight control and despite being an active flyer.
5. I think of God for the well being of my loved ones.
6. I don't think science has any contradiction with God.
7. I do not think setbacks are caused by the God.
8. I don't ask questions about any aspect of God.
9. I do not blame God for failures or setbacks but do thank him for successes.
10. I pray to God for everyone's well being, but I resort to medical science. Basically efforts are there as required, nothing blindly left on him.
11. Like majority of theists I am not part of any God propaganda, I keep it to myself, I do not preach.
12. No God in day today argument, like God can do this etc... It is just the tacit faith.

I feel #1 is more or less a ritual, need not be the part of all theists schedule, rest all are common, except a large populace of fanatics who do nasty things in the name of God.

Any atheist ???
Then may be we get a functional definition. Jan ardena.....'Janarden' is actually a God.

 

[Sarkus]

Atheist = a theos = without God. Nothing about existence, or lack of. Period.

You are simply designing an explanation that suits your world view. Period.

Right, so modern usage of words can not be different from how they were first used a couple of thousand or so years ago? You're having a laugh, right?
Well, I guess you won't be referring to anything as "nice" by way of compliment, given that it originally meant foolish, stupid, simple (from the Latin nescius).
And I guess if you describe something as "awful" you of course mean that it is full of awe rather than terrible.
So please do stick to the original out-dated meaning of words if that is your want, while the rest of us stick to modern meanings, okay?

I think that lying to yourself is pretty idiotic.

No, I really did point it out to you. You can check the relevant post if you want, where I point it out to you.
But thanks for the accusation of lying...

I think it is an idiot who continues to lie to himself, and try to pass that lie of as real knowledge and understandidng.

...and for the insults. Is that all you have now? You have avoided addressing any of the pertinent issues actually raised and gone straight for the insults, so can I assume you have nothing of value to add?
As stated previously, Jan, you know where the door is.

 

[Jan Ardena]

And if you want to refer to me as an idiot for pointing it out, then guilty as charged.

Well, OK. I suppose it is possible for some one to believe in some thing without any further defining of its properties.

The conversation would be of this sort:
"I believe in God."
"And what is it you believe about God?"
"I have no idea."
Seems kind of vacuous to believe in something when one has no properites of it in which to believe.

I can see where this is a problem for you, but for a theist it is quite simple.
Everything is the property of God.

On the other hand, an atheist does not require much in the way of definition:
"I do not believe in God."
"What is it that you do not believe?"
"Any aspect that is supernatural."
"What about all the other properties? The nuances? The flavours?"
"Are they predicated on a supernatural being? Yes? Then doesn't matter."

Do you believe that it doesn't matter, or do you know it doesn't matter?
If the former, then you have a belief system, if the latter, please explain how you know.

But if the theist tries that, it still makes little sense:
"I believe in God."
"And what is it you believe about God?"
"Any aspect that is supernatural."
"What about all the other properties? The nuances? The flavours?"
"Are they predicated on a supernatural being? Yes? Then I believe it, whatever it is."

An atheist giving his idea about what God is. Then thinking that is the same idea that a theist has.
Interesting!

The onus is on the believer to define what it is that constitutes their belief.

A believer doesn't have to define anything if they don't want to.
The reality is, nothing changes for the believer if he defines his/her belief or not.
The atheist needs the believer to define beliefs so that they can try to refute it, thereby justifying to themselves, their world view.
Notice, anything that is positively theistic is immediately attacked by explicit atheists, without the need to even comprehend what is being stated.
It is a knee jerk reaction.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Right, so modern usage of words can not be different from how they were first used a couple of thousand or so years ago? You're having a laugh, right?

If you have good reason to.
So what is the reason to invoke existence into atheism, aside from needing to?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Detailed and complex argument. Let's simplify it to conclude. I don't know what others would conclude, if there are any gradings/scale about being theist, but I am a theist. I will write down why I put myself in this category, I urge an atheist to come forward and do the same.

