I desire things (wish for them), but I don't direct that desire at a supernatural entity. Circumstances or my own actions may deliver it, but I don't think there is some entity choosing to deliver it based on whether I'm worthy of it, or to play some kind of sick game with my life like Job.This one is 'wish' part..
People on either side can correct me..
when we wish for something.
As a theist deep down in my heart it gets linked to pray to God. Wishful thinking on certain matters is not an empty rhetoric for me, its much more than that.
How do atheist handle this?
False. Based on analysis of polytheist cultures.I don't agree that there was ''prior to the time of the notion of a single God''.
This can easily be analysed by comprehension of what God is defined as.
jan.
It's evidence.@DaveC426913,
You lost me, it's either evidence or it isn't.
Being "with God" is theology. Believing God exists is theism. Believing God exists but I'm without God is still theism (example: Satanists).It's important to know what these labels actually mean, and how the relate to us in this day and age.
It appears that the way they are used, has changed over time and I wanted to know why.
Everything seems to be centered around Gods existence, and less about God. While they may be the same to a person without God, they aren't the same, in any way. Obviously atheists aren't stupid people, so why can't they see that they are two different issues?
The interpretation of evidence as compelling is subjective.That doesn't make sense. You've already stated that such a sighting would lend strong evidence to the existence of God. Now you're saying it would be subjective evidence?
I was just wondering how do the atheists address or react to very commonly used terms like...
1. God bless you.
2. I pray for your...
3. Wish you a happy xxxxx..
4.....
1: Common saying. I take it with a thanks.If there are two groups, one believing in X and another not believing in X, then it is very natural for the non believer group to ask the reasons for this belief. The proof of positive can be sought in such cases...but things become complex when this 'X' is about faith.
I was just wondering how do the atheists address or react to very commonly used terms like...
1. God bless you.
2. I pray for your...
3. Wish you a happy xxxxx..
4.....
It is not that atheist move with a placard that I am atheist, so they may be encountering such utterances from others and they me be feeling the need to devise equivalent of such statements without invoking God.
when we wish for something.
As a theist deep down in my heart it gets linked to pray to God. Wishful thinking on certain matters is not an empty rhetoric for me
How do atheist handle this?
Because from the theists' perspective, per wegs, they are.Wegs said...If one is a person of faith though, one believes that no one's life is ''without God.'' An atheist's life is just without a belief in God. A person of faith does not necessary mean a theist.
A theist is defined as a person who believes in the existence of God (modern definition), or simply God (original definition). How does it follow that a theist believes everyone is with God.
This is a thread in th religion forum.What is a person of faith? They have faith in something or someone? Why does that have to be a theist or religious person. Everyone is a person of faith.
You clearly don't as you are still debating this non-issue.Yes. We've established that, and I accept that is what it means in todays language.
If you are implying a cause and effect between the two then you have them back to front, as explained.But there is no denying the fact that you are without God, and as such lack belief in God because.
And therefore I lack belief in God, yes.As you see it there is no evidence that confirms the existence of what is understood to be called God.
The definition of atheist could be whatever it is defined to be, and if that label fit my position I would wear it.Maybe you don't like the idea of there being a God, why for you, the default meaning of atheist cannot be 'without God', and is 'one who lacks belief in the existence of God'.
"Backed by"?But the modern meaning of the word is still backed by 'without God'. So you're reasoning is backed by the archaic definition of atheos. There's no getting away from that.
Yes, there is plenty wrong.Actually it can be defined as without God, because it is without God, and being without God, can be seen as the reason you lack belief in the existence of God. I take it that there's nothing wrong with what I said so far.
No, it is "theis" - uncapitalised and not meaning God but god.As far as the definitions go, the backdrop is Theos (God).
No.What you are saying is that God is not the backdrop, because there is no evidence that such a thing exists. Am I correct?
Credibility?If Theos is merely Gods existence, and that existence was to be treated like all other existences, then your modern definition would be correct. But that is not the backdrop. It is God.
So in effect a whole new backdrop has been ushered in to give credibility to the modern definition.
You said "using existence as a reason" and here you're asking about using lack of evidence as a reason.But if an atheist was asked why they don't believe in God, I'm sure the overwhelming reason would be due to lack of evidence. So how can you say it's not used as a reason for atheism?
No.It wouldn't matter whether you made excuses or not (not saying that you are), you would still be without God. So without God is the real meaning of atheism even though it is now defined differently.
Do you agree with that?
I know people get frustrated with your contradictory statements but... Seriously?I didn't say you are using it as a reason, I said that it could be reasonably argued that you are.
I have maintained all along that it is the reason why you are.
You tell me as you're the one who is constantly complaining about it.No I don't feel upset by this. Why would I?
if you don't think it a wrong question then why do you complain about it so bitterly?I also don't think it is a wrong question, because I understand where the question is coming from.
You don't see any evidence of God, therefore you can't believe in something for which there is no evidence. And yet there are people who believe in God and from your perspective, they don't seem to have any evidence of His existence. You don't get it. Am I right?
