Yazata
Valued Senior Member
"We do not know what God is. God himself does not know what He is because he is not anything. Literally, God is not, because he transcends being." - John Scotus Erigena
What belief in God really means.
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
"We do not know what God is. God himself does not know what He is because he is not anything. Literally, God is not, because he transcends being." - John Scotus Erigena
I'm not sure how that addresses what I said, but it's an example of agnostic theism [1].
1 I say theism because, despite the words "God is not", it believes from the outset that "god" exists, otherwise there'd be no need to make any claims about it/ him/ her.
ETA - I just Googled: yup, apophatic theism.
Then I don't have to go to the trouble of taking it seriously.
I fail to see where or how the reported post is spam... this is now the second post in two minutes you've reported, apparently because you disagree with it.
I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't believe because I don't know.
My brother is agnostic theist: he doesn't know, yet still believes.
Simples, really.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
It is perfectly logical. Since his arguments contain no logic, it is reasonable to expect that his actions will also be logic free. Therefore random spam reporting of logical posts is to be expected.
Another illogical poster.
No one knows "god".
kx000
Valued Senior Member
God must be knowable or its a devil. He can't posses or yield any nil trait such as death, hatred, etc.
That's your belief.
It's not a fact.
But you know of him. That's what's up for debate here.
kx000
Valued Senior Member
But it is in fact faithful. Why would God not be passive, unless you don't believe in someone. Non belief being a mortal sin would not be found liable or God like. Thus, God is passive and hopeful.
Like I make pretend he's there? Buddha says reality is imagined.
You're a slippery one, aren't you?
I.e. a belief.
It doesn't mean the object of that faith is real.
Could you put this into English?
Nope.
Your "thus" isn't actually a genuine consequence.
So?
Any evidence he was right?
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Nope, it was directed at the OP.
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Of course! It would only have made sense to be directed to me if you had said Buddhism, not Hinduism. Yet I inadvertently thought that was what you had said, hence my query. Traditional operator error.Nope, it was directed at the OP.
It is not constructive to pursue micro definitions of terminology, e.g. theism, atheism, etc. These have been hashed out so many times here.
There are really only two perspectives -
1. Those who feel convinced to various degrees that god(s) exist. (Believers).
2. Those who are skeptical to various degrees of the claims made by group 1. (Non Believers).
Note that the neutral position, used by the lay person as agnostic, is a non-believer.
While the theist clearly believes - the atheist might range from assertions of cerntainty of non-existence to merely not knowing.
JBrentonK,
People tend to believe whatever they wish, whether there is evidence or not. We are not inherently rational beings, but instead driven more by emotion than intellect. If we were fundamentally rational then religious belief would not exist - zero evidence.
Belief in a god comes down to primarily cultural conditioning, peer pressure, and the prevalance of religious propaganda experienced by the adherent. A few manage to progress beyond that and believe and reason that a god must exist to explain things we don't know (known as the logical fallacy - argument from ignorance). While others reason that a god is not necessary to explain anything.
Even without any factual basis belief in a god, and various religions, do offer positive health benefits and "hopeful emotions". These reactions are identical to those on a drug trial who believe they are taking the real thing but are in fact on a placebo - in both cases - positive effects from zero active ingredients.
For example?
An atheist simply does not accept the assertions made by theists. Since theists have no factual support, then the atheist has a rock solid position. Where is the fallacy in that position?
Possibly the greatest evil presented by religious thinking is the arrogance it generates that it thinks it has the final and only answer and there isn't and cannot be any alternate explanations. This represents the worst in close-mindedness and stymies any productive debate and research into the real state of the universe and the human experience. Religions have an attrocious criminal past where they have persistently tried to stifle alternative views and even executed great scientists for not following the party-line.
The only real hope for the human race is open, creative, and constructive debate and research into real issues. That is hard work. Whereas the theist places all their hope in talks with their imaginary friend - and to date there is no case where that has ever provided anything constructive or useful.
There are really only two perspectives -
1. Those who feel convinced to various degrees that god(s) exist. (Believers).
2. Those who are skeptical to various degrees of the claims made by group 1. (Non Believers).
Note that the neutral position, used by the lay person as agnostic, is a non-believer.
While the theist clearly believes - the atheist might range from assertions of cerntainty of non-existence to merely not knowing.
JBrentonK,
People tend to believe whatever they wish, whether there is evidence or not. We are not inherently rational beings, but instead driven more by emotion than intellect. If we were fundamentally rational then religious belief would not exist - zero evidence.
Belief in a god comes down to primarily cultural conditioning, peer pressure, and the prevalance of religious propaganda experienced by the adherent. A few manage to progress beyond that and believe and reason that a god must exist to explain things we don't know (known as the logical fallacy - argument from ignorance). While others reason that a god is not necessary to explain anything.
Even without any factual basis belief in a god, and various religions, do offer positive health benefits and "hopeful emotions". These reactions are identical to those on a drug trial who believe they are taking the real thing but are in fact on a placebo - in both cases - positive effects from zero active ingredients.
For example?
An atheist simply does not accept the assertions made by theists. Since theists have no factual support, then the atheist has a rock solid position. Where is the fallacy in that position?
Are you not already a theist as you claim, or have I misunderstood your sentence?
Argued to death already. You believe something and others will disagree.
Possibly the greatest evil presented by religious thinking is the arrogance it generates that it thinks it has the final and only answer and there isn't and cannot be any alternate explanations. This represents the worst in close-mindedness and stymies any productive debate and research into the real state of the universe and the human experience. Religions have an attrocious criminal past where they have persistently tried to stifle alternative views and even executed great scientists for not following the party-line.
The only real hope for the human race is open, creative, and constructive debate and research into real issues. That is hard work. Whereas the theist places all their hope in talks with their imaginary friend - and to date there is no case where that has ever provided anything constructive or useful.
The trouble with the theist version of a sponge is that it is only imaginary.
I prefer real friends rather than your imaginary versions.
Time is against you. A few centuries ago it would seem almost everyone on the planet had some form of religious belief. Fortunately as we acquire actual knowledge of the universe those outdated beliefs of yours are gradually being eroded and recently at an increasing pace. If you keep your promise then it seems likely that eventually you will be the only one waiting.