To BElieve or not to BElieve???

[james blunt]

With all due respect, that is simply wrong.

With due respect , in what way sir?

 

[LuisDantas]

With due respect , in what way sir?

Let's see, going a part at a time.

Every person on the planet has to believe in God

Not so. The very concept of God is completely optional, if even that. Belief in God is at least arguably not even desirable, let alone unavoidable or mandatory.

Defining God - The origin of the Universe.

Sure, you can do that. You can define "god" as literally anything that you might want it to be.

But choosing to equate it with the origin of the universe really empties the concept from any real significance.

Except, perhaps, for those who have some sort of craving for a name for the origin of the universe.

It is not a belief that the Universe began, it is fact, everyone has to accept God, then stop arguing the semantics. God needs no description or falsifiable testament, God is the origin of the Universe, simple acceptance for all, even atheists.

Sorry, that just will not do. It makes no sense whatsoever to define "god" is such a meaningless way then decree that "everyone has to accept it". That is at the very best seriously misleading and empty of any constructive meaning.

 

[james blunt]

Let's see, going a part at a time.



Not so. The very concept of God is completely optional, if even that. Belief in God is at least arguably not even desirable, let alone unavoidable or mandatory.




Sure, you can do that. You can define "god" as literally anything that you might want it to be.

But choosing to equate it with the origin of the universe that really empties the concept from any real significance.

Except, perhaps, for those who have some sort of craving for a name for the origin of the universe.




Sorry, that just will not do. It makes no sense whatsoever to define "god" is such a meaningless way then decree that "everyone has to accept it". That is at the very best seriously misleading and empty of any constructive meaning.

Thank you for your post sir and respected comments. You say to describe God in such a way is meaningless, but in honesty, isn't anything more than a basic simple description adding a subjective description of God and falsifiable describing God ? i.e lying about God

 

[LuisDantas]

Thank you for your post sir and respected comments. You say to describe God in such a way is meaningless,

You are welcome, and thanks.

but in honesty, isn't anything more than a basic simple description adding a subjective description of God and falsifiable describing God ? i.e lying about God

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any description of God would be inaccurate. Is that right?

I would not know. God, far as I know, is an entirely arbitrary concept. Anyone is entitled to define it however as one likes, with any degree of seriousness, stability, coherence and significance.

It is anything but a self-evident concept.

 

[james blunt]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any description of God would be inaccurate. Is that right?

Not any description, I consider saying and describing God as the origin of the Universe would be a precise description, try to describe more than that could only be make believe rather than a ''real'' belief with solid foundation to have the belief.

It is anything but a self-evident concept.

The beginning of the universe is self evident, so although we cannot describe God exact, we certainly know there is a God , a something that created the Universe. If we try to explain something more than the axiom value, it then removes the axiom value.

 

[Vinayaka]

The most successful
approach is to first try to understand the other, & then reason from common ground.
("Success" is defined as both conversationalists finding it interesting.)

You and I define success that way, yes, as well as many others. But success for the proselytising types is at best conversion, and at least some degree of weakening of the other person's position.

I find people who can intentionally use rational thought and gentle dialogue all the while to be pretending to listen (while not actually listening) to be dangerous. I prefer people who are straight up honest about their intentions.

 

[stvdv]

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that any description of God would be inaccurate. Is that right?

I would not know. God, far as I know, is an entirely arbitrary concept. Anyone is entitled to define it however as one likes, with any degree of seriousness, stability, coherence and significance.

It is anything but a self-evident concept.

This is interesting. Is it possible to define God at all or not? And if no definition is possible, does it make sense to say "I believe in God" or to say "I do not believe in God"? So we are back to "to believe or not believe" again. I have been thinking about it myself. And never found a solid definition so far.

Once I came across a remark:
You can never put God on the left side of the formula
God = .......
It's oke to put God on the right side of the formula [I think it came from the idea "Only God exists, all else is illusion"]
.......= God

The first one makes sense to me. You limit God to your interpretation. And you worded it very nice "God, far as I know, is an entirely arbitrary concept. Anyone is entitled to define it however as one likes, with any degree of seriousness, stability, coherence and significance."

God concept seems to me another "which was there first: chicken or egg" riddle/koan. Unsolvable for science. And if it were solvable I think after so many thousands of years it should have been solved by now. But it keeps the human mind busy. One of the best Koans I think.

 

[stvdv]

The common mistake when proselyting is to pontificate from one's own perspective.
But the other side's is based upon very different assumptions. Thus, there's no
meeting of the minds. Ya gotta think of your audience. The most successful
approach is to first try to understand the other, & then reason from common ground.
("Success" is defined as both conversationalists finding it interesting.)

