How is not believing in god different than believing there is no god?

[Willamena]

It can be a very subtle distinction, and IMO it should be ignored in most situations.

But if you feel differently, by all means expand on that. I am interested in learning of it.

Should the distinction also be ignored for theists who are theological noncognivists?

 

[LuisDantas]

Should the distinction also be ignored for theists who are theological noncognivists?

My current understanding is that deity is such a diaphanous, highly personal concept that it is pointless to attempt to put boundaries in it.

Everyone should acknowledge or ignore as many deities as they feel like, with no worries about coherence or consistence. And change their minds just because if they feel like it.

In all honesty, I don't know for certain that it can even conceivably work any other way.

 

[viole]

1. There seems to be a guiding/loving force in the universe that knows I exist and is intent on helping me (whether that is a part of my own mind masked by the idea of God, I can't say).

He is loving if you live in America and can afford to buy a computer and spend time on forums. Much less so if you are a poor african child whose eyes are getting consumed by a parasite, as we speak.

Maybe you should ask yourself why he is helping you and not him.

2. I believe that Jesus was divine. That being said, my reasoning for thinking so was the ridiculously progressive nature of what was taught in his name ... compassion, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, etc. For this reason, he is a legend (remember, "heroes live forever, but legends never die"), so I feel as if I can speak directly to him through prayer.
3. I understand my own limitations in understanding and those of our current natural understanding of the world. But, I do not believe it appropriate to attribute anything in the natural world to the supernatural necessarily, or to assume anything until we find out different. My faith is my own and it gives me strength ... but it's nobody's business, and my beliefs should not be considered when interacting others.

There is nothing more immoral than turning the other cheek, without setting limits on when to do it. The guy on your picture did not listen to Jesus, fortunately.

We must live for each other here on earth, because that is all that we KNOW to exist and depend on us. When faith gets in the way of mutual respect, argumentation, progress of thought or personal rights, it should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.

Ok.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leibowde84]

It is loving if you live in America and can afford to buy a computer and spend time on forums. Much less so if you are a poor african child whose eyes are getting consumed by a parasite, as we speak.

Maybe you should ask yourself why he is helping you and not him.
I would not attempt to ask or answer this question because, as I stated before, I am not sure of the nature of the God I believe in. I am open to the possibility that it could be a figment of my imagination, which would preclude it from helping anyone other than me.


There is nothing more immoral than turning the other cheek, without setting limits on when to do it. The guy on your picture did not listen to Jesus, fortunately.
I couldn't agree more, but I did not say otherwise. Turning the other cheek (with limitations of course) is a concept that changed our idea of justice and cohabitation. To say that Jesus intended for us all to "turn the other cheek" without limitation would be a huge leap of faith (no pun intended). My understanding of that statement was way more aggressive. It seems through historical research and understandings, Jesus was making the point that you must offer your other cheek rather than running in fear. Sort of like, "hey, you think you hurt me, well you didn't ... so, why don't you take another crack at it." But that is just my personal interpretation of that passage.

Btw, I'm pretty sure that even Winston Churchill displayed moments of reserve.



Ok.

Ciao

- viole