posted on September 15, 2001 04:08:11 PM new
Donny, while you have formed a valid possible analogy, I believe it is quite 'normal' (whatever that is) for a person with a psychopathological disorder to have the presence of things not really there, to see things that really do not exist. I am presuming there is no scientific reason to believe that 'sheeple' are possible.
I can not equate that scenario with a lot of otherwise sane, educated people believing in, or not, the existence of something unseen. To say, "I do not believe in God" is to say "I recognize that something exists that I can't believe in."
A true atheistic statement would be, "There is no God in my opinion." And that is all they could say, logically speaking. Any other addition would be an admission in the possibility of a God. Read further for the complete idea I have.
If one can discuss the possibility, or the disbelief in the possibility, of something then one is 'naming' that which one also says does not exist. If it doesn't exist there is no name for it, and therefore no way to give examples of why it doesn't exist without naming it as something---something which does exist and can be talked about.
Atheist, "There is no God in my opinion." Zero. Nothing. It then becomes a moot point for the atheist. How does one discuss nothing? The atheist can then go on to discuss what they DO believe in, but any other statement about God is an admission of a possible existence.
And that would be closer to the agnostic standpoint of believing that there is no way to know whether or not there is a God.
I believe there is evidence and that we can believe there IS a way to KNOW whether or not there is a God---it is called death (an event that can be scientifically measured up to a point). We will individually KNOW soon after this event whether there is a God or not. So that blows the agnosic theory out the window for me--there IS a way to know whether or not there is a God--we just can't come back to scientifically inform anyone else.
To be more down to earth with this I can explain how I came to KNOW there is a God. I asked Him to prove himself to me, show me He is for real. And He did.
gravid, I know no debating society tricks, have never been in a debating society, or on a debating team.
posted on September 15, 2001 04:15:54 PM newDoctorBeetle“Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis will provoke some thought.
"Mere Christianity" is an excellent book from an amazing man. Another book by C.S. Lewis that might be of value to many at this time is "A Grief Observed."
As for my beliefs I'm not sure what they are. I'll witness a friend lose a child and I'm sure there is no God, that same evening I'll watch a spider make a web and I'm convinced there must be a God.
posted on September 15, 2001 04:19:11 PM new
sadie999, My belief about God does not include Him being vengeful--out for revenge on the beings He created. I believe in a loving God. Loving us as a parent loves a child enough to discipline, guide, teach, punish, and/or take away things the child loves in order to train that child to be a desirable and socially acceptable person.
I believe God is like a potter, and we humans are like clay. A potter who is not satisfied with his creation will transform it into something else, he will try to get that clay to be something other than what it has so far been, and if he can't, at some point he will crush it into non-being and work with the clay he can transform.
What is Limbo?
I also have tons of problems with organized religions.
posted on September 15, 2001 04:29:14 PM new
Thanks godzillatemple, and everyone else responding here. I believe that at some point of maturity (notice I didn't say age) we should all be able to put our beliefs into words.
I see you making an important distinction between what humans do in the name of religion, and what God requires humans to do.
I believe religions are a man-made thing based on tradition, routine, and dogma which a group of like-minded people have formed. We are told in the Bible that God separated His people into different countries and different languages because together they "knew too much".
In the beginning would have been one religion, the service and worship of God. When one human differed with another as to how that service and worship is to be carried out, a new religion would be born. The thinking is something like, "I am right, he is wrong" and I'll serve and worship with like-minded people who speak the same language".
Maybe we need to return to the simple service and worship of God.
I also believe the potential for good far outweighs the potential for evil.
posted on September 15, 2001 04:29:30 PM newTo say, "I do not believe in God" is to say "I recognize that something exists that I can't believe in."
I do not believe in Santa Clause, therefore I must recognize that he exists?
I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, therefore I must recognize that she exists?
Sorry, but to say "I do not believe in God" is to say, plain and simple, that I do not believe in God. You're right that if somebody were to say they can't believe in God, this might imply that the actually acknowledge God's existence while at the same time refuse to pay him homage. But nobody here has actually said they can't believe in God. You're simply putting words in people's mouths and then using those words to prove what other people "really" mean.