You tell me.And here's where you are wrong. Given the scenario I just gave, how can your question be a wrong one?
No, the emphasis is on belief.Only because the emphasis is on proving God exists.
For curiosity, sure, but you can't then decide that you prefer the ancient meaning and try to assert it over the modern meaning.The modern definition is based on the ancient defintion.
That the emphasis has changed from belief in God to belief in Gods mere existence, does not mean it has it's roots in the ancient meanings. If they have their roots in original meanings, then to get a proper understanding of the terms, one would have look at their original meanings.
I don't follow what you are getting at here.Nothing has changed regarding God, since ancient times. God has suddenly become an issue of existence, thereby shedding the ''old'' view of God. So anything to do with God can not change, unless there is an attempt to do so.
For as long as your style comes across that way, yes.So I take it this ''superior'' tag is going to stick.
Previously highlighted.Please show where I am being, or attempting to be superior.
Which part in particular and how so?The accusation you made in your last response was flawed.
Apologies, I should have said "prior to the time of the notion of a single god".I don't agree that there was ''prior to the time of the notion of a single God''.
This can easily be analysed by comprehension of what God is defined as.
This question actually reminds me of when my father asked me, as the family were celebrating Easter, why as an atheist I celebrated with them when it is such an overtly religious festival. I'm not sure he could understand at the time that we are still people and able to take out of celebrations things other than those elements we might disagree with, such as sharing time with family, friends etc. Plus who am I to pass up on free booze!I was just wondering how do the atheists address or react to very commonly used terms like...
1. God bless you.
2. I pray for your...
3. Wish you a happy xxxxx..
4.....
It is not that atheist move with a placard that I am atheist, so they may be encountering such utterances from others and they me be feeling the need to devise equivalent of such statements without invoking God.
I wrote that I can't speak for your beliefs. And now you're asking me to? Surely you're the authority on your own beliefs, Jan. you don't need me to speak for you.
We are talking about what theism and atheism are about, aren't we? Theism and atheism are about belief or non-belief in God.
Are you saying you just want to ignore the question of whether God exists, in order concentrate on some other aspect of God?
For the reason I already gave you: because God probably isn't real. Or, if you prefer: because they believe that God probably isn't real.
You have not established that there is God.
Perhaps you're confusing the idea of God with God himself. No atheist disputes that the idea of God exists. They say that God himself (probably) doesn't exist.
Is that what you mean? Or are you trying to conjure God into existence by your own fiat? Saying there is God does not make it so.
Similarly, there is no real progression in insisting that God "obviously" exists when that is the very matter that is the subject of debate.
Are you saying it's fine to believe in a God that doesn't exist? Are you saying it doesn't matter whether God exists or not?
You seem to be positing a position whereby one can believe in God (Theos) while simultaneously not believing in God's existence. Is that what you're saying? It sounds incoherent to me. Perhaps you should explain what you mean, because either I'm missing something or you're not making much sense.
Once again, you seem to be positing a position in which (some) people profess a belief in God, while simultaneously not believing that God exists. What does it mean to have that kind of belief, Jan? Is that your belief? To me it sounds incoherent.
You can't know that God does not exist, but then you can't know that God exists, either. You can rationally claim that God probably doesn't exist, and there are lots of reasons for that.
You can't rationally claim that God exists, because you have no reason to. Do you agree?
You posit a person who believes in God but not in the existence of God. How can that be?A theist is defined as a person who believes in the existence of God (modern definition), or simply God (original definition).
To have faith in someone, is it necessary to believe that the someone exists, in your opinion?What is a person of faith? They have faith in something or someone? Why does that have to be a theist or religious person. Everyone is a person of faith.
And maybe you, Jan, do like the idea of there being a God, and that explains your belief in God. Is that right?Maybe you don't like the idea of there being a God...
Is this getting back to your usual pantheism schtick?As far as the definitions go, the backdrop is Theos (God).
What you are saying is that God is not the backdrop, because there is no evidence that such a thing exists. Am I correct?
If Theos is merely Gods existence, and that existence was to be treated like all other existences, then your modern definition would be correct. But that is not the backdrop. It is God.
So in effect a whole new backdrop has been ushered in to give credibility to the modern definition.
I get it.You don't see any evidence of God, therefore you can't believe in something for which there is no evidence. And yet there are people who believe in God and from your perspective, they don't seem to have any evidence of His existence. You don't get it. Am I right?
You continue to posit a person who believes in God but who does not believe that God exists. You really need to explain how that works.The modern definition is based on the ancient defintion.
That the emphasis has changed from belief in God to belief in Gods mere existence, does not mean it has it's roots in the ancient meanings.
Of course.I don't need to 'see' God appear to me to have faith. But, you probably view evidence for God in the same you view evidence for Big Foot...
No. I'd need to see evidence. I've never seen France but I've seen evidence that France exists. I've never seen evidence that Narnia exists - or God....you'd need to see God to believe in Him.