Very well said.
Anyway I learned a lot from it: a)find common ground + b)don't forget to ask the "ground" of the other

Just today I read: "Scriptures are only road maps or guide books. Unless you are extra careful to examine the very process of reasoning, even while the process is going on, there is the danger that you may be following only the trail you yourself have laid down."

 

[james blunt]

This is interesting. Is it possible to define God at all or not? And if no definition is possible, does it make sense to say "I believe in God" or to say "I do not believe in God"? So we are back to "to believe or not believe" again. I have been thinking about it myself. And never found a solid definition so far.

Once I came across a remark:
You can never put God on the left side of the formula
God = .......
It's oke to put God on the right side of the formula [I think it came from the idea "Only God exists, all else is illusion"]
.......= God

The first one makes sense to me. You limit God to your interpretation. And you worded it very nice "God, far as I know, is an entirely arbitrary concept. Anyone is entitled to define it however as one likes, with any degree of seriousness, stability, coherence and significance."

God concept seems to me another "which was there first: chicken or egg" riddle/koan. Unsolvable for science. And if it were solvable I think after so many thousands of years it should have been solved by now. But it keeps the human mind busy. One of the best Koans I think.

God = space

Space=God

It works for me, God is synonymous of space and space is synonymous of God, so why can't we accept that space is omnipresent and that would be fact not a belief?

 

[sealchan]

@LuisDantas said it perfectly when he stated "But the video sure is unrepresentative either way." That's all that needs said really. There are plenty of moments in the video where an atheist who has thought with any sort of depth about the reasons for his/her atheism could have easily taken the Muslim to task. But instead the Muslim got completely unequal face-time and the atheist just sat there like a lump, nodding his head and saying "yes" for long periods. I would definitely not accept this guy as any kind of "representative" for atheism. Just as you wouldn't accept some wishy-washy Muslim as your representative. It's an extremely simple matter - no difficulty presents itself here - as much as you seem to want to instill it.

I mean, 5.5 mins. into the video, the Muslim is getting the "atheist" to admit that he "holds the belief that atheism is true." The wording of that statement alone is complete and utter nonsense. I don't "believe that atheism is true" - there is nothing there to believe IN. I DO NOT BELIEVE in God - that's all. The "atheist" in the video doesn't even appear to grasp the definition of "atheism." And you're going to tell me it seems fair to state that a discussion against the viewpoints of such an individual was "successful?" That's like going out on a candy-run and claiming it was a huge success after having stolen it all from babies.

I think its fair to say that coming to a conclusion regarding one's perspective on whether God exists or not could be seen as a result of a rational deliberation. It could also be taken for granted as what one's parents or culture has taught but usually only the most unreflective minds won't mull over this point.

I think it is somewhat of a cop out for an atheist to say, "i have nothing to defend because without evidence there is no reason to believe in God". There is still that background of either unthinking acceptance or rational deliberation. That response should open up the obvious question, "Why then do you think there is no God when the vast majority of people do believe there is a God?" This is where atheists should be put to task...for they may have to argue against the rationality of most of the people on this planet. And that is something that either invokes arrogance or intimidation in the defending atheist I would think even if they suppress it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find people who can intentionally use rational thought and gentle dialogue all the while to be pretending to listen (while not actually listening) to be dangerous. I prefer people who are straight up honest about their intentions.

Given a choice, I'd prefer to converse with someone who feigns civility
& rationality to one who is honestly immune to understanding.

 

[Revoltingest]

Very well said.
Anyway I learned a lot from it: a)find common ground + b)don't forget to ask the "ground" of the other

Just today I read: "Scriptures are only road maps or guide books. Unless you are extra careful to examine the very process of reasoning, even while the process is going on, there is the danger that you may be following only the trail you yourself have laid down."

Aye, reality's primary job seems to be confounding our expectations about many things.

 

[dfnj]

Imran Hussein speaks to an atheist about belief, and how conversations regarding belief have to be grounded in rationality!

Filmed in the world famous Speakers Corner in London’s Hyde Park!

The guy on the right with the big beard is just wrong. There is nothing he says about atheism that does not equally apply to his own theism.

The idea "God is necessary for everything in reality to make sense" is an axiom chosen to be true. I think someone can easily be just as rational and have a completely different set of axioms for their dogma.

I don't think anyone can have absolute certainty one premise about reality is objectively true. Reality is just reality. Everything we talk about reality is built on a set of premises.

Choosing to be an atheist doesn't have to be made based on reason.

Saying "God is necessary" for anything in our lives to make sense is an axiom to his dogma. He claims it is a rational belief but it is only because he is saying it is so.

