On faith

[Jan Ardena]

I don't know whether or not they exist. The unicorns I'm talking about are invisible or at least that's what I envision. They aren't the simple unicorns I think you are talking about. You don't believe in unicorns so I'm not sure you can appreciate the specialness of the unicorns that I'm talking about.

Why would you accept that there are such things as invisible unicorns?

jan.

 

[Seattle]

Why would you accept that there are such things as invisible unicorns?

jan.

It's not an intellectual thing. I can visualize them and therefore they might exist. If you aren't a believer you might have trouble with this concept I admit.

 

[wegs]

It's always a bit condescending when people who don't believe in God, feel the need to insert ''the tooth fairy,'' ''unicorns'' or ''Santa Claus'' into these discussions, as if people of faith are somehow too naive (or stupid) to figure out what they've figured out.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What rational reasons do you have?

I already said.

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.

How do you separate holding a concept of a person you know, let alone believe in?

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.

It is a forgone conclusion that God exist, that is the answer I have consistently given in this thread. Like the terms say and mean, God, and without God.
I believe in me, automatically concludes I exist. Not that I don't believe that I don't exist, I just don't give a thought about whether I exist.

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.

I think you see and hear what you want to see and hear.

The answer to the question of whether God exists potentially has very important effects on human existence and our outlook on existence in general.

Such as?

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.

That's your own perspective, and I apreciate that. But you shouldn't want everyone to be like you. You are an individual.

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.

I have explained lots of time, but you don't understand, and it becomes a pointless pursuit. I think the attention should be on you, and your ability to explain what is God, and whay would be considered evidence for God, seeing as you are adamant that there is no evidence for God.

I know how believers describe God.

That wasn't the question.
How do you know what evidence of God is?

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.

You do not have a clue what God is.
Do you take my word on that?

And as for atheists, they have a concept of God.

Yes they have an atheist concept of God, which could be anything from talking teapots, to monster made of bolognaise. What value are those concepts? They fit the atheist idea.

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

And anything you say is nothing but a statement of your own belief or lack of belief, which ever designer label suits you.

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.

We've discussed evidence for years. You simply don't accept it.
The reality is, you have no idea of what God is, outside of your atheist mindset.

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

Good point. The answer is NOTHING. That's your current reality.
There is only matter, and in matter you cannot see God, therefore God does not exist.
You can't comprehend God because the truth of your label (atheist) defines your real position which is being without God.

I think you have an issue with the label because you don't like to think of yourself as being without something to the point of completely not comprehending it, while others aren't like you. I think you see it as being less human than those others.

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

My concept of a unicorn is based on an amalgamation of real animals. Those animals exist. I can only think of things that exist in the way that they exist. I can visualise a teapot beating Usain Bolt in the last olympics, which nobody saw, but me and Marilyn Munroe. But that is me messing around. I understand that that type of messing around is what you do within your conceptions of God, the only difference is, you really are thinking that it could be Theos, because for you there is no actual Theos.
Your problem is that you think because it is like that for you, that is what IT IS.

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

Not for me.
God just IS.

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

According to scriptures, God is in every atom.
Hence God is Omnipresent.

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

In the way that I demonstrated earlier.

Third (or more likely in tandem with step 2), one comes to believe in God, which we understand as a kind of trust.

One develops belief in God.
I've no idea what 'which we understand as a kind of trust' means in response to what I said.

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.

How does one fall in love?

Do you think this is why atheists might be interested in how one goes from step 1 to step 2?

I don't know what atheists are interested in.

Also interesting might be the question of backsliding. What makes a person go from steps 2 and 3 back to step 1 alone?

I gave a personal nut shell of a summary.
If you don't get it, don't worry. Start of with something that you get.

Atheists simply lack the belief that God exists - nothing more. Obviously, lacking such a belief, belief in God becomes untenable.

Then simply answer the questions, then we can move on.

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?

Theist can stop believing in God by not serving God, but serve their own senses.
They soon forget God if they go all out. They eventually become without God. ATheos -atheist.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's not an intellectual thing. I can visualize them and therefore they might exist. If you aren't a believer you might have trouble with this concept I admit.

How do you visualise an invisible unicorn?
What does invisibility look like?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

It's always a bit condescending when people who don't believe in God, feel the need to insert ''the tooth fairy,'' ''unicorns'' or ''Santa Claus'' into these discussions, as if people of faith are somehow too naive (or stupid) to figure out what they've figured out.

