Trying to hard to believe

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena:

1. It is probably a convenient crutch for you to assert that anybody who has been religious previously and who has come to atheism was never a real, true, fair dinkum believer in the first place.

2. The simple fact is that there are plenty of ex-believers out there who were once just as ardently religious as you are yet who nevertheless came to the conclusion that there is no God. Among them are many priests, imams and other ex-religious leaders.

3. I am not surprised that you are so angry that people can come to a rational decision not to believe. Your anger and outrage is plain to see in this thread, in your reponses to jayleew. How dare somebody lose an honest, heartfelt belief! Misguided fools, one and all!

4. But don't ever fool yourself that these people never had a genuine belief in the first place, or that they were too stupid to appreciate God in the advanced and unique way that you, paragon of religious virtue that you are, do. That's just wishful thinking on your part. You need to face the facts.

1. More like, if you cannot explain the experience, or blatently avoid having to despite numerous requests, then the chances are that the experience never actually occured,.

2. How religious am I?

If they came to the conclusion that there was no God, then what were they doing all that time?
Does this mean there actually IS NO GOD, or that they never experienced God?

3. Another person who likes to lay accusations without examples.

4. What facts, JamesR?
You've made a shed-load of assumptions without even consulting me, or asking me to explain what you see as ''anger and outrage''.

jan.

 

[wynn]

It is probably a convenient crutch for you to assert that anybody who has been religious previously and who has come to atheism was never a real, true, fair dinkum believer in the first place.

The simple fact is that there are plenty of ex-believers out there who were once just as ardently religious as you are yet who nevertheless came to the conclusion that there is no God. Among them are many priests, imams and other ex-religious leaders.

I am not a theist, nor have I ever considered myself one, but I do think that once a person believes in God, they do so forever; and that if someone seems to have lost their faith in God, this is indicative that they didn't have it in the first place.

There is a difference between belief in God and belief in Elvis Presley, for example.

A belief in Elvis Presley is indeed something that can come and go. There are many people who have once worshipped Elvis Presley, but who over time, lost the admiration they've felt for him.
Similar happens to people who have had faith in inferior versions of "God."

God, understood properly by the omnimax definition, is an entirely different category than Elvis or a demigod. So belief in God is in a different category than belief in Elvis or a demigod.

 

[James R]

Jan Ardena,

1. More like, if you cannot explain the experience, or blatently avoid having to despite numerous requests, then the chances are that the experience never actually occured.

Many atheists are outspoken about their prior religious experiences.

2. How religious am I?

What kind of ranking system would you like me to use?

If they came to the conclusion that there was no God, then what were they doing all that time?
Does this mean there actually IS NO GOD, or that they never experienced God?

Has it occurred to you that they reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all?

Does this tell you that there IS A GOD, and their later interpretation was simply wrong, or that there never was a God?

(See what I did there?)

3. Another person who likes to lay accusations without examples.

Up to this point, I have been a mere observer on the sidelines, Jan. I don't think I need to provide you with examples of your own posts.

4. What facts, JamesR?

The ones I was talking about in my post. You know, how they actually believed in God, you know, like really believed, and then ... didn't any more. Those facts.

 

[James R]

I am not a theist, nor have I ever considered myself one, but I do think that once a person believes in God, they do so forever; and that if someone seems to have lost their faith in God, this is indicative that they didn't have it in the first place.

Don't be silly. Let's use your own example:

Once a person believes in Elvis, they do so forever. If somebody seems to no longer believe in Elvis, this in indicative that they never believed in him in the first place.

See? A little thought goes a long way.

There is a difference between belief in God and belief in Elvis Presley, for example.

No.

A belief in Elvis Presley is indeed something that can come and go. There are many people who have once worshipped Elvis Presley, but who over time, lost the admiration they've felt for him.

Nice try, but admiration of Elvis is not the same as belief in the reality of Elvis.

