Diversion tactic again. I used ‘’faith’’ to demonstrate how the atheist generally have one meaning that applies to them, and another meaning that applies to theists. I used it because it is more common in these types of discussions.
And as I said, it is a strawman. And you are correct, I do tend to divert away from strawmen.
The experience covers the need for interpretation. It is exactly what it is. If I feel cold, I’m hardly likely to interpret that as being warm.
Feeling cold IS the interpretation. The experience is the temperature, wind-chill etc. And yes, one person can feel cold while another experiences it as hot.
But so much for your selective bias with your example: the reason we have people believing in ghosts when all they may have seen are flickering lights, or patterns in the sky etc. is because of differing interpretations of the same evidence and experience.
So for them God does not exist.
Yet that has no bearing on whether God exists in actuality.
I don’t know if I’m going to be a billionaire anytime soon, but until that time comes, one thing is for sure. I’m not a billionaire.
Great. Now explain the relevance of this, please. :shrug:
Yeah – they say ‘’show me something that can not be explained by natural means. But everything can be explained away as some kind of natural phenomenon, and what can’t is to be put in the ‘’I don’t know pile’?. So what has to occur for the atheist to say ‘’yes, I believe God exists’’? A serious question.
I don't know. It is not something I can answer, seriously, but I will know if and when it happens.
And I’ve explained to you a number of times that titles do not, the person make.
And I'm sure I've now explained a number of times to you that this is a strawman: no one has said it makes the person.
You hide behind your title expecting me to stay within there comfy, designed little habitat, while you can say what you like. No. I’m taking you at your written word, and so far you come across as a person for whom God does not exist.
That would be because for me God does not exist. You see this as a revelation of some sort? But I do not know whether god exists or not, but until I know my position with regard God is the same as my position toward any other thing for which I don't know whether it exists or not (e.g. Pink unicorns, the celestial teapot et al).
If you want to don atheist/agnostic title, then you have sound as if, you believe outright that you don't know God exists or not. Not standing by the mocking, of the object of peoples belief, then go all out to justify the unjustifiable.
There is no mocking... There is is an explanation, through absurdity, of why I don't believe in the existence of God. You take umbrage with the analogy but I have yet to hear from you a valid reason for that. The justification for the analogy is simple: it explains concisely, and in a way that highlights through absurdity, the reason for many people's non-belief in the existence of God.
And you are on a cycle of not fully comprehending what I mean. The beginning of my last post to you are good examples of me having to deal with this.
So now I'm at fault for not understanding your contradictions? Nice.
That is a pathetic analogy.
Yet counters like with like.
Silly monsters like the FSM, and heavenly teapots are completely childish. Equating them with God is one or a combination of, gross ignorance, ignorance, ignorance and mockery, and mockery. There is no other intention for it. And if you stick by it, then you are one of the above.
It could be said that ‘’I don’t believe in God because I can’t Him/Her/ It’’. Or ‘’I don’t believe in God because the evidence does not suggest God. Or ‘’I don’t believe in God because I don’t want to’’. Why the need to invoke silly, childish imagery, to equate with God? Because it belittles the whole notion of God. That’s why.
So your argument is to call them silly because you think them silly, rather than the notion of what they are designed to highlight.
But you are right, one could say any of those things you suggest, but none have the ability to highlight through absurdity, the point at hand. To arrive at an analogy that would be understood one has to use something that the other person would not believe in the existence of for the same reasons - I.e. Lack of evidence.
You give me another example of something you obviously wouldn't believe in due to lack of evidence, and let's see if you can come up with something as obvious as the celestial teapot.
Why don’t you read what I write? I spend half the time going back over what was said. It’s very tedious.
I said it was his intention to ridicule. That is obvious despite your unwillingness to admit it.
Because I was giving you more credit than you seem to deserve: if you say it doesn't ridicule, then why have you spent the last few pages trying to argue that it ridicules, or as you said just now "belittles the whole notion of God" with "silly, childish imagery"?
Your contradictory posts are confusing, Jan, so it would be better to correct those than have a go at those trying to fathom what you mean.
*facepalm*
I’ve explained this to you already. He is incapable of ridiculing, despite his intention, the same way I am incapable of ridiculing you by calling you a stupid little girl, despite my intention. But, if I am influential enough, I can affect how you are being perceived by the public at large. That is the problem.
So you're back to saying he doesn't ridicule, and in fact is incapable of ridiculing, yet that is contradictory to your "belittles the whole notion of God!"
Or do you expect me to think of belittling with silly and childish imagery as not being ridicule?
FYI: Ridicule is not from the point of the subject of ridicule but from the person committing it. So whether or not you feel ridiculed is irrelevant to whether or not you are the subject of it.
Dude! I’ve already explained it. There is no argument other than. I can’t see God therefore, God doesn’t exist.
Yet that isn't the argument: it is not "therefore God doesn't exist" but rather "therefore I can not believe in the existence of God" but it speaks nothing toward whether or not God actually exists. It is about belief in the existence of God.
You continue to fail to grasp this.
The mockery merely posits I can’t see silly monsters made out of spaghetti, or heavenly teapots orbiting Jupiter, therefore they don’t exist. Wait a minute! God, the silly monster, and the heavenly teapot amount to the same nothingness. Why?...
...BECAUSE WE CAN’T SEE THEM. With that, you cannot venture any further because the question now becomes, prove God exists, which has nothing to do with theism, or theistic religion.
So again there is mockery but no ridicule? :shrug:
Strawman: no one is saying it has anything to do with theism, other than one needs to believe in the existence of God to be able to believe in God. This thread is about the existence of God, and the analogy of the teapot is valid, whether you think it mocks, ridicules, is silly, childish or anything else.
And to reiterate, it does not prove God does not exist, it merely explains why some can not believe in the existence of God.
Got it yet?
Because one still has to perform work. If one believes that they can better themselves in some way, then they are basing that belief on something they currently know (experience) that can achieve this goal. They then have to set about making that happen.
Not sure that answers the question, although perhaps it does if you distinguish "believe in" from "believe in the existence of". But since my query was aimed exclusively at the latter, I realise the question was not ideally worded.