It could be that is how they really comprehend God, and their condesention could be born out of frustration.

jan.

 

[The God]

It could be that is how they really comprehend God, and their condesention could be born out of frustration.

jan.

But I see other way round.
Like that color blind fellow, they lack something which hinders them in appreciating the God. Not their fault.

 

[Seattle]

How do you visualise an invisible unicorn?
What does invisibility look like?

jan.

I'm visualizing the unicorn aura. It may be detectable in other wavelengths (I don't know) but it doesn't reflect light in the visible spectrum. It's my belief that life itself comes from the unicorn so as long as I'm alive I'm aware of its presence.

 

[Yazata]

It's always a bit condescending when people who don't believe in God, feel the need to insert ''the tooth fairy,'' ''unicorns'' or ''Santa Claus'' into these discussions, as if people of faith are somehow too naive (or stupid) to figure out what they've figured out.

That depends on how the word 'unicorn' was being used.

If somebody is equating belief in God with belief in unicorns, it may indeed be condescending and be perceived as insulting by religious believers.

But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument.

It might be appropriate if somebody is insisting that atheists are without God (and hence in no position to have opinions about religion) while trying not to address the question of whether or not God exists. 'Unicorn' might be part of the reply that being without something illusory is very different than being without something real. (I believe that's how 'unicorn' was first introduced in post #175)

Or it might be useful if somebody is trying to insist that belief in God is not an objective matter and is entirely subjective. 'Unicorn' would represent a fairly polite and inoffensive example of a subjective belief with no objectively existing referrant.

 

[gmilam]

It's always a bit condescending when people who don't believe in God, feel the need to insert ''the tooth fairy,'' ''unicorns'' or ''Santa Claus'' into these discussions, as if people of faith are somehow too naive (or stupid) to figure out what they've figured out.

What analogy to a non-existent "being" would believers not find condescending?

 

[Baldeee]

But I see other way round.
Like that color blind fellow, they lack something which hinders them in appreciating the God. Not their fault.

Is that in the same way that most of us lack something that schizophrenics have, for example, meaning that we can't appreciate the voices they do?
Or perhaps it's that they (atheists) actually have what you lack, preventing them from wandering down a path of believing in myths, fairy tales and the non-existent?

Who is to say?
You?
On what basis, other than faith?

 

[Jan Ardena]

If somebody is equating belief in God with belief in unicorns, it may indeed be condescending and be perceived as insulting by religious believers.

''Religious believers''? Where do you get these descriptions?

But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument.

It is condescending which everd way you use it, because to condescend is your intention.

It might be appropriate if somebody is insisting that atheists are without God (and hence in no position to have opinions about religion) while trying not to address the question of whether or not God exists.

Yes, atheists are without God, just like it says on the tin (if you aren't without God then please explain), but you are are free to question whether or not anything you can think of, exists, or not.

'Unicorn' might be part of the reply that being without something illusory is very different than being without something real. (I believe that's how 'unicorn' was first introduced in post #175)

It might be.
But I doubt it.

Or it might be useful if somebody is trying to insist that belief in God is not an objective matter and is entirely subjective. 'Unicorn' would represent a fairly polite and inoffensive example of a subjective belief with no objectively existing referrant.

It could be.
But it's not.
It is condescending. It always was.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm visualizing the unicorn aura. It may be detectable in other wavelengths (I don't know) but it doesn't reflect light in the visible spectrum. It's my belief that life itself comes from the unicorn so as long as I'm alive I'm aware of its presence.

I'm happy for you.

jan.

 

[Tiassa]

If somebody is equating belief in God with belief in unicorns, it may indeed be condescending and be perceived as insulting by religious believers.

But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument.

You've illustrated the fulcrum point; what does the historical record say?

 

[wegs]

That depends on how the word 'unicorn' was being used.

If somebody is equating belief in God with belief in unicorns, it may indeed be condescending and be perceived as insulting by religious believers.

But using 'unicorn' as an example of a non-existent object isn't condescending if it's used in the context of attacking what's perceived as a weak philosophical argument.