Similar happens to people who have had faith in inferior versions of "God."

Losing faith in God is different from losing belief in the reality of God. Compare Elvis, above.

God, understood properly by the omnimax definition, is an entirely different category than Elvis or a demigod. So belief in God is in a different category than belief in Elvis or a demigod.

How so?

 

[wynn]

Has it occurred to you that they reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all?

Yes, this is probably precisely what happened.

That says nothing about whether there is God or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

James R,

Many atheists are outspoken about their prior religious experiences.

Examples?

What kind of ranking system would you like me to use?

*sigh*

I don't know James. You're the one making the assumptions.

Has it occurred to you that they reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all?

Does this tell you that there IS A GOD, and their later interpretation was simply wrong, or that there never was a God?

(See what I did there?)

Lot's of things occur to me James, but I asked you the question.

Yes I saw what you did. You did what you always do, avoid answering hard questions.

Up to this point, I have been a mere observer on the sidelines, Jan. I don't think I need to provide you with examples of your own posts.

on

Oh, but you do James, because you have made the accusation which I deny, and I am asking you to show me so I can prove that your accusations are unfounded.

The ones I was talking about in my post. You know, how they actually believed in God, you know, like really believed, and then ... didn't any more. Those facts.

Oh! So those were facts then. I could expand on this but that would be too much of a digression.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

I'm not misrepresenting anything.

I'm not going in circles with you on this. You did, now deal with it.

His dilema is that he is going insane because his wife is a believer,

No it isn't. It's that she dedicates so much of her time to her beliefs and that she and his family pressures him to become one of them.

so if divorce becomes an option, a solution, a way to become sane again, then it is because he no longer
has to live with a believer.

That's a gross oversimplification. You know, maybe your misrepresentation of his issue really isn't intentional, and you're just misunderstanding him. If that's genuinely your reasoning, then you're just not grasping the problem.

Incidently I used the word ''believer'' not ''Christian.

Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of this.

Clearly you're the one with ''righteous anger'' issues not me.

Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" bit. Effective...in Kindergarten.

I'm not attacking you, I'm the one being attacked, and I only brought up this insane suggestion to show double standards at work.

Ah, the old martyr bit. Effective...never.

This is funny.
I will refrain from asking you for an explanation because I believe you think you don't need to explain any insults you pass on to me.

It's not clear you'd understand the explanation I'd give.

He didn't say ''he doesn't feel part of the marriage''. Now who's misrepresenting?

He certainly implied it, otherwise what's the point of mentioning that he wanted to share her interests? You realize it's possible to infer meaning from words, correct? That one doesn't have to be explicit to relay a particular sentiment? I mean, maybe you really don't.

Really? You call this ''pressure into converting to Christianity''?

...Do you really need to ask? Did I not just explain to you that I do? Here, I'll quote myself, since apparently you missed my explanation in the last post:

You're probably going to say here that a wife and family "wishing" something upon a person isn't pressure, but that's precisely what it is. If it weren't, he wouldn't be looking to employ his Utilitarian ethics in such a way to as to appease his wife and family. Clearly, their desire for him to become a Christian is putting pressure on him.

Clear enough for you?

Do you think saying ''She has hope for me as do all of my family whom I love,.... is equivilent to saying something like ''convert to Christianity or else...''?
IOW, I don't see an ultimatum. Do you?

False dichotomy. Pressure doesn't have to involve an ultimatum. It could just be the constant reminding that his atheism hurts them. Obviously it has taken a toll on him, or else he wouldn't be here asking for advice. I mean, I'm not going to speak too much for him, but his words are there for you to see, and they're pretty clear.

Clearly that's how you see it, why you would even consider divorce as an option, but as he didn't actually say that he feels pressured by them to convert, I have to assume that he doesn't.

And again, you're operating from a false premise. Obviously he's feeling some pressure, otherwise he wouldn't be looking for a solution.