1. I pray everyday morning for few minutes.
2. Whenever I venture out to something new, I just think of God for success.
3. I think of God during take off.
4. I think of God and pray for safety when the aircraft is in turbulence, despite having sound understanding of flight control and despite being an active flyer.
5. I think of God for the well being of my loved ones.
6. I don't think science has any contradiction with God.
7. I do not think setbacks are caused by the God.
8. I don't ask questions about any aspect of God.
9. I do not blame God for failures or setbacks but do thank him for successes.
10. I pray to God for everyone's well being, but I resort to medical science. Basically efforts are there as required, nothing blindly left on him.
11. Like majority of theists I am not part of any God propaganda, I keep it to myself, I do not preach.
12. No God in day today argument, like God can do this etc... It is just the tacit faith.

I feel #1 is more or less a ritual, need not be the part of all theists schedule, rest all are common, except a large populace of fanatics who do nasty things in the name of God.

Any atheist ???

Not one need to bring existence into your conclusion.
It would not surprise me if existence will be the only real contention with the atheist, should he/she decide to respond to this.
Or now that I have pointed it out...

Jan ardena.....'Janarden' is actually a God.

Janardhana is one of the many names of God (Lord Vishnu), meaning 'One who protects people, one who has people as his wealth'.

Did you mean God, or a god?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

No, I really did point it out to you. You can check the relevant post if you want, where I point it out to you.
But thanks for the accusation of lying...

I accused you of nothing, but if you feel the cap fits...

...and for the insults. Is that all you have now? You have avoided addressing any of the pertinent issues actually raised and gone straight for the insults, so can I assume you have nothing of value to add?

Firstly I have not insulted you, but again if you feel the cap fits...

Secondly I have addressed more issues than it seems you can comprehend. Please re-state the issues and I shall try and address them in a way that will not just fly over your head.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

But hey, I like the tactic of insulting anyone up front who might disagree with you.

It is my opinion that it is pretty idiotic for a person, to constantly replace words, with words of their own choosing, then proceed to act as though the word they replaced it with was always there.
Then use it in plain sight, as though it was the revised way all the time. Don't you?

jan.

 

[The God]

Not one need to bring existence into your conclusion.
It would not surprise me if existence will be the only real contention with the atheist, should he/she decide to respond to this.
Or now that I have pointed it out...



Janardhana is one of the many names of God (Lord Vishnu), meaning 'One who protects people, one who has people as his wealth'.

Did you mean God, or a god?

jan.

For a theist existence is not a question at all.

I know two people, only two out of many many, they call themselves atheist...but they have not been able to put it into words. To me it appears to be a matter of self doubt for them. Some people here on this board appear to have taken a position...atheistic....just to sound more scientific oriented, and just to ease through...but actually that is not required.

I personally feel more than disbelief in the God, it is rituals which they are opposed to, and that I find perfectly legitimate.

 

[Sarkus]

If you have good reason to.
So what is the reason to invoke existence into atheism, aside from needing to?

Because that is its definition, Jan. It is the same reason we invoke organic polymers when referring to plastic. Or invoke hair when we refer to someone as bald.

 

[Sarkus]

I accused you of nothing, but if you feel the cap fits...

Stop being a coward, Jan: you levied the insult, however thinly veiled, so at least have the bravery tostand behind it (or even apologise). Don't just deny having made it when it is as blatant as the sun on a cloudy day: the clouds may cover the sun but we all know it is there.

Firstly I have not insulted you, but again if you feel the cap fits...

You did, Jan. You deliberately described what you thought I had done and described the actions and the person performing those actions as idiotic and an idiot. That is an insult. Veiled but an insult nonetheless.

Secondly I have addressed more issues than it seems you can comprehend.

Yet more veiled insults. Is this all you have left?

Please re-state the issues and I shall try and address them in a way that will not just fly over your head.

And even more insults. Way to go! You're on a roll! Can't help yourself, can you!