It might be appropriate if somebody is insisting that atheists are without God (and hence in no position to have opinions about religion) while trying not to address the question of whether or not God exists. 'Unicorn' might be part of the reply that being without something illusory is very different than being without something real. (I believe that's how 'unicorn' was first introduced in post #175)

Or it might be useful if somebody is trying to insist that belief in God is not an objective matter and is entirely subjective. 'Unicorn' would represent a fairly polite and inoffensive example of a subjective belief with no objectively existing referrant.

What is the point of presenting the analogy? Why do some atheists feel the need to convince people of faith that what they believe is foolish? It's no different than a religious person trying to convince you of their beliefs.

 

[Seattle]

What is the point of presenting the analogy? Why do some atheists feel the need to convince people of faith that what they believe is foolish? It's no different than a religious person trying to convince you of their beliefs.

It seems to me it usually comes as a response to some religious person's statements. In any event, on a discussion forum I see no need to try so hard to restrict what or how people can discuss.

If some people are offended by the mere mention, by way of analogy, of something "comparable" to God then it is very hard to discuss God unless it is only a discussion among the religious. In which case it won't be much of a discussion forum.

When you only have 7-20 members who can post it seems needless to me to work on trying to control them to that degree. The larger problem is too few in the discussion rather than too many.

Maybe some atheist is offended when a theist implies that they can't understand God as you have to be with God first. Should we stipulate that they can't say that? No, of course not. Let's not be so easily offended. There are people who are offended by unicorns who then turn around and actually call people names.

Let's just try to be civil and let discussion go as they will.

 

[wegs]

It seems to me it usually comes as a response to some religious person's statements. In any event, on a discussion forum I see no need to try so hard to restrict what or how people can discuss.

If some people are offended by the mere mention, by way of analogy, of something "comparable" to God then it is very hard to discuss God unless it is only a discussion among the religious. In which case it won't be much of a discussion forum.

When you only have 7-20 members who can post it seems needless to me to work on trying to control them to that degree. The larger problem is too few in the discussion rather than too many.

Maybe some atheist is offended when a theist implies that they can't understand God as you have to be with God first. Should we stipulate that they can't say that? No, of course not. Let's not be so easily offended. There are people who are offended by unicorns who then turn around and actually call people names.

Let's just try to be civil and let discussion go as they will.

You're in a thread about faith, and Jan and a few others are people of faith, discussing the topic. I could see if Jan or other people of faith were in the science related sections, promoting Intelligent Design, for example, but this thread is in the proper section, and is about faith. lol The fact that you feel the need to take pot shots at Jan, and pass it off as something else, is unfortunate. But, something tells me we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Seattle]

You're in a thread about faith, and Jan and a few others are people of faith, discussing the topic. I could see if Jan or other people of faith were in the science related sections, promoting Intelligent Design, for example, but this thread is in the proper section, and is about faith. lol The fact that you feel the need to take pot shots at Jan, and pass it off as something else, is unfortunate. But, something tells me we will have to agree to disagree.

If everyone who isn't religious leaves this topic Jan will have nothing to talk about or to.

This particular thread or one just exactly like it was going on several years ago the last time I stuck around here for a while. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Although it the purpose of the religious forum is only for discussions among the religious you are correct (and you may well be correct).

 

[wegs]

If everyone who isn't religious leaves this topic Jan will have nothing to talk about or to.

I'm not suggesting that anyone leave the thread. I'm suggesting that there's no reason to insult people of faith who are just having a discussion, and are doing so in the proper section of the forum. Jan nor anyone else to my knowledge, is preaching or trying to convert anyone. Those types of postings would be unwelcome.

This particular thread or one just exactly like it was going on several years ago the last time I stuck around here for a while. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree. Although it the purpose of the religious forum is only for discussions among the religious you are correct (and you may well be correct).

Faith discussions needn't turn into competitions between atheists and religious people. I wish they didn't always seem to turn out that way.

 

[Seattle]

I'm not suggesting that anyone leave the thread. I'm suggesting that there's no reason to insult people of faith who are just having a discussion, and are doing so in the proper section of the forum. Jan nor anyone else to my knowledge, is preaching or trying to convert anyone. Those types of postings would be unwelcome.



Faith discussions needn't turn into competitions between atheists and religious people. I wish they didn't always seem to turn out that way.

I agree. That usually happens when someone gets offended. When people can discuss things civilly it doesn't seem to happen.