He also expressed his love for them, so even if he was feeling pressured, divorce would only add to his anxiety.

In the short-term, perhaps. But this is about solutions, not band-aids. In any case, I only suggested it as an option. I wasn't saying it was the best option for his situation (because none of us knows every detail of it) but in a general sense, if you're faced with the prospect of a life of stress and misery just for being yourself, why would you subject yourself to it? If she's willing to back off, then great! If she's willing to accept him for who he is without constantly reminding him that he should convert, then great! But if not, why shouldn't he consider getting himself out of that situation?

He loves his wife and family. Why would he want to give them up? For what?

For peace of mind. For mental well-being. For happiness. Why would he want to subject himself to stress and sadness?

And what does ''faith'' have to do with it?

Seriously? You don't know what role faith plays in this?

Because it's not that simple. He's correct in identifying it as his own problem, and wanting to find a solution to it.

No, it's nonsense to say that being an atheist is "his" problem. An atheist is who he is, and if someone else has a problem with it, that's their problem. What you're suggesting here is no different than suggesting that if my family wishes I were a racist, not being a racist would be my problem. Or if I didn't like being raped, but my uncle really liked raping me, that's my problem. Simply being who you are isn't ever a "me" problem, it's a "you" problem. He shouldn't have to suffer for being himself. Unless he wants to, in which case, more power to him.

I get the feeling that divorce would not sit well with him.

It's not a question of whether or not it would sit well with him, merely a question of what he thinks is better for him.

It certainly wouldn't sit well with me or any married couple I know who still love and respect each other, so I wouldn't use that option unless I thought there was no other way.

No one's suggesting it as a first option, only as one of the potential options. Anyway, how divorce sits with you is of zero relevance to this discussion. This is about jayleew, not you.

As I stated before, the only reason I brought this up is because of Fraggles attack.

Fraggle's attack?

1. From what I gather, the difficulty arises from him, not from all parties. He feels that he cannot be honest with his wife, regarding his not believing in God.

No, the problem is that they make him feel bad for being who he is.

2. Firstly, I'm not bashing anything. I've explained quite a few times how I see atheism and theism, and that I view modern-atheism as a separate ideology altogether.
I think that part of jaylews problem is that he has incorporated modern-atheistic ideals and thoughts into his reasoning, clouding his judgement.

That's your agenda, and you shouldn't use this thread as an excuse to propagandize.

3. Examples please?

Your posts to jay. Take your pick.

I didn't say I KNOW that he could.

Yes you did. You said he can live happily with his wife and family without taking those actions. You didn't say he could, you didn't say maybe. You said he can.

You make your points, you ask me questions, and I try my best to respond to them, because it's polite, and we're in a discussion forum where the main thrust of activity is to converse. Why do you feel it's okay to not answer my questions?

I have answered your questions. I've answered that specific question three separate times now. That you suggest I haven't either means you're a liar or you have reading comprehension issues. Which is it?

Isn't it better that you at least try and understand my points before insulting me, or, ignore them?

I do understand your points. I also understand your motives, which are disgusting and shameful. I haven't ignored anything, I've answered all of your questions directly more than once.

Wtf have I done or said to you to make you this angry?

You don't make me angry. You're not important enough to me to elicit such an emotional response. What you see as insults are what I see as observations. And I'm not the only one making them.

I think you barely read my posts, only to look for things to attack me with.

jan.

Of course you do. That way you can avoid introspection, and pretend it's us who has the problem.

 

[Balerion]

I am not a theist, nor have I ever considered myself one, but I do think that once a person believes in God, they do so forever; and that if someone seems to have lost their faith in God, this is indicative that they didn't have it in the first place.

There is a difference between belief in God and belief in Elvis Presley, for example.

A belief in Elvis Presley is indeed something that can come and go. There are many people who have once worshipped Elvis Presley, but who over time, lost the admiration they've felt for him.
Similar happens to people who have had faith in inferior versions of "God."

