On faith

[spidergoat]

lol
Don't ever lose your sense of wonder, Jan. There are some people who just don't look at the world with wonder, anymore.

I think that was a good answer. I feel the same way about God. I don't know whether God exists, or could exist in some form somewhere else in the universe or universes if there are more than one. But I'm not going to believe it exists until there is a reason to do so.

 

[Seattle]

Unsupported assertion as change of subject.



Support that assertion.



Already on record:

• #455↑ ― to Seattle: "... matters of history and theology, anthropology, psychology, behavioral economics, art, ontology, dialectics, &c."

• #306↑ ― to Jan Ardena: "When you provide your analyses, you rely on a literary corpus or construction of perspective that pretty much nobody else has access to; nobody knows what you're on about."

• #209↑ ― to DaveC426913: "In order to establish your equivalence, you functionally dismiss the entire historical and literary records regarding how people treat either concept."​

As I said before↑, pay attention.

Then again, I also noted these things mean having discussions that you are apparently incapable of engaging because you have refused these issues and aspects. And therein lies your problem: You're so caught up in your petulant identity politic you can't perceive anything else.

Like I said, you can't get beyond this intellectually stunted excrement, and there doesn't really seem to be any mystery why; the critique from ignorance just seems an unreliable proposition, if you don't like that assessment you can always prove it wrong.

You've offered yet another post in which you have nothing affirmative or useful to offer the thread.

Snuff your gaslight.

The dictionary is my support for the claims about your misuse of the English language. I was assuming that you were aware of the dictionary but that may be where I'm making my mistake.

Yes, religions play a role in history, politics, literature, etc. I don't feel a particular need to discuss that here nor do I have an interest to. I don't see you doing that either.

Regarding offering something useful or affirmative to the thread, I don't see where you've done that. My intentions, regarding this particular thread, were never to be affirmative. You don't consider any alternative viewpoint to be useful so nothing is going to meet that standard but since you don't control the subject matter of this thread that is not relevant either. This is a discussion forum after all.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Now you can figure out the difference

My intentions, regarding this particular thread, were never to be affirmative.

When you confess to trolling, you pretty much make the point.

Snuff your gaslight.

(And now you don't have to be confused about when I'm addressing you as a moderator; this is what it looks like when I address you in-thread according to my duty as a moderator.)

 

[The God]

I think that was a good answer. I feel the same way about God. I don't know whether God exists, or could exist in some form somewhere else in the universe or universes if there are more than one. But I'm not going to believe it exists until there is a reason to do so.

The God as such cannot be formified. He does take such forms, but he is formless. The point is you cannot associate or restrict a deterministic form with the God, means he is formful while being formless. You won't understand the last line.

 

[The God]

To all atheist,

Color blind less is some kind of a medical issue.

But can you explain colors to a colorblind man? And let's get the drift not the nitty gritty of color blindness.

 

[Tiassa]

The dictionary is my support for the claims about your misuse of the English language. I was assuming that you were aware of the dictionary but that may be where I'm making my mistake.

I'm sure you can write the argument.

Furthermore, you skipped out on one, where you decided to write my argument for me? Yeah, you still need to support that assertion.

Yes, religions play a role in history, politics, literature, etc. I don't feel a particular need to discuss that here nor do I have an interest to. I don't see you doing that either.

(1) Your particular need is another digression; it is not surprising that you are unable to attend your own context from one post to the next; you are, after all, trolling.

(2) In those parts that I discuss things with you, of course not, but your powers of observation are already known to be, well, weak.

You don't consider any alternative viewpoint to be useful ....

You need to stop constructing straw men. Deal with reality.

For instance, in #498↑, you actually wrote, "I'm not engaging in any 'other' irrational behaviors", and, you know, come on, dude, why lie like that when you know you can't make it from one post to the next without dropping yet another fallacy.

You don't consider any alternative viewpoint to be useful so nothing is going to meet that standard but since you don't control the subject matter of this thread that is not relevant either. This is a discussion forum after all.

It's always the gaslighters who end up saying such stupid things.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Mod Hat

Snuff your gaslight.

