The earlier distinction was between (A) believing in something and (B) believing in the existence of something. My claim is that those two are typically synonymous in everyday and in philosophical speech and mean the same thing.
I accept that it is. But it is nonsense. The two are clearly distinguishable from each other. All you have to do is look at the wording.
Now you are distinguishing '(A) believing in' something and (C)'believing' something or someone. I think that those mean very different things. If I 'believe in fairies', I'm saying that I believe in their existence. If I 'believe fairies', then I'm effectively saying that I accept whatever fairies are supposedly telling me. That's obviously something very different.
Yes it could mean what you say, but that is based on a common understanding just like the word 'theory' could be merely
idea.
But if we are in serious conversation about scientific theories, it wouldn't mean the same thing.
The correct terminology is 'I believe faries exist'', that way there is no ambiguity.
Atheists, especially intelligent ones, can comprehend the difference. That they choose not to, is, in my opinion, to give the effect of confusion, on the part of the theist.
I would say that (C)'believing' God, or alternatively having religious faith in God, suggests but doesn't imply belief in the existence of God. It certainly does in the Western (Jewish/Christian/Islamic) context. Having said that, I can imagine somebody believing that 'God' refers to the deepest arguably divine level of their own self (let's call it 'Krishna consciousness' for the sake of this argument) and to nevertheless believe in whatever it supposedly reveals.
You are correct from your own (atheist) perspective, but it would be very confusing for a theist.
I suspect that people who call themselves theists, and think like that, are deluding themselves.
At some point in their lives, those folks tend to become atheists, or simply remain in that ideology because of the reasons you mentioned (desire, security, etc..)
That metaphysical issue is of most interest to me.
That is because you are looking for God from your own perspective.
It's certainly the Christian perspective. Otherwise theologians wouldn't have spent so much time trying to concoct 'proofs' of the existence of God. I think that you will find that it's a subject of great importance in the Indian traditions too, as exemplified on
the centuries long philosophical dispute between the orthodox Hindus and the Buddhists on the subject.
Theists dwell of the existence of God when trying to convery God to those that do not believe that God even exists.
Theists do not dwell on the existence of God amongs themselves.
Religious people may, however, dwell on the existence of God when discussing God with people of other religions.
Sarkus said:
Most theists have no problem with the existence of God: to be a theist one merely needs to believe in the existence of God.
jan said:
That is an atheist perspective.
That is all it can mean for you.
There you go again, suggesting that you possess some superior perspective on the subject of religion. Once again, WHAT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS BACKGROUND? Don't run away from the question, throwing 'Why do you ask?' and 'It doesn't matter!' over your shoulder as you flee. If you want to convince anyone that your understanding of religious issues is in any way superior to that of others, you need to explain what that understanding is, where you acquired it and make some plausible arguments for it.
Firstly there is nothing 'superior' about what I said. A simple deduction based on what Sarkus said, easily confirms my statement. Not to mention everything you have said about what you think God, and belief in God, is.
Secondly, I am not going to get into my religious background as that has nothing to do with what we are talking about. IOW, it would add nothing to this, or most other threads in the Religious Forum.
I'm inclined to agree with you there, as I explained in my posts up above. To be truly devout in the Western Semitic-derived theistic manner (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), one must not only believe philosophically in the existence of God (as Satan presumably does) but also have the proper psychological attitude towards God. It's why the Bible always seems to be calling God 'Lord', a title of respect given to ancient kings. One is supposed to subordinate one's own personal autonomy to that of the 'Lord', which is precisely what Satan is unwilling to surrender to God. (I've always found Satan to be one of the most attractive characters in that myth.)
It not just about respect, as it is about understanding what God is/means.
If you go into the lions den, you are forced to respect them. Respect is not the criterea.
Cain respected God, by presenting Him the best sacrifice in terms of material quality, but wasn't favoured by God.
Satan/Iblis respected God by asking His permission to sway the descendents of Adam away from Him.
You have to accept the absolute grandeur of God, to even begin to comprehend what God is.
And there you go with your suggestions of your own superiority in these matters. WHAT JUSTIFIES IT? What makes you believe that you are better attuned to the divine than others? What makes you believe that you understand religion better than they do?
What I say has nothing to do with religion. I am only using definitions, and descriptions of God from the scriptures. None of it comes from my own mind.
I may be more attuned to God than others, but only because I accept God, whereas others don't. Or they may only accept a particular aspect of God, whereas I accept every aspect of God.
It's a 'misconception' seemingly shared by all of the monotheist religions. You will have difficulty finding people willing to accept that the Old Testament Yahweh, Jesus, the Allah of the Quran and the Krishna of the Gita are all one and the same.
These are particular religions, and they aren't necesserily theistic.
God is easily recognised by theists, no matter the aspect. All theists accept that everything comes from God. That God never comes into or out of being.
So any being that is described thusly, is God. You cannot have two Gods.
People generally argue from the perspective of their religious affiliations, and any other religious affiliations that don't agree with them, are wrong.
Religious affiliations, aren't God.
But it goes deeper than that mythological stuff. Divinity, even if it is imagined as One, is imagined in very different ways. Some of the ancient Greeks thought of it philosophically, as whatever fulfilled various
metaphysical functions, such as first cause, most basic substance, source of order and purpose, designer, teleological goal, savior and so on. We see that approach being continued by medievals like
Aquinas in his 'Five Ways' and by some of the early modern deists. Other ancients imagined God in terms of
pure transcendence, as that which exceeds all language and concepts, with more comprehensible aspects of reality emerging from The One as emanations. Plotinus and the Neoplatonists thought that way and that kind of idea was continued by Christian Neoplatonism and by the Christian mystical tradition. It's
still found in Eastern Orthodox theology today. We see similar ideas in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta and in several of the Upanishads. Compare that to the concepts of the divine in the more theistic vedantins or in popular Hindu theism such as Krishna worship, which emphasize the supposed personal qualities of God. The historical Hebrews and today's Muslims have yet another idea, imagining God as their Lawgiver, as their heavenly King. Much of the current problem with Islam is due to the collision of that God-given Islamic Law idea with modern Western secularism.
What do their scriptures say?
That is what we, as people discussing what God is, should be concerned with, because the concept of God ultimately has to come from God, not man if you accept the scriptures as comprehensive descriptions and definitions.
If we can't understand that, and further choose to use our own little minds to decided what God is, then we will eventually become confused, and end up rejecting God. That is actually what is happening IMO.
So it stems from what we accept.
Because I accept what is written in the scriptures about God.
And as such I have come to believe, through the information, that God exists.
If I didn't accept God from scriptures, then I would be an atheist, even if I labelled myself a theist. Because I would have accepted God on my own terms. That's as good as being an atheist.
jan.