God, understood properly by the omnimax definition, is an entirely different category than Elvis or a demigod. So belief in God is in a different category than belief in Elvis or a demigod.

You have to do more than just say these things.

How is belief in God different than belief in Elvis? What is the inherent qualities of either that makes them irreconcilably dissimilar?

 

[Balerion]

Yes, this is probably precisely what happened.

That says nothing about whether there is God or not.

Straw man. Belief in God and unbelief in God are not evidence one way or the other. Someone believing and then deciding he was wrong doesn't invalidate God, just as someone who didn't believe but now does isn't a validation of God.

 

[spidergoat]

Wynn, have you heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy?

 

[wynn]

Wynn, have you heard of the no true Scotsman fallacy?

And "No true cat is a dog" is an example of it, eh?

Straw man. Belief in God and unbelief in God are not evidence one way or the other. Someone believing and then deciding he was wrong doesn't invalidate God, just as someone who didn't believe but now does isn't a validation of God.

Uh. You again pretend to disagree with me, as you repeat what I said, but you pretend I didn't say it.

You have to do more than just say these things.

How is belief in God different than belief in Elvis? What is the inherent qualities of either that makes them irreconcilably dissimilar?

We've been over this many times.

In short, since "God" is defined as omnimax. Elvis is not.

 

[spidergoat]

Elvis is superomnimax, didn't you get the memo?

 

[Balerion]

Uh. You again pretend to disagree with me, as you repeat what I said, but you pretend I didn't say it.

You're acting as if someone else is making this argument. No one is.

We've been over this many times.

No, we've been over this once, and you ducked out after I asked you to explain yourself.

In short, since "God" is defined as omnimax. Elvis is not.

That doesn't explain why one must believe in God for life, or why the nature of the belief is different.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

No it isn't. It's that she dedicates so much of her time to her beliefs and that she and his family pressures him to become one of them.

So if she didn't believe, everything would be just fine?

Incidentally, I don't see the relevance of this.

Misrepresentation is your forte, not mine?

Really? You call this ''pressure into converting to Christianity''?

...Do you really need to ask? Did I not just explain to you that I do? Here, I'll quote myself, since apparently you missed my explanation in the last post:

''You're probably going to say here that a wife and family "wishing" something upon a person isn't pressure, but that's precisely what it is. If it weren't, he wouldn't be looking to employ his Utilitarian ethics in such a way to as to appease his wife and family. Clearly, their desire for him to become a Christian is putting pressure on him.''

Clear enough for you?

I didn't miss your so-called explanation. It wasn't relevant especially as your prediction was incorrect.
You interpreted that situation as ''pressure'' from his loved ones, but I didn't. Nor did I get the impression that they were hoping that he became a Christian. I'm not saying
that isn't the case, only that he didn't say it.

False dichotomy. Pressure doesn't have to involve an ultimatum. It could just be the constant reminding that his atheism hurts them. Obviously it has taken a toll on him, or else he wouldn't be here asking for advice. I mean, I'm not going to speak too much for him, but his words are there for you to see, and they're pretty clear.

You're correct in that his words are pretty clear, so why bother try and interpret something that is already clear?

And again, you're operating from a false premise. Obviously he's feeling some pressure, otherwise he wouldn't be looking for a solution.

And the pressure he feels is clearly laid out without the need for further interpretation.
Maybe you are right, and he is being pressured to convert, but he didn't say he was presented with that kind of pressure.

For peace of mind. For mental well-being. For happiness. Why would he want to subject himself to stress and sadness?

Hmm, leave your wife and family who love, and you love them, for mental well-being and happiness.
That's an odd way to go, but each to his own.

Seriously? You don't know what role faith plays in this?

I wouldn't have asked if I did. Would I?