You can not... you must not let him continue doin what ever it is that hes doin wrong.!!!
Give him some ponts Tiassa... an mayb even a flag or 2.!!!

 

[The God]

Mod Hat ― Now you can figure out the difference



When you confess to trolling, you pretty much make the point.

Snuff your gaslight.

(And now you don't have to be confused about when I'm addressing you as a moderator; this is what it looks like when I address you in-thread according to my duty as a moderator.)

You should not be modding this thread.

As a member I support your position and conclusion, not the anger.

 

[The God]

You can not... you must not let him continue doin what ever it is that hes doin wrong.!!!
Give him some ponts Tiassa... an mayb even a flag or 2.!!!

Your wish is granted. You prayed for him, but got the fruits yourself.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat ― Response

You should not be modding this thread.

I can think of a couple reasons why that might be, so we'll get those out of the way:

(1) Engaging as members before escalating to moderation is the present Administrative precedent and protocol.

(2) When one is specifically announcing their trolling, it's actually part of my job to deal with it.

↳ It's also worth noting this is rising trend of late in which one insists on disruption and distraction, eventually settling on some manner of declaration akin to "you don't control the subject matter of this thread" directed at someone they already know to be a site authority with specific influence over what is or isn't acceptable within a given thread. It's part of the gaslighter's setup; the pretense is that they're only rude and terrible people because they absolutely have to be since everyone else forces them to it. And some gaslighters have apparently attempted to harass site Administration of late, so it's true we're a little weary, at present, with pretending deliberate bad faith and ill intent are somehow owed consideration under the rubric of diversity.​

If you have any further questions, check in via message so we can see if there's anything left in this thread other than gaslit unicorns.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Your wish is granted. You prayed for him, but got the fruits yourself.

An i never saw it comin

 

[The God]

Mod Hat ― Response



I can think of a couple reasons why that might be, so we'll get those out of the way:

(1) Engaging as members before escalating to moderation is the present Administrative precedent and protocol.

(2) When one is specifically announcing their trolling, it's actually part of my job to deal with it.

↳ It's also worth noting this is rising trend of late in which one insists on disruption and distraction, eventually settling on some manner of declaration akin to "you don't control the subject matter of this thread" directed at someone they already know to be a site authority with specific influence over what is or isn't acceptable within a given thread. It's part of the gaslighter's setup; the pretense is that they're only rude and terrible people because they absolutely have to be since everyone else forces them to it. And some gaslighters have apparently attempted to harass site Administration of late, so it's true we're a little weary, at present, with pretending deliberate bad faith and ill intent are somehow owed consideration under the rubric of diversity.​

If you have any further questions, check in via message so we can see if there's anything left in this thread other than gaslit unicorns.

No PM is required, as the thread is over lived...So I am putting it for record.

1. Yes, you can engage as member before moderation, but that is to understand more about his violation of the rules, not to engage with him on the topic.

2. Yes, he is trolling. So let other Mod handle him. You are too actively involved as a member with him to judge him and warn him. Pl recuse yourself.

 

[Seattle]

Gaslighter? Trolling. Lying? What the heck?

I don't know what a gaslighter is. I haven't confessed or been trolling just because I said I wasn't posting in affirmative? The thread topic is does religion make you stronger or weaker.

It would seem that all responses shouldn't have to be in the affirmative.

Is this why the site membership isn't growing?

Whatever, I can't argue with the green.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena:

I am looking at the original meanings of the words, and noticing that the foundation upon which the terms atheist and theist are based, are still the basis today, despite the outward appearance of change.

From my point of view, it looks like you're just playing around trying to redefine terms in order to avoid meaningful discussion.

Are the skeptics with or without God (as per definition)?
If they are without God, then no amount of evidence will suffice.

You have the process backwards. The rationalist first looks at the evidence, and afterwards adopts a position based on his or her evaluation of the evidence. That position is always provisional and subject to re-evaluation in the light of new evidence.

The rationalist does not start "with God" or "without God" and seek to buttress that initial assumption by claiming the evidence isn't there.

There's nothing special about the God question, by the way. Rationalism is a general approach to holding reasonable views.