The bearded guy has no humility about his own religion. It's a very arrogant position to think other people are arrogant because they do not think exactly the same way as you do. He isn't sincere he's having a discussion. He's preaching. He's not discussing.

Having the ability to have reason is NOT an premise.

The proposition " God is the best explanation and necessary to make sense of reality" is an opinion. He proves himself wrong by using the word "best". The bearded guy is clearly NOT being objective.

I can't stand the bearded guy. Unless you first accept his axioms of truth, then he claims you can't have a rationale discussion. The bearded guy just can't accept other people may have their own dogma equally valid and as rationale has his own.

Why is it the people who claim to have the most common sense have the most irrational beliefs?

 

[dfnj]

Imran Hussein speaks to an atheist about belief, and how conversations regarding belief have to be grounded in rationality!

Filmed in the world famous Speakers Corner in London’s Hyde Park!

The guy on the right is just not genuine. I really dislike people like this. And here's why. You can't claim everything you say is rationale and objective while at the same time not admitting you have premises you accept as being true without any evidence. Clearly the guy has the axiom, "God is real". He is just so insincere thinking everything he is saying is objective and rationale.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think its fair to say that coming to a conclusion regarding one's perspective on whether God exists or not could be seen as a result of a rational deliberation. It could also be taken for granted as what one's parents or culture has taught but usually only the most unreflective minds won't mull over this point.

I think it is somewhat of a cop out for an atheist to say, "i have nothing to defend because without evidence there is no reason to believe in God". There is still that background of either unthinking acceptance or rational deliberation. That response should open up the obvious question, "Why then do you think there is no God when the vast majority of people do believe there is a God?" This is where atheists should be put to task...for they may have to argue against the rationality of most of the people on this planet. And that is something that either invokes arrogance or intimidation in the defending atheist I would think even if they suppress it.

In fact I would say I do argue against the rationality of most of the people on this planet in this particular area. With anything you point to (besides maybe anecdotal accounts) that is supposedly "evidence" for God, if being rational, I feel you have to admit that with as tenuous a link it (whatever it is) has to God, it could also be evidence for any number of other things that have just as strong (if not stronger) connection to the proposed evidence.

For example... someone points to nature and its wonders and says that it is evidence for God. In the same, EXACT way, could this not also be evidence for the existence of an actual, anthropomorphic-spirit "Mother Nature?" Why couldn't we propose that? It has JUST AS MUCH ADHERENCE TO OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE REALITY AS DOES GOD. So, someone's evidence in this case, with as weak as "God's" claim on the evidence is, could be re-appropriated as evidence for any number of other barely substantiated things. And you can't knock them! Otherwise you're going to have to admit that your own claim to the "evidence" doesn't hold up. But do theists ever admit such a thing? If they have, it is a rare occurrence... and I certainly haven't been there to witness it. It would be rather like some sort of miracle.

 

[stvdv]

God = space

Space=God

It works for me, God is synonymous of space and space is synonymous of God, so why can't we accept that space is omnipresent and that would be fact not a belief?

This example I saw first time 20years ago. I didn't catch the impact on the first day. But now already for 20 years I still think it is correct.
If your assumptions work for you, just stick with it. For me there is no need to think all alike

so why can't we accept that space is omnipresent and that would be fact not a belief?
Like I said above, for me there is no need to think all the same
Like I explained "God can't be put in a box" according to me
And I like that view. All other stuff I put in boxes. Only 1 stays out.

 

[dfnj]

As-salamu alaykum

Every person on the planet has to believe in God

Defining God - The origin of the Universe.

It is not a belief that the Universe began, it is fact, everyone has to accept God, then stop arguing the semantics. God needs no description or falsifiable testament, God is the origin of the Universe, simple acceptance for all, even atheists.

Why can't we just be comfortable with unanswerable questions about our existence? Why can't we say, "We just don't know how the Universe came into existence." I am okay with not knowing. Unlike you, I am not comfortable with pretending I know the answer.

 

[stvdv]

Why is it the people who claim to have the most common sense have the most irrational beliefs?

Because they still haven't learned "Common Sense before Divine Sense"

 

[james blunt]

Why can't we just be comfortable with unanswerable questions about our existence? Why can't we say, "We just don't know how the Universe came into existence." I am okay with not knowing. Unlike you, I am not comfortable with pretending I know the answer.

Well scientifically I know the answer, the answer is real magic. Now call me naive, but only a God could do real magic, the mechanics are not explainable.

 

[dfnj]

Because they still haven't learned "Common Sense before Divine Sense"

Oh Christ. Alright, I'll bite. What is Divine Sense and how does one learn it?

P.S. Please, nobody respond to Sustainer, he's a thread troll. All he does is say stupid things so people will respond. He get's off on responses.