No, it's nonsense to say that being an atheist is "his" problem. An atheist is who he is, and if someone else has a problem with it, that's their problem. What you're suggesting here is no different than suggesting that if my family wishes I were a racist, not being a racist would be my problem. Or if I didn't like being raped, but my uncle really liked raping me, that's my problem. Simply being who you are isn't ever a "me" problem, it's a "you" problem. He shouldn't have to suffer for being himself. Unless he wants to, in which case, more power to him.

I didn't say that his problem stems from him being an atheist. Here's what he wrote:

The only part I don't like is the words to the songs they sing (because I can't relate), but I like the music and they serve donuts and coffee every Sunday morning...

... I don't have the heart to tell her that I probably won't ever believe in God again. She has hope for me as do all of my family whom I love, who also attend this church. I just don't think it is going to happen. It pains me to think that they are wasting their wishes away on me....

...Sounds simple, but what if Jesus' divinity is a myth? I'd be foolish and weakminded to accept anything as fact without sufficient evidence. Why does it feel so wrong to accept that fate? What do I gain by choosing to not accept Jesus' divinity as fact? If I accept this fact, where do I draw the line for other myths? How can I accept this one and not also other myths and legends?

Not one accusation of his wife, family, or the church they attend.
As such I can only assume the problem lies with himself.

It's not a question of whether or not it would sit well with him, merely a question of what he thinks is better for him.

We differ, yet again. What a surprise?

No one's suggesting it as a first option, only as one of the potential options. Anyway, how divorce sits with you is of zero relevance to this discussion. This is about jayleew, not you.

What other options would you suggest?

Fraggle's attack?

Is there an echo in here?

No, the problem is that they make him feel bad for being who he is.

Those, wicked, evil, people!

That's your agenda, and you shouldn't use this thread as an excuse to propagandize.

What's my agenda?

Yes you did. You said he can live happily with his wife and family without taking those actions. You didn't say he could, you didn't say maybe. You said he can.

They love each other, so yes, if focuses on that he can live happily without having to suppress who he is. Plus, I get the feeling that he wants to.
It's more about being positive rather than knowing. Ultimately I think it's up to him (based on what he say's)

You don't make me angry. You're not important enough to me to elicit such an emotional response. What you see as insults are what I see as observations. And I'm not the only one making them.

Okay.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

So if she didn't believe, everything would be just fine?

I didn't say that. (Another misrepresentation by you)

I pointed out that her involvement with her faith, and her pressuring of him to convert, are at the heart of the matter. If those matters were settled, it would just mean those two matters are settled. I have no idea what else is going on in their marriage, and I don't make the assumption that they'd be "just fine" if these particular issues were resolved.

Misrepresentation is your forte, not mine?

I mean I didn't see the relevance of differentiating between "belief" and "Christianity." The belief in this case is Christianity.

I didn't miss your so-called explanation. It wasn't relevant especially as your prediction was incorrect.
You interpreted that situation as ''pressure'' from his loved ones, but I didn't. Nor did I get the impression that they were hoping that he became a Christian. I'm not saying
that isn't the case, only that he didn't say it.

My prediction was correct, because you did say that this wasn't pressure. To wit:

Really? You call this ''pressure into converting to Christianity''?
Do you think saying ''She has hope for me as do all of my family whom I love,.... is equivilent to saying something like ''convert to Christianity or else...''?
IOW, I don't see an ultimatum. Do you?

You're getting sloppy, Jan.

You're correct in that his words are pretty clear, so why bother try and interpret something that is already clear?

You always have to interpret words, Jan. That's how language works.

What you mean to ask is why I'm reading so much into what he wrote. (Don't worry, I'll articulate your own damn arguments for you, since you're clearly incapable of doing it yourself) To that, I say I'm not reading any deeper than the intended meaning.

And the pressure he feels is clearly laid out without the need for further interpretation.

Maybe you are right, and he is being pressured to convert, but he didn't say he was presented with that kind of pressure.[/quote]

Yes he did. It's right there. Go on and ask him yourself, see if he feels pressured to make the conversion by his wife and family.