You haven't responded to post #98 at all.
You haven't responded to the second part of post #100, taking issue with your assertion that belief is a choice.

 

[Sarkus]

It is my opinion that it is pretty idiotic for a person, to constantly replace words, with words of their own choosing, then proceed to act as though the word they replaced it with was always there.
Then use it in plain sight, as though it was the revised way all the time. Don't you?

Indeed, and it's my opinion that the new Star Wars film didn't quite live up to its hype!
But I'll assume there's a relevance to your example...
Oh, you think someone has done what you think is idiotic?
Well, if it did ever happen it wouldn't so much be idiotic as be deliberately dishonest and something you should clearly report. Please do point out where such behaviour took place, so I can report the perpetrator myself!
But if it didn't happen then I fail to see the relevance of this opinion of yours to the thread?

 

[Sarkus]

Detailed and complex argument. Let's simplify it to conclude. I don't know what others would conclude, if there are any gradings/scale about being theist, but I am a theist. I will write down why I put myself in this category, I urge an atheist to come forward and do the same.

1. I pray everyday morning for few minutes.
2. Whenever I venture out to something new, I just think of God for success.
3. I think of God during take off.
4. I think of God and pray for safety when the aircraft is in turbulence, despite having sound understanding of flight control and despite being an active flyer.
5. I think of God for the well being of my loved ones.
6. I don't think science has any contradiction with God.
7. I do not think setbacks are caused by the God.
8. I don't ask questions about any aspect of God.
9. I do not blame God for failures or setbacks but do thank him for successes.
10. I pray to God for everyone's well being, but I resort to medical science. Basically efforts are there as required, nothing blindly left on him.
11. Like majority of theists I am not part of any God propaganda, I keep it to myself, I do not preach.
12. No God in day today argument, like God can do this etc... It is just the tacit faith.

I feel #1 is more or less a ritual, need not be the part of all theists schedule, rest all are common, except a large populace of fanatics who do nasty things in the name of God.

Any atheist ???

What makes you a theist is that behind each of those is the implicit assumption that God exists. It may not be a matter you ever consider or question, but it is implicit and foundational to everything on your list.

My list, as an atheist:
1. I do not have the belief that God exists.

I also have friends who are theist and their list would be:
1. They do not pray at all
2. They don't thank God for anything
3. They don't think setbacks or successes are granted by God
4. They don't think air turbulence or the pilot's ability to control the aircraft are due to God
5. They don't think the well-being of their loved ones are due to God
6. They don't think there is any contradiction between science and God
7. They don't ask questions about God
8. They are not part of any propaganda surrounding God
9. God does not feature in their discussions unless directly asked
10. When asked, though, they do say that they believe God to exist

The one underlying thing that links you, as a theist, to my friends, as theists, is that you all believe that God exists. It is the one thing that necessarily links all theists.

Similarly, the one thing that links all atheists is their lack of belief that God exists.

 

[The God]

Sarkus,

Definitions apart, you feel that an atheist must necessary believe that the God does not exist..

I think one can be atheist while remaining indifferent about the existence of God. It is the belief in God which is more important to a theist then his existence, as I said the question of his existence never comes to mind. You can infer anything out of this.

Equally important is, this aspect is associated with faith and it does not call for objective evidence. Its like this I am theist but I cannot be called upon to prove any related aspect. You are atheist and you need not explain why you are. Think loud one is not atheist just because one thinks god does not exist. I cannot answer about his existence because I find the question irrelevant.

 

[The God]

Sarkis,

I never said that turbulence is caused by God or setbacks ate caused by him.

The theism and thinking has gone beyond irrationality. May be few centuries ago people would think that fever is caused by x God and fire by y god and rain by z God. That has certainly changed but belief in god is still intact.

 

[Jan Ardena]

ME[/B]]If you have good reason to.
So what is the reason to invoke existence into atheism, aside from needing to?

Because that is its definition, Jan. It is the same reason we invoke organic polymers when referring to plastic. Or invoke hair when we refer to someone as bald.

