mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Good post.
One thing though. What you claim about theists can be done without God and theism. There are other ideologies, who do that. The problem is not limited to theism.
Again good post.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Should god-claims be taken seriously?
- Thread starter 9-10ths_Penguin
- Start date
Good post.
One thing though. What you claim about theists can be done without God and theism. There are other ideologies, who do that. The problem is not limited to theism.
Again good post.
Something to keep in mind - gods are a way of understanding the world, or the territory. In most cases it's titular or attributive and expresses how a people or culture relate themselves to forces that are greater than they are. Gods are a map born out of mythos, not logos, and understanding that is critical.
Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong
But that's really all I've got. If someone doesn't want to (or isn't capable) of taking something seriously, there's nothing to be done about it. You do you.
Metaphysical mistake | Karen Armstrong
But that's really all I've got. If someone doesn't want to (or isn't capable) of taking something seriously, there's nothing to be done about it. You do you.
ppp
Well-Known Member
That is incorrect. Gods are not a way of understanding the word. Gods are an attempt to categorize, and organize the world in a way that feels comforting and understandable. Taking the fact that culture believes that goes exist seriously is distinctly different from taking that culture's claims that gods exist objectively in reality seriously. The first is warranted. The second is not.
Heyo
Veteran Member
God is an answer looking for a question.
If that weren't so I could take god claims more serious.
firedragon
Veteran Member
lukethethird
unknown member
Should god-claims be taken seriously?
LOL
LOL
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No extra-ordinary claim that turns out to be just an assertion without evidence, should be taken seriously.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Because "reason" is not involved in superstition.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Should god-claims be taken seriously?
IMO:
IMO:
IF you want to know God THEN stop chasing God-claims AND start putting in the effort prescribed by the Sages, Saints and other Wise men
Heyo
Veteran Member
If you want me to want to know god then give me a reason, tickle my curiosity, explain why I should take the claims seriously, give a little evidence, just enough to make me want to investigate.
Until now, all believers made me consider is their mental state.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
NO. You read more into my words than I actually wrote; I just answered the OP question.
Besides, I clearly wrote a big IF .... THEN ... AND
, and I thought the ELSE would be obvious ... IF you do NOT want to know THEN don't study itIt's like eating food. Forcing is usually not needed, making it palatable is usually not even needed
All that is needed is just waiting long enough, until the person gets hungry or desperate or ... not
I have my evidence, but because I don't desire others to know God, I feel no need to share it. When I went to India around 1990, I met someone who wanted to share the evidence he had with me. I did not even want to hear it, and I even told him:
"Thanks for offering, BUT I want my own first hand, not biased by your view, evidence". So, I know there is no need to evangelize .. I actually do the opposite ... stick to your belief system, whatever it is. IF I would think my belief system is better than yours THEN I belittle yours. I rather avoid that road of disrespect
All that is needed is just waiting long enough, until the person gets hungry or desperate or ... not
I have my evidence, but because I don't desire others to know God, I feel no need to share it. When I went to India around 1990, I met someone who wanted to share the evidence he had with me. I did not even want to hear it, and I even told him:
"Thanks for offering, BUT I want my own first hand, not biased by your view, evidence". So, I know there is no need to evangelize .. I actually do the opposite ... stick to your belief system, whatever it is. IF I would think my belief system is better than yours THEN I belittle yours. I rather avoid that road of disrespect
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
That it shouldn't be take seriously is without evidence, as that is a subjective claim not up for the standard of evidence.
Theism is the belief in God. If they didn't think that God exists, why would they be theists? Of course theists believe that God exists.
If you want to know something about God, all you have to do is ask God. After all, God is all powerful, and able to do anything (create the universe, and, I presume, talk to a person or answer a prayer, though I don't see anyone who has had a prayer answered).
Many pray to God, and some hear God answer them back (or so they say). Some talk in tongues to God, by writhing on the ground babbling (some say incoherently). Some psychologists insist that they are insane, but if they are actually talking to God in God's language, they cannot be insane.
I once walked onto a pile of rocks with someone who found a rock and said that it was a sign from God that God exists.
God gives people difficult tasks. It wasn't easy for Noah to face his neighbors as he spent a hundred years building an ark in the desert (HOA and zoning laws likely balked at a boat in his yard...but with pairs of lions and leopards licking their chops for a long voyage, things suddenly became a lot more believable). Similarly, Joan of Ark had a tough task (it seems that arks are difficult things, and that's probably why Noah didn't build a metal boat (with an ark welder)).
I believe that psychic things exist (and all Christians must if they believe in their own bibles). Some preachers say that psychics dabble in occult things, and they say that they are from the devil. Well, that can't be true, because many psychics have said that they are speaking on behalf of God.
I think that if a psychic can communicate with God, that constitutes proof that God exists.
Surely one proof of a psychic's ability lies in his predictions coming true.
How can we argue that psychic ability is phony while we have just lived through a miracle of the bible (prediction in Revelation that the war in Iraq happened exactly as it did)? According to Revelation, the presidents who attacked Iraq are two devils (father and son), known as the dragon and the beast.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
God exists as an entity.
Stone.
O one body.
A plan et.
O God stone is one and st. Spiritual quote.
The plan et is science. Named variable.
God is present. It exists created.
Believe in God the teaching. As it is not science O pi or Phi. Science thinking...a human.
God therefore was taught no argument. It exists.
God is not created in other words.
Why the Adam..ant theme word was meant.
Stone.
O one body.
A plan et.
O God stone is one and st. Spiritual quote.
The plan et is science. Named variable.
God is present. It exists created.
Believe in God the teaching. As it is not science O pi or Phi. Science thinking...a human.
God therefore was taught no argument. It exists.
God is not created in other words.
Why the Adam..ant theme word was meant.
I'm not sure that "the supernatural" is even a valid concept.
It seems to be an epistemological category more than anything. From how people use the term, something seems to be "supernatural" if:
- the person using the term is personally invested in the thing being real,
- there's no good reason to think that the thing is real, and
- there isn't even an apparent mechanism that would allow the thing to be real.
It's kind of like that joke about alternative medicine ("what do you call alternative medicine that's been carefully studied and confirmed effective in proper controlled trials? Medicine"): once something "supernatural" is confirmed to actually exist, it stops being supernatural.
Short version: if there's good reason to believe a "supernatural" thing exists, I'll believe that it exists but won't call it "supernatural." If there isn't good reason, I won't believe in it. Either way, the "supernatural" label is irrelevant to me.
I don't "want to know God."
For people who are halfway rational, trying to establish a relationship with someone comes after establishing that they exist at all.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So, my reply was not meant for you
And probably you will never know God
And the other line makes no sense at all
But understandable from your POV you believe this
You quoted my post. Normally, that would mean that you were addressing your post to me.
No sense at all? How many relationships do you maintain with people who you aren't sure exist?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It's reason.
To take baseless extra-ordinary claims seriously, is by definition not reasonable.
Nothing subjective about that.