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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Weasel wording is dishonest at best.
yes I do.
Being dishonest from the onset is not a good look for a "Truth Seeker".
Nope.
To me it's unwise to believe what others tell me when there's no evidence to believe it, but based on my having latent theism, it appears that some foolishness is unavoidable for me.
For me existence is plenty of evidence
Yes. The world exists. If a God exists, then her existence is more difficult to explain than the world's existence. So I just stick with the world because I know it exists.
Whatever works
Yes. The world exists. If a God exists, then her existence is more difficult to explain than the world's existence. So I just stick with the world because I know it exists.
Why do you think you (or anyone) should be able to explain the source of existence?
Obviously we need to know what we're talking about. To offer an unexplainable being as an explanation for existence is at best to trade one problem for another. That's one of the chief reasons why many design arguments for God fails.
You're either a theist or an atheist. You either have the belief in a theistic god, or you don't.
You asked for my definition. I was responding that the Webster's definition you posted suffices.
It does, but it goes along with lacking belief. The lack of belief is the main thing. If you also have the positive belief that God doesn't exist, then that's fine too.
If you believe in God, you're not an atheist. You said you determined that there is no God. That means you're an atheist. If you still believe God exists, then you're a theist, and you haven't determined that there is no God. Atheism is based on lack of belief. Sometimes the lack of belief is based on reason.
Not really. If your god-concept is that vague and not theistic, then believing in it doesn't necessarily make you a theist. Some people say God is love. I believe in love, but I don't think it's God, so I'm still an atheist.
But it's not. Evidence is something that leads directly to the conclusion you want. Like a person holding a smoking gun over a dead body. Sure, it's possible they didn't shoot the person, but that evidence definitely leads to the conclusion that they did.
Still, you keep wanting an "explanation", as if you could grasp it if it we're offered. But there is no explanation that any of us can comprehend. There is, however, a necessity of source. And that source is a mystery to us. Many label that mystery "God" and then invent images and idealizations of it in their minds to help them deal with that existential mystery. And we label those "God" as well.
Like I said, there are few that can grasp God as a mystery and god as invention as two sides of the same coin (as are theism and atheism).
Well, sure. Generally, there are few who can grasp nonsensical ramblings. "God as a mystery" is meaningless. "God as invention" is too vague to be helpful. Theism is one thing. Atheism is the opposite.
For you
Yes, for those looking at it without religious bias.
Most people come to understand God on their own terms. Religion is just the stepping stone that got them there.
Religion is the reason people believe in God. Looking at things without that religious bias makes one aware that "existence" is not evidence of God.