I'm making a statement that reflects the meanings of the word Theos, and it's counterpart Atheos.
There is no mention of existence or lack of. Only God, and being without God.

"God" does not mention the people doing the believing, whereas "being without God" clearly does. So, for some reason you're trying to redefine the terms "theist" and "atheist" asymmetrically. It comes across to me as a dishonest evasion.

The idea of God existing from an atheist point of view, is simply an atheists point of view.

No. The idea of God existing or not existing should be something that both theists and atheists are willing to consider. If you're unwilling to consider that your belief may be wrong, then you're a dogmatist.

I don't understand the question [about God being separate from nature]

Is God supernatural?

Regardless of what is real, what does it mean to believe IN their existence?
Isn't it enough to believe that they exist?

We need to deal with this "belief IN" issue you have, because you keep making slippery assertions while apparently actively avoiding saying what you mean. So, let's try to pin you down to something concrete (again).

We need to distinguish belief that something is the case from belief in something.

When I say "I believe that grass is green", I mean simply that I consider it established to my satisfaction that grass is green. Same for "I believe that God exists."

Distinguish this from statements of the kind "I believe in God" or "I believe in you." What do those statements mean? Would it make sense if I said "I believe in grass"? What about "I believe in the structural integrity of my house?"

The way you seem to want to use "believe in" is in a way that only applies to persons. In that sense "believe in" imports the notion of trusting. "I believe in you" means, approximately, "I trust you". So does "I believe in God". In that sense "I believe in grass" doesn't make a lot of sense.

The problem is when you try to slip between meanings of "belief that" and "belief in". That's like saying "I trust in grass" when you really mean something like "I believe/trust that grass will grow".

It is common for people to be imprecise in this way. "I believe in the structural integrity of my house" might mean "I trust that my house won't collapse". But what does this actually mean? Is "structural integrity" really something that can act as a recipient of a person's trust? I'd argue that when you "believe in the structural integrity" you're really putting your implicit trust in the people who built the house, or something like that.

Being slippery about "belief in" and "belief that" in this and other discussions about God comes across to me as another deliberate evasion - an attempt to avoid substantive discussion by attempting to define your way out of having to answer questions.

 

[Tiassa]

Gaslighter? Trolling. Lying? What the heck?

I don't know what a gaslighter is. I haven't confused or been trolling just because I said I wasn't posting in affirmative? The thread topic is does religion make you stronger or weaker.

It would seem that all responses shouldn't have to be in the affirmative.

Is this why the site membership isn't growing?

Whatever, I can't argue with the green.

Is it possible for you to write an on-topic post?

Is it possible for you to write an affirmative argumentative assertion?

You've spent how many pages insisting in some vague defense of irrationality, yet you offer exactly nothing to support or even define your position. You're like a religious person trying to convince me that the world is only six thousand years old, but can only point out that we don't have this fossil yet, or that one―(Yeah, and how did that Ambulocetus natans belly laugh work out for 'em?)―and exactly no testable theses pointing toward the Intelligent Designer.

Like I said, anti-identification without an affirmative argument.

And yet another post from you that has nothing to do with the thread subject itself.

So let's try getting back to at least some aspect of that: A critique should exclude from consideration what it critiques ― Can you actually defend that assertion? That's what you stuck your nose into when you pretended confusion about my discussion with Yazata. And we've now passed fourteen pages since you first refused to answer a direct question↗: If I intend to assess your behavior, should I assess your behavior according to what it means to you, or should I write that meaning for you?

You going to answer the question, this time?

 

[Seattle]

Is it possible for you to write an on-topic post?

Is it possible for you to write an affirmative argumentative assertion?

You've spent how many pages insisting in some vague defense of irrationality, yet you offer exactly nothing to support or even define your position. You're like a religious person trying to convince me that the world is only six thousand years old, but can only point out that we don't have this fossil yet, or that one―(Yeah, and how did that Ambulocetus natans belly laugh work out for 'em?)―and exactly no testable theses pointing toward the Intelligent Designer.

Like I said, anti-identification without an affirmative argument.

And yet another post from you that has nothing to do with the thread subject itself.