If I wanted to say "I can't believe in God", that's what I would say. But I didn't. I'm fully capable of believing in God. I don't have any "issues" that prevent me from acknowledging his existence. I simply don't believe in him, however, and to say I don't believe in God means exactly that and nothing more.
I have no problem with people arguing their own point of view, and I'm always willing to accept that my point of vierw may turn out to be wrong. But please, don't tell me what I am "really" saying or what I "really" mean.
If it will make you happy, though, I'd be perfectly willing to say that in my opinion, there is no God.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 15, 2001 04:33:57 PM new
sadie999, you said:
I believe that God was created in the image of man. end quote
What do you believe came before man? IOW, what is the beginning of man traced back to the very first one-celled being capable of multiplying itself. Now, how did that being come into existence?
I have wondered if creation and evolution can go hand in hand. Is there room for both in one belief system? God created, then it evolved.
posted on September 15, 2001 04:41:16 PM newWe are told in the Bible that God separated His people into different countries and different languages because together they "knew too much".
Sorry, but I must have a different Bible than you do. If you're referring to the Tower of Babel story, my Bible doesn't say anything about people knowing too much.
Maybe we need to return to the simple service and worship of God.
Sure, but which God? The God of the ancient Zorastrians? How about the God(s) worshipped by the ancient Greeks or Egyptians? The vengeful God of the Old Testament [worshipped by the Jews and Muslims]? The loving God of the New Testament [worshipped, supposedly, by Christians]? How about Gaia, the spirit of the Earth? You're obviously a Christian, so you have your own personal belief in who or what God "really" is. But your beliefs do not represent the majority of the world's population [there are more Buddhists than Christians].
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 15, 2001 04:47:44 PM new
godzillatemple, I'm sorry for having offended you, not my intent. I am trying to say "I believe" a lot so as not to be misconstrued as meaning "I am right". Any 'you' I write about is a generalization and/or a collective, not a personal you here at this place. My abilities fail me.
You are right in that 'can't' was a poor choice of words. Try 'don't' in the same sentence and see if that is better for you.
"I do not believe in God."
Who or what is this God that you do not believe in?
posted on September 15, 2001 04:54:00 PM newbelieve: 1. To accept as true. 2. To credit (a person) with veracity. 3. To think; assume. 4. To accept the truth, existence, worth, etc. of something: with in. 5. To have confidence; place one's trust: with in.
I think I have discovered the reasoning behind your semantics game, simco, as well as the flaw in that reasoning. The words "believe in" can have more than one meaning. You are using meaning #5, and I agree it that if I said I had no confidence in God or am unable to place my trust in him, it would imply that I at least acknowledge his existence. Just like saying that I don't believe in President Bush (meaning I have no faith in his abilities as a leader) implies that I at least acknowledge that he exists.
However, when "nonbelievers" state that they do not believe in God, they are using meaning #4, and are saying that they do not accept the existence of God. It has nothing to do with having confidence, trust or faith in God -- it simply means they do not accept that he exists at all.
As for "who this God is that I don't believe in", he's a figment of your imagination [and many other people's] as far as I'm aware. I only mention him by name because other people seem to like talking about him., just like my nieces and nephews like to talk about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. I can talk about them without acknowledging that they exist, can't I?
Hope that clears things up for you...
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
[ edited by godzillatemple on Sep 15, 2001 04:57 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 05:08:13 PM new
godzillatemple, I'm sorry again for the confusion. I am not playing a game, and especially I wouldn't attempt a semantics game. I am seeking for myself, and ask that others state their beliefs and tell me why they believe that way. That's all. Of course, then I ask questions if I don't quite 'get it', or have a wondering about something specific.
posted on September 15, 2001 05:20:38 PM new
Sorry again godzillatemple I was paraphrasing and should have indicated that.