From Wiki...

The term atheism originated from the Greek (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society...

...With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves using the wordatheist lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment.[13] The French Revolution, noted for its "unprecedented atheism," witnessed the first major political movement in history to advocate for the supremacy of human reason.


It would appear that I am correct in thinking that it has been purposely designed to accomodate a particular mindset, in the same way the terms 'gay' or 'bright' has been.

The real meaning of the word atheist is the word itself... without God, or gods.

jan.

 

[Yazata]

Definitions apart, you [Sarkus] feel that an atheist must necessary believe that the God does not exist.

I'm inclined to say that, but I think that Sarkus disagrees. Sarkus would probably say that it's necessary that an atheist not believe in the existence of God. That's rather different than believing that God doesn't exist. A new-born baby doesn't believe in God's existence, but doesn't believe in God's non-existence either. So on what I take to be Sarkus' principles, the baby would seemingly qualify as an atheist. I'd say that the baby has no opinions on the matter one way or the other.

I think one can be atheist while remaining indifferent about the existence of God.

I don't believe that one can be an atheist while having no beliefs at all about the existence of God at all. But I agree that an atheist needn't be hostile towards belief in God. It does seem that many contemporary atheists hate religion, religious belief and those who believe. I tend to think of those people as atheist-fundamentalists. In my opinion they share many of the unpleasant psychological traits of religious fundamentalists.

It is the belief in God which is more important to a theist then his existence

Can you explain what you think the distinction is between 'belief in God' and 'belief in God's existence'? To me, they are synonymous.

as I said the question of his existence never comes to mind.

I'll agree that many believers in God take God's existence for granted so that the existence question rarely arises for them. If it does, they may try to put it out of their minds and think about something else. They are more interested in getting right with God, with living life as they believe God wants them to live it, or with deepening their own piety.

But the belief in God's objective existence does seem to be implicit. Theists certainly want to insist that God is something more than their own hallucination or delusion. They want to argue that God and God's revelations have more reality than the voices that schizophrenics report 'hearing' in their heads. God is assumed to have cosmological and soteriological significance that applies to everyone and everything. That's why there is so much emphasis on God being the universe's 'creator' and on the distinction between creator and creation. It's why there is such emphasis on missions.

I think that the existence question tends to rise to explicit awareness when atheists and theists come into contact, since the atheists don't accept the theists most fundamental assumption. It's an assumption that as you say, is unquestioned and unexamined by many theists. But those rather simple-minded theists probably need to be aware that these kind of questions have received a great deal of attention in the theological tradition, and theologians are theists too.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus,

Definitions apart, you feel that an atheist must necessary believe that the God does not exist..

No - not at all. I think that in order to be an atheist, one must, given a notion of God to work with, simply not hold the belief that God exists. This is what I mean by "lack of belief". This encapsulates strong atheists (those who hold the belief that God does not exist) and weak atheists (those who don't hold belief that God exists but also don't believe that God does not exist). I have been quite clear on this being what I consider atheism to be for the past 10 years or so that I have frequented this site.

I think one can be atheist while remaining indifferent about the existence of God. It is the belief in God which is more important to a theist then his existence, as I said the question of his existence never comes to mind. You can infer anything out of this.

Sure, what interests the theist can only be founded upon belief that God exists. What differentiates one theist from another is what one believes about their God, the ways in which they believe in their God. But at their core is always the same belief that God exists.

Equally important is, this aspect is associated with faith and it does not call for objective evidence. Its like this I am theist but I cannot be called upon to prove any related aspect. You are atheist and you need not explain why you are. Think loud one is not atheist just because one thinks god does not exist. I cannot answer about his existence because I find the question irrelevant.

So you would believe in God whether or not you believed that God exists? I would suggest that it is certainly not irrelevant to you as it is the foundation upon which everything is built. But, just as you don't concern yourself about the foundations upon which your house is built (until they fail) but rather the furnishings within, the foundations are not irrelevant to the house.