So let's try getting back to at least some aspect of that: A critique should exclude from consideration what it critiques ― Can you actually defend that assertion? That's what you stuck your nose into when you pretended confusion about my discussion with Yazata. And we've now passed fourteen pages since you first refused to answer a direct question↗: If I intend to assess your behavior, should I assess your behavior according to what it means to you, or should I write that meaning for you?

You going to answer the question, this time?

If you are assessing my behavior (0r anyone's behavior) you are going to base it on what it means to you. Otherwise you have no business assessing behavior. Not that you have any business doing that in any event.

 

[James R]

(continued...)

You said I have no reason to rationally claim that God exists, and I said I do.

What rational reasons do you have?

To have faith in someone, is it necessary to believe that the someone exists, in your opinion?

I don't see how it is possible to have faith in someone you have no conception of.

Another evasion.

I did not ask whether it is necessary to have a conception of the someone, but whether it is necessary to believe that the someone exists. I asked about holding a belief, which is different from merely holding a concept in mind.

Specifically, my question was: is it necessary to believe that God exists in order to have faith in God? I think it's fair to assume from other answers you have given that your answer to this is "yes", so let's move on.

I've never stated that God and the universe are one and the same.

That's what I took away from previous discussions with you. If you want to clarify your stance on the position of God vis-a-vis the universe, by all means do so.

You make too many wild assumptions about what you think I mean, then you act as though those assumptions are true by interjecting them into discussions as matter of fact. I'm not going to keep asking to show where I said this or that.

Your modus operandi is to be slippery and avoid expressing yourself clearly, probably because you want to leave it open to redefining your terms if it becomes necessary at a later time. This is my impression, anyway. I do my best to try to extract as much meaning as possible from your evasions.

Why does our beliefs in God have to be based on rational reasons? We aren't entirely rational beings.
Is your belief in anyone, including yourself based on rational reasons?

I did not say our beliefs in general are based on rational reasons. In fact, I specifically said that people believe all kinds of things - particularly regarding God - for non-rational reasons.

The answer to the question of whether God exists potentially has very important effects on human existence and our outlook on existence in general. For that reason, I think that is important that we do not jump into believing that God exists for irrational reasons. Nevertheless, I think that many people do precisely that.

How do you know that people believe in God without evidence?

Because when asked to explain why they believe, they respond in a way that indicates that the belief is not based on evidence. You, for example, have been quite clear that this is how it works for you.

You admit you are without God, so how do you know what evidence of God is?

I know how believers describe God. I know what effects believers say that God has on the world. So, I take believers at their word and see how the world reflects or does not reflect the believers' claims about it, comparing how it would look with the believers' god(s) in it to how it would look without those gods/that God.

If you want to go down the 'just look in scriptures' route, how will know it is evidence of God, should evidence be forthcoming.

See above.

Of course a theist believes that God exists, how is it possible to believe in something you have no concept of.

Again, we see the slipperiness, this time conflating all three of "believe that", "believe in" and "have a concept of" in a single sentence. Impressive, Jan, but you're not fooling me.

Yes, theists believe that God exists - this is what theism entails.
Yes, theists have a concept of God - if they did not, the terms themselves would be meaningless.
And yes, theists believe in God, in that they put trust in the object of their beliefs (real person or not).

And as for atheists, they have a concept of God. They do not believe that God exists. And they do not believe in God, because one cannot believe in a person who does not exist, in the sense I have defined above (being careful to distinguish "belief in" from something vague like trusting that a concept is true, wherein the trust is actually placed in some other person as authority backing the concept, often implicitly).

There is no need to believe IN the existence of anything. If it exists, it exists.

In light of my careful distinctions made above, this is correct.

It is meaningless to believe in the existence of anything, because that would mean trusting existence itself. And existence itself is not a person in who one can put trust. Thus, making the relevant distinction, one can only believe that the thing exists, or that it doesn't.

God exists, you just don't get how He/It exists.

This is nothing other that a statement of your own belief. There are no facts in your statement.

Of course you could ask me to prove He/It exists, and I will say I can't (in all seriousness), and the song and dance will go on and on.

