On faith

The God said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why is it not open for discussion? Are you not capable of explaining subjective matters? Or are you just here to waste people's time?
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.
Click to expand...
Devious? How is it devious to take what you said, to wit: "No atheist will ever accept any answer involving reasons and logic..."? I even asked if that was what you meant, so I hardly see any deviousness.
Now you have qualified it with "in the matter of faith in God". Okay, but I would still like to see you put forth an answer in the matter of faith in God that involves reason and logic.
You have said that no atheist will ever accept one, yet you have yet to present one to even consider.
Are you going to? Or is the entire purpose of your involvement here just to cry foul of those that don't share your view yet have an inquiring mind?
'Cos I'm at a loss to otherwise explain your attitude here.
 
wegs said:
To people of faith here, calling atheists delusional, ignorant, etc...isn't that sort of counter productive to ''witnessing'' for your faith? Not judging, but just an observation. Can't we share our beliefs without the need for ad homs?
Click to expand...
No they can't. Theists are "special" having a relationship with a ghost no one else can see. And you can't question it.
 
spidergoat said:
No they can't. Theists are "special" having a relationship with a ghost no one else can see. And you can't question it.
Click to expand...

I’m a spiritual person again, and believe in God, and it just is curious to me as to why some theists feel the need to convince others that there is a God. When both sides start calling each other names and tossing around insults, it is unfortunate, and it also doesn’t make sense to me. People come to faith for very personal reasons, and usually has nothing to do with the urging of others. If you’re happy as an atheist, and others are happy in their spiritual beliefs, not sure what all the arguing is about. That said, many theists believe that their faith specifically dictates to them, to help lead others to the faith, and I can’t say that’s untrue, but it’s all in the delivery. If a theist (not naming anyone here) is using anger and ad homs to drive points home to atheists, it would be better to just stay silent on the topic. If you’re filled with happiness in your faith, it should show in how you interact with others.
 
spidergoat said:
It is absurd and foolish. You have no reason for faith in god, so you argue that reason isn't reasonable.
Click to expand...

Your comprehension of what The God wrote is substandard for these forums. You conflate rationalization with reason when in fact they are mutually contradictory.
 
spidergoat said:
No they can't. Theists are "special" having a relationship with a ghost no one else can see. And you can't question it.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "special" with regards to labeling theists delusional demonstrates an incredible ignorance when measured against the blatant fact that we are special.
 
Last edited:
wegs said:
To people of faith here, calling atheists delusional, ignorant, etc...isn't that sort of counter productive to ''witnessing'' for your faith? Not judging, but just an observation. Can't we share our beliefs without the need for ad homs?
Click to expand...

I think that people typically resort to insults when they are angry and frustrated.
 
wegs said:
If you’re happy as an atheist, and others are happy in their spiritual beliefs, not sure what all the arguing is about.
Click to expand...
The arguing is because some people are trying to pass laws based on their religious views. These laws take on many forms from discrimination of the LGBT community to trying to pass off their religious beliefs as science in the publicly funded school system.
 
When the dust settles, we are left with a problem that has never been, and may never be, solved.
Without a clear definition of the terms involved, we will never have the mechanics necessary to effect a universal solution.

It just may be that there is no universal path to inclusive understanding.
 
sculptor said:
For those who believe, no proof is necessary.
For those who doubt, no proof is possible.
Click to expand...
Very false.

Proof is indeed quite possible for skeptics.

The skeptic's conclusion that we haven't had any proof doesn't mean it's not possible or not out there.

Proof of God would be empirical, and it would be extraordinary. If he came and stood before us, and performed feats attributable only to a god, that would certainly be enough to convince a skeptic.
The process for proof is available to a skeptic.

That it has not happened is, skeptically speaking, a good indicator that the premise is flawed.
 
Spellbound said:
Your comprehension of what The God wrote is substandard for these forums. You conflate rationalization with reason when in fact they are mutually contradictory.
Click to expand...
The absurd thing is calling atheists' reasons not to believe "rationalizations" while rejecting reason in favor of faith.
 
sculptor said:
When the dust settles, we are left with a problem that has never been, and may never be, solved.
Without a clear definition of the terms involved, we will never have the mechanics necessary to effect a universal solution.

It just may be that there is no universal path to inclusive understanding.
Click to expand...
Rationalizing ignorance again?
 
I'd like to clarify my stance, only as it seems to have come under fire and possibly misunderstood by others. I won't to drag it out by engaging in a defense of it. I'd like to go back to the topic at-hand.

I wish I could say I speak for other atheists, but I can't and don't.

I do not dismiss or disrespect people for their spiritual beliefs. Like many things, one's spiritual beliefs need not be defended. I respect that. I also respect the beliefs that are built on top of that. I have my own beliefs that are not based on rationality, as everyone does. We all have to get through life, and there are as many starting points as there are people.

I have chosen a set of beliefs; I have chosen to be skeptical about God until such time as there is sufficient evidence. Absent evidence, I strongly suspect that he does not exist. The emergent result of that, is that I inevitably believe that the Bible is factually wrong about pretty much everything to do with God. I can't not believe that. That means I inevitably think that theists - who are perfectly fine people - are under a false notion. I also can't not believe that. This is, after all, a binary, polarizing issue.

Each stance pretty much has to think the other is deeply wrong. With the exception of some equivocation, that is foregone.

This topic is about faith versus non-faith. If it were only attended by those who practice faith, it would be a darned short thread! :)
So, it's a forgone conclusion that the faith-opponent viewpoint is relevant and welcome.

In such an academic discussion, it is my job to raise the issue that opposes faithers' stance. That is not personal, and it is not intended to be disrespectful.

To be clear: thinking a general tenet is wrong is not the same as being disrespectful or dismissive of a person.

If one cannot say 'I think that stance is wrong, and here's why' then one does not have a discussion at all. That's what an academic discussion is. The issues are not to be taken personally. If you bring your personal agenda to the table, then an academic discussion (such as a public science forum on the internet) may not be a good place for it. (You're welcome to, but your opponents are not held accountable for offense you might take.)

Be that as it may, I apologize to any people of faith, if my beliefs, as expressed in this forum, have been hurtful or offensive.

It is not my intention to hurt or dismiss or disrespect people. It is only my intention to address ideas.
 
gmilam said:
The arguing is because some people are trying to pass laws based on their religious views. These laws take on many forms from discrimination of the LGBT community to trying to pass off their religious beliefs as science in the publicly funded school system.
Click to expand...

Public schools shouldn't be ''teaching'' religious anything, I agree. But, not all people of faith feel that religion should be a part of the public school science program, etc. Seems like the arguments are more basic in here, than that.
 
DaveC426913 said:
...Proof of God would be empirical, and it would be extraordinary. If he came and stood before us, and performed feats attributable only to a god, that would certainly be enough to convince a skeptic.
The process for proof is available to a skeptic. ... .
Click to expand...

Let me offer this:
If you think that you can define god, then the god that you can define is not "GOD"

................................
Long ago and far away, I challenged a redneck southern baptist chaplain because of his predilection for using the masculine single pronoun for "GOD". One thing led to another and he blew his cool.
GOD ain't no pronoun!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top