Hmm, leave your wife and family who love, and you love them, for mental well-being and happiness.
That's an odd way to go, but each to his own.

I'm sure that sounded a lot more sarcastic in your head, but without an actual appeal to the ridiculous, it fails to achieve the sting you hoped it would. In other words, people separating because they can't reconcile certain differences isn't an uncommon or necessarily unhealthy practice.

I wouldn't have asked if I did. Would I?

Given the obvious nature of the question, and the dishonesty you've displayed here, I can think of no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I didn't say that his problem stems from him being an atheist. Here's what he wrote:

Not one accusation of his wife, family, or the church they attend.
As such I can only assume the problem lies with himself.

Now you can't even stand by what you wrote, opting instead of engage in a semantics debate. This is why you're such a pariah here.

Imagine instead of jayleew struggling with his family's expectations of him and his faith, it was a young woman struggling with sexual abuse at the hands of a relative. Would you really say the problem is hers? Of course you wouldn't. But because this is religion, and you are an amateur propagandist as well as hack apologist, you have an agenda to advance.

We differ, yet again. What a surprise?

I'll take the lack of a substantial reply on this point as a concession.

What other options would you suggest?

I don't know, maybe the first one I offered? In case you forgot:

They're going to have to accept that you're not a believer. If they love you, they'll deal with it. But it's best to be up-front and honest about it, rather than letting them believe it's a possibility. Otherwise you'll go nuts, and string them along in the process.

Those, wicked, evil, people!

...?

What's my agenda?

Again, I beseech you to quit playing dumb. We all know what it is, three different posters have pointed it out to you in this thread, myself included. What's the point in asking a question that's already been answered?

They love each other, so yes, if focuses on that he can live happily without having to suppress who he is.

So by focusing on the fact that they love each other, the pressure he feels to convert, the misery he feels for disappointing them, and the lack of interests shared by him and his wife, will all simply disappear? Talk about bargain-bin psychology! Holy cow.

Plus, I get the feeling that he wants to.

Wants to what? Stay with his wife? I'm sure he does, but that's not relevant to whether or not he can stay with her and be happy.

It's more about being positive rather than knowing. Ultimately I think it's up to him (based on what he say's)

More oversimplification. We don't live in a bubble, Jan. The choice you think is his alone is actually all of theirs. It's going to depend on whether or not his wife and family can get off his back about converting, about whether she can do more things that he likes to do rather than simply doing things that she likes to do, and, if nothing breaks his way on those fronts, whether or not he wants to be happy.

 

[James R]

wynn:

Yes, this is probably precisely what happened.

That says nothing about whether there is God or not.

So we agree. I'm glad you understood the point I was making.


Jan Ardena:

Many atheists are outspoken about their prior religious experiences.

Examples?

Go to practically any atheist forum and you'll find whole subforums dedicated to "How I became an atheist".

Or, if you want an example of a preacher who became an atheist, try this:

Has it occurred to you that they reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all?[

Does this tell you that there IS A GOD, and their later interpretation was simply wrong, or that there never was a God?

(See what I did there?)

Lot's of things occur to me James, but I asked you the question.

Oh, you didn't get it. Here is my answer:

They reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all.​

Yes I saw what you did. You did what you always do, avoid answering hard questions.

See answer above. You simply missed it the first time.

Oh, but you do James, because you have made the accusation which I deny, and I am asking you to show me so I can prove that your accusations are unfounded.

Sorry, Jan. I have better things to do with my time than trawl back through your posts to remind you of what you forgot. You can do that yourself.

The ones I was talking about in my post. You know, how they actually believed in God, you know, like really believed, and then ... didn't any more. Those facts.

Oh! So those were facts then.

Yup!

