Faith

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Being faith is on a personal level/personal experience,, How can a person without faith tell others they are wrong, argue, or debate about something they don't have or experience?

If someone were a carpenter and someone else who knew nothing about carpentry tried to tell them what is what about carpentry, why would they even listen to them?

Ah - the Courtier's Reply, except with carpenters.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lets say you believe in a god with faith. You also believe by faith said god is guiding you.
If i called you full of ****, would that be rational?

Quite possibly. Depends on the specifics.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can we know their faith is wrong? They might even be a better human being than our self.

If we can't tell whether the thing they have faith in exists at all, then putting faith in it is unjustified.

 

[Sheldon]

Each beliver are at different level of understanding of the truth that is given to us through the teaching. So even within same faith different answer will be given to the same question.
The more we practice the deeper understanding we gain.

These are just more bare unevidenced claims for knowledge, exactly like the bare claim there is a right belief. Which now seems to be multiple beliefs, based on knowledge that no one seems able to demonstrate in any specific or meaningful way.

It always emerges as some esoteric knowledge, buried in vague claims, that require years of immersing oneself in the belief a priori, and the conclusion seems to be whatever they wanted to believe in the first place. It works for a massive range of widely varied beliefs and deities.

 

[Sheldon]

The Atheist believes he is imagining God

Atheists don't believe in any deity, it is theists who imagine deities, atheists can only respond to the claims they make.

The believers trusts his vision of his soul, while the Atheists believes in the uncleanness in him telling him to doubt.

No true Scotsman fallacy again.

the atheist believes in the darkness.

Nonsense.

Then there is other indirect proofs, like the fact, we exist in his vision, the one who accounts our actions and makes us inherit the value of our deeds, the system emplace that allows justice to be a thing and not just an impossible fantasy, all this proves God.

That meaningless gibberish.

 

[Link]

Atheists don't believe in any deity

Yet to me he is within view of their soul, they just believe he is a concept they are imagining and not real.

 

[Spirit of Light]

These are just more bare unevidenced claims for knowledge, exactly like the bare claim there is a right belief. Which now seems to be multiple beliefs, based on knowledge that no one seems able to demonstrate in any specific or meaningful way.

It always emerges as some esoteric knowledge, buried in vague claims, that require years of immersing oneself in the belief a priori, and the conclusion seems to be whatever they wanted to believe in the first place. It works for a massive range of widely varied beliefs and deities.

Well i am practicing a esoteric teaching, so it means inward understanding or wisdom.
There is nothing i could say or do so you could understand the teaching.
You deny everything anyone telling you the belive in, it is their beliefs

 

[Sheldon]

Yet to me he is within view of their soul, they just believe he is a concept they are imagining and not real.

Well I can speak for other atheists, nor can you, but this is not true of me. My atheism is the lack or absence of a belief, it is not a belief itself.

 

[Link]

Well I can speak for other atheists, nor can you, but this is not true of me. My atheism is the lack or absence of a belief, it is not a belief itself.

But if it's God and you don't accept that you are connected to it, that's a belief too. God is a proof of himself and is a manifest proof, so if you say he is not, and I don't see him or know he exists, that's a stance and a belief. If you are neutral about that, then Kudos, I hope you find the truth about that.

 

[Sheldon]

But if it's God and you don't accept that you are connected to it, that's a belief too.

If what is god? That seems like a straw man fallacy, as I've made no such claim. I have told you, as I have told others, my atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, where claims are made that are unfalsifiable, I must remain agnostic, but also withhold belief.

God is a proof of himself and is a manifest proof,

That just circular reasoning fallacy using a tautology.

so if you say he is not, and I don't see him or know he exists, that's a stance and a belief.

I didn't say that, you did.

If you are neutral about that, then Kudos, I hope you find the truth about that.

It is a bare claim, and so I don't believe it.

 

[Nakosis]

Being faith is on a personal level/personal experience,, How can a person without faith tell others they are wrong, argue, or debate about something they don't have or experience?

If someone were a carpenter and someone else who knew nothing about carpentry tried to tell them what is what about carpentry, why would they even listen to them?

What about those who had faith in a concept of God but now find such faith no longer necessary?

Can't really assume the faithless never had faith.
It could be more like "been there, done that".

 

[syo]

personal experience,

Experience is gnosis. Experience is not faith.

 

[Valjean]

God exists alive in the horizons of all creatures vision and within them (signs in soul), he is connected to all things since everything get's it form from his reality.

The Atheist believes he is imagining God when he remembers him and sees, while the believers witness he is alive and know he exists just as they know they themselves exist.

What makes you think (feel) that atheists remember God?
There is tangible, testable evidence that we exist, but where is the evidence for God? If there were empirical evidence for him, belief would be universal and consistent, like the belief in human existence. Faith would not be needed.

The believers trusts his vision of his soul, while the Atheists believes in the uncleanness in him telling him to doubt. The two companions, the light of God (the human leader from God) and darkness (the companion appointed by Iblis) are at it, the believer clings and believes in what the light says to him, and the atheist believes in the darkness.

"The uncleanness in him telling him to doubt?"
Why do you say uncleanness? We don't believe because anything is 'telling us' to doubt. We don't believe for the same reason you don't believe in Leprechauns or dragons. Nobody's telling you not to believe in Leprechauns, you just lack evidence.

Then there is other indirect proofs, like the fact, we exist in his vision, the one who accounts our actions and makes us inherit the value of our deeds, the system emplace that allows justice to be a thing and not just an impossible fantasy, all this proves God.

Other proofs? You haven't given us any proofs yet. You've just made claims. You've only preached the beliefs your peers preached to you.

"...like the fact that we exist in his vision...?" How is this proof of anything? It presupposed the thing to be proved; uses the thing to be proved as a premise in the proof!

 

[Valjean]

As I said..."A certain belief may be right for someone but not right for someone else."

Just ask some here. Some have followed several until they found what they believe is the right one.

A belief is either right or wrong. "Right for" is meaningless.
Perhaps you mean "useful to."

 

[Sheldon]

A belief is either right or wrong. "Right for" is meaningless.
Perhaps you mean "useful to."

I read his claim as beliefs "favoured by" to be honest, simple bias in favour of one belief over another, with no demonstrably objective difference between any of them.

 

[Valjean]

But if it's God and you don't accept that you are connected to it, that's a belief too.

No, that's a lack of belief.

God is a proof of himself and is a manifest proof, so if you say he is not, and I don't see him or know he exists, that's a stance and a belief.

No, that's a recognition of circular reasoning, and a recognition that you haven't made your case, so the default lack of belief stands.

 

[Ponder This]

Being faith is on a personal level/personal experience,, How can a person without faith tell others they are wrong, argue, or debate about something they don't have or experience?

If someone were a carpenter and someone else who knew nothing about carpentry tried to tell them what is what about carpentry, why would they even listen to them?

I suppose a person could tell you not to trust strangers even though he doesn't personally know any of the strangers you encounter. And if you trust a stranger, he could argue that you really should not have trusted that person. But even if most of the strangers you encounter aren't trustworthy, it could be that your experience in trust led to things that a person without trust will never experience. In fact, he could even have had bad experiences trusting strangers and it still wouldn't invalidate your experience.

I suppose you could argue about it and I suppose that he could even be right and yet still be wrong. What a conundrum!