Any atheists here who were once believers?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
You haven't shown anything. Feel free to explain where the misunderstanding is, and clarify your position.
Perhaps you should consider quoting the part where I say I believe in God because of a feeling and explain what I mean when I say why I believe in God.
I already have http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?136289-Any-atheists-here-who-were-once-believers&p=3117808&viewfull=1#post3117808]quoted it.[/url]
And I've been trying to get you to further explain what you mean, but you refuse to elaborate.
I sincerely doubt Seattle was trying to make you feel uncomfortable. Though he sometimes shares your unwillingness to open his views to criticism, he doesn't strike me as a guy who intentionally pushes buttons.
That's just it though, maybe you're just not looking hard enough.
Repeating myself would be a waste of time, so I suggest you put your thinking cap on, and pour through the response, and make a note of what it is you lack understanding of, then we'll discuss it in our next exchange. How's about that?
We've already been through this, and two different posters have come to the same conclusion. Perhaps instead of assuming everyone else is an idiot, you reexamine the way you present your ideas and look for some weaknesses. Find out what it is, exactly, about your phrasing that leads people to believe something other than what you intended, and correct it.
How's about that?
Let's see, Jan: You don't have faith, but you claim God exists, so what's that leave you with?
For someone who claims to have knowledge of the existence of God, you sure do have low self-esteem.
Actually, this depends on what you mean by "God."
The moment one uses a word, it must be the case that one means something by it, otherwise one couldn't use it.
It is imaginable to think that "God" is such that it is not possible to live one's life as if God doesn't exist.
For example, if you think of "God" as the One who makes it possible for the Sun to shine, for the atoms to interact with one another so that you can breathe air and digest food, then it is not possible to live one's life as if God doesn't exist.
Defining God as "First Cause," in a deist-like way, indeed makes it possible to live life as if God doesn't exist, given that one believes that God is the one who set the universe in motion and then withdrew from the spectacle.
But many other definitions of "God" that are available to us for consideration are such that they suggest God is involved in the details of one's daily life.
Of course, this doesn't prove that God exists, nor does it prove which definition of "God" is the right one.
But, as noted, the moment one uses a word, it must be the case that one means something by it, otherwise one couldn't use it. As long as one uses the word "God," it must be that one means something by it.
And in some cases, one's definition of "God" may indeed be in contradiction with the claim that one is living life as if God doesn't exist.
If one really wants to play it safe, one should never use the word "God" at all.
That might be why I use the term Lord Jesus, he being the intermediary between God and Man
Does it make sense to have an intermediary in Hinduism and Buddhism?
It might. And I am sure that I have commented god to be "original cause" or some such (this being the definition/understanding when I became agnostic/atheist).
But if (and let's for the sake of argument pick a name at random...) Jan wants to disagree with my position then he should surely show how either my definition of God is wrong such that I know it to be wrong (not just that he disagrees with it), or how my conclusion is inconsistent with my understanding.
He can not... rather should not... say that my conclusion is wrong if he starts from different assumptions.
if I say 2+2=4, it is meaningless and will not help his understanding of my position if he says it is wrong because 5+2 does not =4, and refuses to see that I am starting with 2 and not 5.
Is there a case of pot and kettle here? Possibly, but Jan remains rather tight-lipped on his lack of concept of god.
For most this is true, but recall that Jan does not believe in a concept of god.
Unless you're a dyslexic looking after your pet?
Why do you give Jan so much attention, and even credence that he may have something worthwhile to say?
Balerion,
But that's just it. I have. I have given you the oppotunity to show where Isay my reason for belief in God is based on a feeling, by showing you the thread of the discussion.
I explained that to wynn.
Oh! Why do you doubt that?
My views are always open criticism.
Then you need to quote the part in question, or we will be going round in circles.
I've made the first Balerion, now it's up to you to do the right thing (for once).
Oops!
There goes that neuro-linguistic-programming (nlp) technique again.
That's just it big B, I don't think it does. I think that people want to think that mine, or any thiests reason for believing in God, is due to a feeling.
jan.
But that's just it. I have. I have given you the oppotunity to show where Isay my reason for belief in God is based on a feeling, by showing you the thread of the discussion.
I explained that to wynn.
Oh! Why do you doubt that?
My views are always open criticism.
Then you need to quote the part in question, or we will be going round in circles.
I've made the first Balerion, now it's up to you to do the right thing (for once).
Oops!
There goes that neuro-linguistic-programming (nlp) technique again.
That's just it big B, I don't think it does. I think that people want to think that mine, or any thiests reason for believing in God, is due to a feeling.
jan.
Yeah Sarkus, how dare you take your attention away from wynn, when she hasn't finished with you yet.
jan.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Jan, people don't care one way or the other what your reasoning is. If we are going to read your posts and participate in this thread we would just like to understand what you are trying to convey.
Balerion quoted where you said that it was a feeling and now you are the one going round and round insisting that isn't the case. If you don't want to participate fine but why keep posting while refusing to clarify any point?
Here is what Balerion is referring to:
"Quote Originally Posted by jan
Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about. Musicians who adopt it as a concept, are not as influential as those that don't. They are merely copying, just like you copied a belief in God."