 

[Jan Ardena]

,Balerion,

I didn't say that. (Another misrepresentation by you)

I pointed out that her involvement with her faith, and her pressuring of him to convert, are at the heart of the matter. If those matters were settled, it would just mean those two matters are settled. I have no idea what else is going on in their marriage, and I don't make the assumption that they'd be "just fine" if these particular issues were resolved.

Okay, so if she didn't believe, he wouldn't have this dilema, and everything would be fine regarding this dilema?

I mean I didn't see the relevance of differentiating between "belief" and "Christianity." The belief in this case is Christianity.

Their two completely different words, of course you have to differentiate between them.

My prediction was correct, because you did say that this wasn't pressure. To wit:

No shit Sherlock!
| said it way before your prediction. You said:

...You're probably going to say here that a wife and family "wishing" something upon a person isn't pressure, but that's precisely what it is....

You should actually read what is said rather than make stuff up to cover your ass.

You're getting sloppy, Jan.

LOL! Even if that were true you still wouldn't stand a chance.

You always have to interpret words, Jan. That's how language works.
What you mean to ask is why I'm reading so much into what he wrote. (Don't worry, I'll articulate your own damn arguments for you, since you're clearly incapable of doing it yourself) To that, I say I'm not reading any deeper than the intended meaning.

So you're saying his words aren't clear, that the words say one thing but the intention is different?

Maybe you are right, and he is being pressured to convert, but he didn't say he was presented with that kind of pressure.

Yes he did. It's right there. Go on and ask him yourself, see if he feels pressured to make the conversion by his wife and family.

If that's what he said to you, fair enough. But he didn't write that, and that's my point.

I'm sure that sounded a lot more sarcastic in your head, but without an actual appeal to the ridiculous, it fails to achieve the sting you hoped it would. In other words, people separating because they can't reconcile certain differences isn't an uncommon or necessarily unhealthy practice.

It's not intended sarcasm, I just find it a bit cold. Then again I'm not surprised.

Given the obvious nature of the question, and the dishonesty you've displayed here, I can think of no reason to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Balerion, this is all in your head. Try and focus.

Now you can't even stand by what you wrote, opting instead of engage in a semantics debate. This is why you're such a pariah here.

Imagine instead of jayleew struggling with his family's expectations of him and his faith, it was a young woman struggling with sexual abuse at the hands of a relative. Would you really say the problem is hers? Of course you wouldn't. But because this is religion, and you are an amateur propagandist as well as hack apologist, you have an agenda to advance.

Firstly, this isn't a ''semantics debate'', the opening post is all I have to go off, so I will use it to make my points. If you know anything else due to contacting him, then I'm obviously at a disadvantage.

You say ''struggling with his familiy's expectations of him'' as though he used those words in the OP. He didn't.
I got the impression that his struggle stems from ''...not having the heart to tell his wife he doesn't believe''. Now there may be a good few reasons why that is, and the reason you gave could well be one of them, but it's not as obvious as you seem to think, unless of course you're just eager to justify your irrational hatred of anything to do with God.

I must say, the analogy of a girl suffering sexual abuse from a relative, is way out there, but as it's from you, there's no surprise.
But obviously if anyone is being raped, it's not their problem.

I'll take the lack of a substantial reply on this point as a concession.

Print it out, frame it, and donate it to your favourite charity for all I care.

I don't know, maybe the first one I offered? In case you forgot:

They're going to have to accept that you're not a believer. If they love you, they'll deal with it. But it's best to be up-front and honest about it, rather than letting them believe it's a possibility. Otherwise you'll go nuts, and string them along in the process

Yeah! It's all their fault, isn't it?

Again, I beseech you to quit playing dumb. We all know what it is, three different posters have pointed it out to you in this thread, myself included. What's the point in asking a question that's already been answered?

Accusations aren't answers.

So by focusing on the fact that they love each other, the pressure he feels to convert, the misery he feels for disappointing them, and the lack of interests shared by him and his wife, will all simply disappear? Talk about bargain-bin psychology! Holy cow.