Genesis ll:6 The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.NIV
It implies to me that the Lord thought that with their collective knowledge and ability to speak the same language they knew too much. Maybe he was trying to save them from theirself?
Somewhere in the beginning of this thread I said that I believe there is only one God. If there were more than one wouldn't they argue? So I have to say I don't know which God you are referring to. There is only one for me, and I believe that we are all talking about the same God no matter what we call Him. So I suppose that means I can say I believe in Jehovah, Messiah, Grandfather, etc. as I believe they are all the same personage.
posted on September 15, 2001 05:29:45 PM new
Where to start?
I believe I am a Christian. I accepted Christ into my life at a very young age. I do not attend church nor identify with any organized religion. I believe I have a personal relationship with my God.
I call my 'God' "heavenly father".
I agree with simco, my heavenly father is a loving God, not a vengeful one. I am always surprised when I hear people question why God did this or that, or allowed this or that to happen. I have never question HIS love this way.
I believe when the day of reckoning comes, my heavenly father will not tell anyone they worshiped the 'wrong God'. (ie: another religions God.) It will be our 'intent' that will matter. How hard we tried to live a decent life.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 15, 2001 10:33 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 05:34:41 PM new
If you were truly using the #4 definition, then none of your arguments would make any sense.
If I do not believe that there is such a thing as the Boogeyman, is it a valid statement for me to say that I don't believe in the Boogeyman? Do you understand that when I say that I do not believe in the Boogeyman, I mean that, in my opinion, the Boogeyman does not exist? Or would you argue that if I say I don't believe in the Boogeyman, I must therefore be saying that I "recognize that something exists that I can't believe in"? Does my stated lack of belief in the Boogeyman somehow prove that I think he exists?
It doesn't matter if I am talking about Sheeple, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Boogeyman, or God. If I say I don't believe in any of them, it means I don't believe that they exist. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't mean that I really acknowledge their existence, and the simple act of giving them "names" doesn't confer any existence upon them.
What I can't understand is why you can blithely apply your "logic" when people talk about God, but refuse to apply that same logic to things that YOU don't believe in. Millions of otherwise sane people ferevently believe in UFO's, Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, mental telepathy, spontaneous human combustion, reincarnation, a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, etc. Do you believe in all of these things? If not, does that fact that you DON'T believe somehow mean that you actually acknowledge that all these things are real?
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 15, 2001 06:45:52 PM new
Hi Uaru,
I read “A Grief Observed” last year when the child we were expecting died six months into the pregnancy. It was a hard time and Lewis’ book was a comfort.
I have found that his writing is excellent and his logic is always crystal clear. His collection of essays called “God in the Docket” also contains a wealth of good material.
I was feeling down tonight about the evil that we saw at the World Trade Center this week. Like Sulyn it was making me wonder a little about why God allows it to happen. Then (a real miracle here) I went and followed my own advice and reread the first chapter in “The Case For Faith” by Lee Strobel. This is the chapter titled: Since Evil and Suffering Exist, a Loving God Cannot. It helped a lot. I had to laugh when I realized that I was actually somewhat surprised that I had given such good advice.
posted on September 15, 2001 06:46:26 PM newI do Barry. Because I am sure of God's existance, everything else simply falls in place according to that.
I don't have a problem with that, Terri, and I'm certainly not trying to prove to anybody that God doesn't exist. If you, or anybody else, believes in God, and if that belief brings you comfort in your life, I say more power to you. And, as I said earlier, I'm willing to accept the fact that I may be wrong in my beliefs (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
But then, you're not the one trying to "prove" that I really believe in God's existence based on the fact that I say I don't. I can respect different beliefs. A complete lack of logic and an insistance on telling other people what they "really" believe, however, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 15, 2001 07:08:57 PM new
godzillatemple, maybe I am not finding the right words to express my meaning.
Why do I know who you are referring to when you say 'Boogeyman'? Because Boogeyman exists for you and I both, not as a living breathing something, but he exists, he IS. We both have a close approximation of what the subject of our conversation is when we talk of the Boogeyman. He exists for us in our thoughts and memories. We have named an entity that exists, but does not exist.