I have never asked for proof - that's too strong a word. Sufficient evidence would convince me. I believe we have previously discussed, what "sufficient" might mean in this context.

You focus on Gods existence because you are currently without God.

I focus on God's existence, as opposed to focussing on ... what?

What do you think I should focus on, assuming you're right about my overly-narrow focus?

The question was, can I believe in something that does not exist. The answer is no, as I don't have a concept of something that doesn't exist. I have a concept of God, and I believe God exists.

This is a mistake.

You have lots of concepts of things that don't exist (in reality). All fiction contains such concepts. Take unicorns, for example.

You're right that one cannot believe in unicorns, in the sense of trusting them, if they do not exist.

Then I suggest we use the proper literal terms.

I agree. Let us all from now on be careful to use "believe that", "believe in" and "have a concept of" appropriately, as described in my post above.

In the same way Believing IN something, is different to Believing somethin, is just as important to me. So no, it is not dishonest of me to highlight the difference between the two.

So, we can agree on this, I hope.

Believing in God means trusting God.
Believing that God exists means assenting to the proposition that God exists.

God isn't only a separate entity, He is within everything as well.

How can we separate the God part of everything from the rest, so as to identify what is God and what is not?

Take a rock, for example. Where's the God in the rock? Which parts of the rock aren't God?

If you're sincerely asking for help in understand how I became theist, then just ask.
I naturally accept God as a concept.

And we can agree that atheists also "naturally" accept God as a concept. Right?

That is not to say that I always believed in God. That develops over time. Accepting God as a concept allows the mind to take in information without trying to interpret it. Once the mind can accept what is being purported, one can think more clearly on the subject matter. One's belief, and understanding, develops over time. It can be rapid, or it can be slow, it can be off, on, off, on. It depends on the individual. That is it in a little nutshell.

So let's break this down.

First, one accepts God as a concept, which allows the mind to take in information about God.
Second, one comes to believe that God exists.
Third (or more likely in tandem with step 2), one comes to believe in God, which we understand as a kind of trust.

Step one is uncontroversial, I think. It's step 2 that is the real stumbling block. One you get past that, step 3 is an obvious progression.

Do you think this is why atheists might be interested in how one goes from step 1 to step 2?
Also interesting might be the question of backsliding. What makes a person go from steps 2 and 3 back to step 1 alone?

It's not so much a change from being without, to with. It's more a change of your attitude.

It seems obvious to me that the necessary change of attitude only comes when one forms the belief that God is real.

You believe that there is a lack of evidence of God, yet you don't know what God is (why you need confirmation of existence).

This canard is getting tiresome. It is a cop out to keep claiming that atheists don't know what God is. Atheists have the concept of God, just like theists. There's no special information accessible to theists that is hidden from atheists. Atheists simply lack the belief that God exists - nothing more. Obviously, lacking such a belief, belief in God becomes untenable.

This is self deception, as 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.

This is all well and good, but it cuts both ways.

You're saying that the problem with atheists is that they lack the belief that God exists that is necessary to "find God" and believe in him. That's quite true. They would need to "change their attitude" vis a vis the existence of God in order to start believing in God.

But equally, all the theists needs to do is to end his own "self deception" to start riding the atheist rollercoaster. If he's serious about stopping believing in God, a similar change of attitude is all that is required.

Do you agree?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

Stop it Tiassa... Stop It.!!!

 

[spidergoat]

The God as such cannot be formified. He does take such forms, but he is formless. The point is you cannot associate or restrict a deterministic form with the God, means he is formful while being formless. You won't understand the last line.

Can God's effects on the world be measured?

 

[spidergoat]

To all atheist,

Color blind less is some kind of a medical issue.

But can you explain colors to a colorblind man? And let's get the drift not the nitty gritty of color blindness.

Get over it, you aren't special. To use your metaphor, what if colorblind people were cured, and normal people became colorblind? What if that happened at random to the whole population, often? No one could claim they had a special experience no one could share. It's the same with theism. Believers who believed with all their heart, who felt the presence of the divine, who were studying to be priests or nuns, lose their beliefs, non-believers get belief, and with the internet, we can all know about these experiences.