Balerion quoted where you said that it was a feeling and now you are the one going round and round insisting that isn't the case. If you don't want to participate fine but why keep posting while refusing to clarify any point?
Here is what Balerion is referring to:
"Quote Originally Posted by jan
Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about. Musicians who adopt it as a concept, are not as influential as those that don't. They are merely copying, just like you copied a belief in God."
I saw the comment relating to it being a "feeling" and wondered what that meant.
Feelings however, like perceptions, are one's own personal reality.
To me, that is all faith can ever really be about. A feeling that God exists based on how one might "feel" or sense him "working" in his/her life. Prayer life often manifests itself in a similar fashion.
All very interesting.
PS: Seattle, I saw your comments about Jan calling you names. I guess I missed those posts, somehow. lol
Feelings however, like perceptions, are one's own personal reality.
To me, that is all faith can ever really be about. A feeling that God exists based on how one might "feel" or sense him "working" in his/her life. Prayer life often manifests itself in a similar fashion.
All very interesting.
PS: Seattle, I saw your comments about Jan calling you names. I guess I missed those posts, somehow. lol
Why is there such a need to know more!
Suffice to say it is none of the above, I give my time freely.
I have discovered though if you treat people fairly and with respect, any threats or anger you come up against can normally be calmed.
Though there are times especially when people are in mob think, that it does become extreme frightening. Yet you must not show fear, you must react in a calm decisive manner, and really hope that you succeed.
I have thus far, and feel confident that I will in the future.
That's a shame because the more we know about each other the more relaxed, less fighting and more discussion.
I feel like praying the Lord's protection over you, but that might be presumptuous of me.
And I did. I showed you. I've quoted it, and then quoted the post in my latest reply. Now you're saying that isn't what you meant.
:shrug:
Explain it to me.
My views are always open criticism.
You never share your views, so how are we to criticize them? You make some claims, sure, but you never support them with substantive arguments. You retreat from criticism like a cockroach from light.
I already did, Jan.
Concepts don't matter. You just feel it. That is how and why it maifests. The feeling is instaneous, and complete, not constructed and thought about.
Enough with the games. Either answer, or admit you can't, and we can all move on from this.
I don't know what you think you've made the first of, but it has nothing to do with honesty or integrity.
Check out the whole conversation that lead up to that quote, then please explain how you came to the conclusion that my belief is based on a feeling.
jan.
Balerion,
You are adament that I implied my belief in God is based on a feeling.
You put foreward a quote that say's no such thing. The conversation was about musicians and concepts.
I collate the whole converstation that leads to that statement. Within that collation I actually state what makes me believe, and you totally ignore it.
My conclusion is, you want to put into people's minds that my belief in God is based on a feeling.
Where does it say that my belief in God is based on a feeling?
And why doesn't the fact that I say you've misunderstood this quote, mean anything despite your reading into something that isn't there?
You're the one playing the games Balerion.
The missing word is ''move'' big B. I hate using phones to message.
What's, due to a feeling? That's the question.
jan.
You are adament that I implied my belief in God is based on a feeling.
You put foreward a quote that say's no such thing. The conversation was about musicians and concepts.
I collate the whole converstation that leads to that statement. Within that collation I actually state what makes me believe, and you totally ignore it.
My conclusion is, you want to put into people's minds that my belief in God is based on a feeling.
Where does it say that my belief in God is based on a feeling?
And why doesn't the fact that I say you've misunderstood this quote, mean anything despite your reading into something that isn't there?
You're the one playing the games Balerion.
The missing word is ''move'' big B. I hate using phones to message.
What's, due to a feeling? That's the question.
jan.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
OK, so you believe because you're not the body? So again, I have to try to pull more out of you. You're not the body so what you are saying is that there is more to Man than the body. There is the soul. You are the soul and because you are the soul you believe in God?
Because you feel that part of you is transcendental you believe in God. Is that correct?
Why can't you just say it yourself in a sentence rather than expecting everyone else to follow you all over the place
It seems to me you still are really saying that you believe in God because you believe you have a soul and that you feel in your soul that there is a God.
Why answer this ongoing question with "I'm not the body" like that's a complete answer?
I believe I've given enough information. About myself do I need to given you my address, phone number etc etc. I constantly deal with dangerous people, I not going to add information which could bring that to my doorstep.
Please don't it is rude, insulting, callous and nasty of you to do so. Please refrain thank you.Robittybob1 said:
OK, so you believe because you're not the body? So again, I have to try to pull more out of you. You're not the body so what you are saying is that there is more to Man than the body. There is the soul. You are the soul and because you are the soul you believe in God?
Because you feel that part of you is transcendental you believe in God. Is that correct?
Why can't you just say it yourself in a sentence rather than expecting everyone else to follow you all over the place
It seems to me you still are really saying that you believe in God because you believe you have a soul and that you feel in your soul that there is a God.
Why answer this ongoing question with "I'm not the body" like that's a complete answer?
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
You just wasted mine and everybody's (who fell for it) time with this bullshit.
You owe me an apology.
jan.