On faith
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
I have never said, nor will I ever say, that you are acting superior to atheist because you are theist. I will say that you are acting superior because of the tone and style of your posting, and because you come across as arrogant and condescending.
The overwhelmingly vast majority of theists I know act in no such way, thus please do not consider me equating theism with acting superior. I limit that to those whose behaviour I feel warrant it.
Jan,
Definitions are fine if understood in context. 'Without God' if taken literally will not convey any meaning to an atheist. He can vehemently come forward and argue on this, like happening here. So best thing would be to define what it means to be 'with and without God'.
Definitions are fine if understood in context. 'Without God' if taken literally will not convey any meaning to an atheist. He can vehemently come forward and argue on this, like happening here. So best thing would be to define what it means to be 'with and without God'.
It's not about me accepting things for myself but of trying to accept things of you about yourself. Yet still I have no response from you other than constant evasion and excuses.
Are you sure you got this right? You think no atheist will ever accept any answer involving reasons and logic?? I beg to differ, but at the moment I'll take any answer you can give, but one with reason and logic would certainly be preferable.
That's how it comes across.
Maybe we should stick to what we write, as opposed to adding our own spin eh?
Really.
I'll take your word for it.
jan.
To try to understand, Jan. It's a puzzling notion to me, and this thread seemed ideal to try to explore it.
So far no joy, though, as it's just constant evasion.
It will always boil down to existence, with atheists, then you will be required to give physical evidence of existence. Failure to do so will result in what you have just experienced.
jan.
What do they tell you when you ask them about the basis for their faith in God?
If you have not asked them so far, now its time to do so. Pl do post what they tell you.
I do stick to what is written, Jan, hence I can say that your writing smacks of trying to be superior, as well as condescending and arrogant.
The problem is that you're trying to understand something from your perspective, without actually having a perspective of what you wish to understand.
jan.
They generally tell me that it is a private matter and not one they wish to discuss. Those who are more open simply say that they can not explain it, but that it just feels right. Most people I know aren't really into particularly deep conversations, and those that are share similar views to mine, so not much help. Hence I visit this forum.
So you keep pre-judging, without any intention to discuss.
No, it is not required, I specifically stated that in my early posts.
I am just attempting to make them see that look, don't apply your learnt objectivity on the matters pertaining to religious faith and beliefs. Sarkus is being just adamant, he thinks that this is evasion but actually this is THE answer.
See, so now I understand that you are genuinely here to quench your curiosity. There are few explanations, pick one..
1. They want you to stay away from this.
2. They know that you are an argumentative type person and bring in logic and reasons and they won't be able to argue back logically.
3. What did I say in my very early post...The lack of objectivity in defending one's faith in God, is not the weaknesses of their belief, it is built into that, their faith in God is not open for objective discussion.
See, how devious you attempted by construing my statement that no atheist will accept any answer involving reason and logic....it was in the context of logic behind faith in God because none exist which can appease an atheist.
He won't accept it.
He sees that having faith in his mother is so because he has evidence that backs up his faith.
Having faith in God is not based on evidence, at least till you can show that God exists.
Sarkus is wthout God, so how can he comprehend what you comprehend?
He thinks that if God exists, there must be evidence.
If there is no evidence, then it is likely that God does not exist.
For him, God is another phenomenom. Something that remains apart, somewhere out there.
For you, God IS (I presume).
That is the fundamental difference.
It could be that Sarkus perfectly comprehends what you're saying, but wants to see you squirm, become impatient, and loose your cool, which could make you act irrationally.
To me, faith in God, or anything, has to be tested.
Just saying I have faith in God, or anything, amounts to nothing more than words.
So what does it mean to have faith? In your opinion.
jan.