He may feel the pressure to convert, but he hasn't stated that they are the ones generating this pressure.
Feeling miserable for disappointing his loved ones is not exclusive to his particular dilema, IOW it's kind of a universal feeling for anyone.
Unless his wife and family only loved him because they thought he was a believer, and would drop him in a New York minute upon finding out he's not... Or the last 15 years
revolved exclusively around christianity, church, and belief, nothing else, then I'd tend to lean more towards they do share interests.
He did mention that he goes to the church every so often (not all the time), and that as far as their belief goes, they are pretty okay, and his dislikes were the words to the songs because he couldn't relate. So I'm not feeling this Stalinian gig that you seem to think dominates.

Wants to what? Stay with his wife? I'm sure he does, but that's not relevant to whether or not he can stay with her and be happy.

Oh yeah! Let's do what's relevant. Divorce his family, chances are he will go through hell, but that's alright it's all relevant. Way to go Davros.

More oversimplification. We don't live in a bubble, Jan. The choice you think is his alone is actually all of theirs. It's going to depend on whether or not his wife and family can get off his back about converting, about whether she can do more things that he likes to do rather than simply doing things that she likes to do, and, if nothing breaks his way on those fronts, whether or not he wants to be happy.

Obviously you seem confident in this his family is on his ass to convert, or the selfish wife thing, but I can't go there because there's nothing in what he say's that points to it.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Don't be silly. Let's use your own example:

Once a person believes in Elvis, they do so forever. If somebody seems to no longer believe in Elvis, this in indicative that they never believed in him in the first place.

See? A little thought goes a long way.

The question is, where does that thought go and lead to.

There is a difference between belief in God and belief in Elvis Presley, for example.

No.

God, understood properly by the omnimax definition, is an entirely different category than Elvis or a demigod. So belief in God is in a different category than belief in Elvis or a demigod.

How so?

Already addressed in the other thread.

Elvis was a popular, good-looking musician.
God is the one being that contextualizes all other beings.

Do you see any difference between the two?

A belief in Elvis Presley is indeed something that can come and go. There are many people who have once worshipped Elvis Presley, but who over time, lost the admiration they've felt for him.

Nice try, but admiration of Elvis is not the same as belief in the reality of Elvis.

Similar happens to people who have had faith in inferior versions of "God."

Losing faith in God is different from losing belief in the reality of God. Compare Elvis, above.

Again, that is so only in the case of defining theism as "a belief in God, or god(s)".
Which, as we already addressed in the other thread, is a problematic definition.

 

[wynn]

So we agree. I'm glad you understood the point I was making.

You were actually agreeing with Jan there -

Has it occurred to you that they reinterpreted their experiences and decided that they weren't an experience of God after all?

as Jan was saying that the OP never was a theist to begin with.


Of course, in this case, Jan and I have in roundabout the same idea of theism, which is different than yours.

 

[wynn]

You're acting as if someone else is making this argument. No one is.

Fraggle and Jayleew have:

No, you've got it backwards. God is a creation of humanity. He comes from our spirit, not vice versa.

There are countless reasons and countless personal experiences that led up to when I stopped believing. It did not help when I came to the realization that deacons, priests, pastors are just as screwed up as the rest of us. How can you follow or even try to believe in something when the expert disproves everything they teach? That's forgivable and understandable, but it leaves the student lost and without direction. The straw that broke the camel's back was when we stepped in where God should have. We had to answer our own prayers. It was then that I realized, there really is no god.

And James is pointing at it, given his definition of "theism."

No, we've been over this once, and you ducked out after I asked you to explain yourself.

Read the thread. I reply to the posts that seem most succinct about the topic or an issue that has come up.

In short, since "God" is defined as omnimax. Elvis is not.

That doesn't explain why one must believe in God for life, or why the nature of the belief is different.

Do you, too, define theism as "a belief in God or god(s)"?