Let's pretend that a woman is reading this who has never heard the term 'Boogeyman'. He, the Boogeyman, does not exist for her. The term is new, and she cannot infer meaning (I mean the real meaning as you and I know it) from your post.
So the assumption she chooses to believe is that 'Boogeyman' is a term that godzillatemple made up as an illustration to simco. Now, not only does Boogeyman exist for you and I, but also for her.
Since the real meaning cannot be inferred from your post she decides to infer meaning from the term itself, and from now on a Boogeyman is "one who picks his nose".
On through her life she goes teaching others that Boogeyman is one who picks his nose. It spreads throughout her whole country and generations come and go. They all know the Boogeyman exists, and that he is one who picks his nose. The fact that they are wrong doesn't matter, he still exists for them and nobody will ever tell them a different meaning of Boogeyman.
He is the same Boogeyman that we are referring to and he exists.
edited to add the word for
[ edited by simco on Sep 15, 2001 07:18 PM ]
posted on September 15, 2001 07:17:07 PM new
Yup you are right the santa Claus the tooth fairy and the Boogieman all Truely do exist they are indeed some of the spirit in our lifes.
Santa Being the Spirit and the Joy of many childs christmas.
The Boogieman being the spirit of all that is evil in the night in many childerns lives.
Are you saying there are some of us here that were never Childern and if so will you exsplan this...
this to is how come some have trouble understanding god and devil or Good and evil its not physical we are dealing with its is spirits and principalities which we can not see but only feel but these things are very real and do exist.
posted on September 15, 2001 08:09:27 PM newsimco: Why do I know who you are referring to when you say 'Boogeyman'? Because Boogeyman exists for you and I both, not as a living breathing something, but he exists, he IS. We both have a close approximation of what the subject of our conversation is when we talk of the Boogeyman. He exists for us in our thoughts and memories.
What you are saying is that the idea or concept of the Boogeyman exists, right? I can accept that. The same way I can accept that the concept of God exists or we wouldn't be able to discuss God. But to say the concept of something exists is not the same thing as saying that the thing itself exists. I can conceive of all sorts of things that have no actual existence. I can even discuss them intelligently. But, unless you want to argue that Plato was right and that there must first exist an ideal "form" of every object in order for it to be conceived of, merely thinking of something doesn't make it real.
Again, I am not trying to prove that God doesn't exist. You believe he does, and you may very well be right. The fact that you believe God exists, however, doesn't prove that he exists any more than the fact that I don't believe he exists proves that he doesn't. And the fact that I DON'T believe he exists certainly cannot in any way, shape or form logically prove that he does exist.
We have named an entity that exists, but does not exist.
Ah, that clears it up wonderfully, thank you. I guess if you put it THAT way, pretty much anything is true. Because even if it isn't, it is. But that's all right -- I get your point. God, you believe, exists in our thoughts and our memories as an indealized concept, just like the boogieman, but doesn't actually exist in reality. Or, in other words, God is just a comforting fiction which man has dreamed up and which has no real existence. I gotcha. In fact, I agree with you 100% Sorry about all the miscommunication. I didn't realize you were actually an atheist after all.
Off to bed with me. Have fun, kiddies!
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
posted on September 15, 2001 08:36:49 PM new
Barry, you have made me smile.
I didn't intend to 'prove' God. I just wanted us to state our beliefs and tell why we believe that way. I stated a belief that 'irked' Barry, without me intending to and I've been trying to 'fix' that every since.
No word games, and no odd logic.
It is a seeking out of the beliefs of others. One of my beliefs was not accepted, so be it. Not a problem. This is not about changing anybody's mind for me, although I am open to changing my mind given a new way. I accept and respect the beliefs of all others here.
My beliefs are open to discussion here and that does not aggravate me, nor is there an expectation that any other person has to believe the same way. 'I believe' is not the same thing as 'I am right' for me.