No. Subjectivity can be evidence-based but it is only personal evidence. What you see is subjective unless the other people around you see the same thing. The vast number of different descriptions of God are evidence that the God experience is subjective.Subjectivity is really nothing more than our decisions being made by gut feelings, and opinions.
I mean your particular beliefs about God, as opposed to other theists' particular beliefs about God.I don't know what you mean by my ''brand of theism''.
Don't you care whether what you believe in exists or not?What is the point of focusing on Gods existence if you're a theist?
Sorry. You've already said you're not interested in questions of evidence or lack of evidence, so any discussion with you concerning rational reasons to doubt God's existence is likely to be a waste of my time.And how does one arrive at that conclusion?
Why wouldn't God probably be real?
Don't you read all those "scriptures" you constantly refer to as authorities on God? Don't they set out what God is for you?Because there is a lack of evidence (according to the atheist) that points to the existence of God.? What is that God, for which there is no evidence?
Please tell me the answer.
Firstly, you are trying to tell atheists how they ought to define themselves, in contradiction to how they actually define themselves. And actually, you're off base on how the vast majority of theists define themselves, too.Why do I need to establish it. We are dealing with terms and definitions.
One wonders, then, how anybody ever comes to believe in God. How does it work for children, for example? Or do you think that everybody magically starts off "with God", and then some people make a deliberate choice to turn away from God? Children start off with no notion of God, so according to you no child can ever come to be a theist. And yet, strangely enough, lots of them do. Except, of course, the ones who believe that God exists yet don't believe in God, which you tell us is a meaningful possibility.Without God, one cannot find evidence of God. Every idea of evidence will yield the same result. This isn't God, nor is it evidence of God. Because being without God means you have no notion of God, or the notion you have is a concoction of what you think God should be.
Can't I read your scriptures to get an idea of what God is? Or I am immune to those? How did that happen?You can say, theists are deluded because they have no evidence of Gods existence. But what value is that coming from a person who is without God. You have to admit, that you have no idea of what God is, and any evidence of God that you come upon, you run the risk of not realizing it as evidence of God.
I see the word "God" there, but no God. Where's the God?God is already there. Didn't you hear.
Theos = God
Atheos = without God
What? The word "God", or the God?You or I came into this world with that already in place.
"IS" is a statement about existence, from the verb "to be". When you say "God IS", you're making a statement about God's existence. You are not correct unless you can establish that your statement is true.Going off the two positions, theist and atheist, we're both correct. God IS, and the atheist is without God.
What else could we do? Disingenuously pretend to beliefs we don't hold? Play devil's advocate?Do you think that could be possibily be the case, and we're simply acting out our positions?
Perceiving love is a function of human perception not a lot different from perceiving trees, when it comes down to it. Also, disinterested observers can often see objective signs that love exists in other people. Love has visible effects on the world. And God? What does God do that is separate from nature? Anything? And again, here's your cue to argue that God is nature, but then that makes God a non-person. Also, God is traditionally supposed to be supernatural - above nature.You're the one that is suggesting that God doesn't exist. This is an easy one for you because you can accept existence purely in the terms that the human senses can percieve it. I don't think that God exists in the way trees exist, according to how we percieve them.
God exists more in the way that we percieve love to exist (unconditional love). So it does matter that God exists, or else we would be believing something exists, that doesn't actually exist. You may even feel that to be the case, but then as a person without God, it would be understandable.
Could you believe in me even if I didn't exist?It's quite simple.
If I believe in you, what is the point of believing in your existence.
Rather than get into another round of dueling definitions, how about some examples? Here's a short list of stuff:And it sounds incoherent to me that people believe in existence. I mean what is that?
It sounds like you're almost talking about evidence there, Jan. But you and I both know that we don't need evidence to show that God exists. Right?No. The existence of complex information within nature is a perfectly good reason.
I don't follow what you are getting at here.
Please can you elaborate?
This one is 'wish' part..
People on either side can correct me..
when we wish for something.
As a theist deep down in my heart it gets linked to pray to God. Wishful thinking on certain matters is not an empty rhetoric for me, its much more than that.
How do atheist handle this?
Nonsense. It changes with every culture that conceives of a god or gods. Existence wasn't an issue as long as theists held cultural hegemony. That is what has changed, religion no longer holds exclusive political power, people can question it and survive.Nothing has changed regarding God, since ancient times. God has suddenly become an issue of existence, thereby shedding the ''old'' view of God.
Agree, and that's okay with me. I don't feel the need to ''prove'' my beliefs so they are ''accepted'' and affirmed by everyone.Of course.
No. I'd need to see evidence. I've never seen France but I've seen evidence that France exists. I've never seen evidence that Narnia exists - or God.
No. Subjectivity can be evidence-based but it is only personal evidence. What you see is subjective unless the other people around you see the same thing. The vast number of different descriptions of God are evidence that the God experience is subjective.