It is the irony of this thread, in fact of such arguments, that a person (theist) is attempting to explain to another person (atheist) what God is. The point is the teacher in this case (theist) himself is unaware of what God is.
I am a theist, absolute obeisance to God, acceptance of unquestioned supremacy of God as explained in Gita, but if an atheist asks me what God is, I will make a mess of it, because for me God is everything (a laughable proposition for atheist), the concept of creation to destruction is God (atheist will walk away in disgust).
These are all worldly definitions of God, cannot win any argument against a reasonably intelligent, calm and poised atheist.
So at the end he is the God in which a theist has absolute faith, seeing and visualizing and even praying without fixing the form or in different forms as per his upbringing and exposure.
A theist failure in the argument, is immaterial in this case. An atheist insistence for evidence is nothing but incredulity, lack of understanding of faith aspect.
This is one of those lengthy threads, which will just prepare Jan to argue better in future, giving away nothing concrete to others. Not his fault
I guess you have covered the issue raised (several times) that you think belief is a choice, then?
Can I suggest you lift your head from out of the sand? And maybe I'll simply remind you of this comment of yours at opportune moments.
Oh I get it, God is everything. I believe in everything. So why don't I believe in God? Because if God is everything, the word is interchangeable with "universe", so why bring all that God baggage into it? And what's the point of praying to everything? Obviously, you think there is a personality there, which is different from merely "everything". You undermine your own claim when you say that.This is one of those lengthy threads, which will just prepare Jan to argue better in future, giving away nothing concrete to others. Not his fault
It is the irony of this thread, in fact of such arguments, that a person (theist) is attempting to explain to another person (atheist) what God is. The point is the teacher in this case (theist) himself is unaware of what God is.
I am a theist, absolute obeisance to God, acceptance of unquestioned supremacy of God as explained in Gita, but if an atheist asks me what God is, I will make a mess of it, because for me God is everything (a laughable proposition for atheist), the concept of creation to destruction is God (atheist will walk away in disgust). These are all worldly definitions of God, cannot win any argument against a reasonably intelligent, calm and poised atheist. So at the end he is the God in which a theist has absolute faith, seeing and visualizing and even praying without fixing the form or in different forms as per his upbringing and exposure. A theist failure in the argument, is immaterial in this case. An atheist insistence for evidence is nothing but incredulity, lack of understanding of faith aspect.
You evade the need for evidence by saying it's a special thing that only theists can see. I guess you don't realize theists aren't some sequestered monks one cannot talk to and who never change their minds. I've seen and heard reams of testimony from theists, former theists, atheists and former atheists, etc. It's not some esoteric thing.I'll tell you what just pull out one of the (obviously according to you) many issues I've evaded.
I am "without unicorns". But if a unicorn walked in my front door, that would be evidence enough.
Note: Being "without unicorns" is kind of a strange way to put it. It is not a short-coming, as if I'm missing out on something.
I have an explanation. The same feelings of ecstatic transcendence are a natural aspect of the human mind. We have historically and pre-historically accessed these states using rhythm, music, drugs, pain, solitude, meditation... often in a communal setting. Atheists do it too.Jan,
Use of word 'win' here is bad. The point is to convey your message with some degree of acceptance by other side.
In this case despite such lengthy exchange things are unmoved, what I am stressing is that a theist should be careful in getting into an argument with atheist on this issue.
You don't argue faith and you should not question beliefs and faiths, because we do not know how they manifest. This simple line should close the discussion before it becomes a rational Vs irrational argument, which it is not.
I'll tell you what just pull out one of the (obviously according to you) many issues I've evaded.
Well, you're a good example.Firstly, I accept that you don't know what God actually is, but I can't help wondering how you know that any theist doesn't.
Precisely.It's not so much a change from being without, to with. It's more a change of your attitude.
...you will never find God as long as you continue to ride this rollercoaster. If you're serious about knowing about God, change your attitude.
So if somebody lacks a divine atman, which seems to be what Jan means by the phrase 'without God', a state that he's apparently attributing to atheists, then they will never be able to realize God. (I don't think that his/her own tradition would agree with that, since the idea seems to be that everyone has this divine spark, even if they never realize it.)
What is your religious background?
Were you raised in a particular religious tradition by your parents?
You seem to want to think that you are Sciforums' authority on religion and that pretty much everyone else here is wrong when they write about the subject, so where did your current views come from?
What tradition do you currently adhere to?
Who were your teachers?
Or alternatively, did you kind of make up all of your current religious views on your own?
Does anyone else in the world agree with you or are your religious ideas unique only to you?
Well, you're a good example.
I don't think, in all the discussions that have occurred, you've been able to tell us.
Precisely.
This works. Because God is not objective. It is subjective. It is a choice. To believe.
So you're another who simply sees it as an "us and them", with no possibility of either side simply trying to further their understanding of the other? Why should it be a matter of trying to sway one from their position? Why can it simply not be a matter of engaging in a discussion about why some people have faith, why others don't, what that faith means to some people, what the lack of faith means to others, etc?Sarkus,
It is unlikely that this is your first involvement on this topic. So please honestly answer could a specific single argument from theist either here or somewhere else, sway you a little bit from your position?
You evade the need for evidence by saying it's a special thing that only theists can see.
I guess you don't realize theists aren't some sequestered monks one cannot talk to and who never change their minds. I've seen and heard reams of testimony from theists, former theists, atheists and former atheists, etc. It's not some esoteric thing.
Use of word 'win' here is bad. The point is to convey your message with some degree of acceptance by other side.
In this case despite such lengthy exchange things are unmoved,
what I am stressing is that a theist should be careful in getting into an argument with atheist on this issue.
Evidence which you can't explain or even describe? Reliable evidence is observer-independent. Evidence that only occurs in your mind (conveniently off-limits to investigation) is inherently subjective. How is it not just a thought that originates in your mind? Or one half of your mind experiencing the other half as other? How do you know it's not a delusion?That wouldn't be evading the need for evidence, that would be you not knowing evidence for God, even if it punched in the nose.
Evidence which you can't explain or even describe? Reliable evidence is observer-independent. Evidence that only occurs in your mind (conveniently off-limits to investigation) is inherently subjective. How is it not just a thought that originates in your mind? Or one half of your mind experiencing the other half as other? How do you know it's not a delusion?