Why aren't there more agnostics?

[Kfox]

We differ in some parts. I agree that in order for Sasquatch to be believable, it must be actual, not imagined. That's what I said earlier, that I don't believe in Sasquatch's actuality.

Where we differ is here: in order for things to exist, they must be. There are no other requirements for that word. To exist is to be. Actual things are. Imagined things are. Phyiscal things are. Theoretical things are. Each adjective doesn't create a whole new thing--they all exemplify "being." The canvas is wide.

If you want evidence, it's right there in our language. You claim that imagined things don't exist, but things exist in our imagination

It sounds like you are confirming my point when I said:

"Sasquatch may exist in someone’s imagination, but because he doesn’t have a physical existence, he doesn’t exist actually or in reality. Do you agree?"

I think we agree much more than we disagree concerning the Sasquatch scenario. Now getting back to God; when someone says they believe in God, what they really mean is that they believe in God's actuality; is this your position?

 

[Willamena]

Now getting back to God; when someone says they believe in God, what they really mean is that they believe in God's actuality; is this your position?

Just so. God, for those who believe in him, is (or, at least, should be) real.

 

[Kfox]

Just so. God, for those who believe in him, is (or, at least, should be) real.

Real meaning what?

 

[Willamena]

Real meaning what?

Informed by truth.

 

[Kfox]

Informed by truth.

So an actual existence is not necessary; one can "believe in" God, even though they know he doesn't actually exist? Is this what you're saying?

 

[McBell]

So an actual existence is not necessary; one can "believe in" God, even though they know he doesn't actually exist? Is this what you're saying?

IMO, yes, they can.
Just like those who "believe in" other symbols that do not exist outside the representing symbol.

 

[Kfox]

IMO, yes, they can.
Just like those who "believe in" other symbols that do not exist outside the representing symbol.

What symbols are you talking about?

 

[McBell]

What symbols are you talking about?

All of them that represent something that is not "physically" real.
Like god.
Like the swastika
like the cross
the Bible
Koran
Sutra
Ying yang
Elephant
Donkey

 

[Kfox]

All of them that represent something that is not "physically" real.
Like god.
Like the swastika
like the cross
the Bible
Koran
Sutra
Ying yang
Elephant
Donkey

I've got a feeling that was not what Willamena was talking about.

 

[McBell]

I've got a feeling that was not what Willamena was talking about.

I suspect you are correct.

My apologies if I caused some confusion here.
That was not my intention.
I was merely answering your question:

So an actual existence is not necessary; one can "believe in" God, even though they know he doesn't actually exist?
​

and was not addressing this one:

Is this what you're saying?​

Mainly because the second one is one that IMO only she can answer.

 

[Kfox]

I suspect you are correct.

My apologies if I caused some confusion here.
That was not my intention.
I was merely answering your question:

So an actual existence is not necessary; one can "believe in" God, even though they know he doesn't actually exist?
​

and was not addressing this one:

Is this what you're saying?​

Mainly because the second one is one that IMO only she can answer.

Concerning your view, you mentioned some people may believe in a symbol, but I think people may care about what the symbol represents; not the symbol itself. Do you agree?

 

[McBell]

Concerning your view, you mentioned some people may believe in a symbol, but I think people may care about what the symbol represents; not the symbol itself. Do you agree?

A map is not the terrain.
However, there are those who treat the map as the terrain.
One example is how Muslims act over the treatment of the Koran.
Not all of them mind you, but there are plenty of Muslims who go bat **** crazy insane when someone mistreats a Koran.

Another example is the American Flag...
It is not the cloth that is what is important, but what that cloth means to them.

So provided I understand your inquiry correctly, yes, I agree.

 

[Kfox]

A map is not the terrain.
However, there are those who treat the map as the terrain.
One example is how Muslims act over the treatment of the Koran.
Not all of them mind you, but there are plenty of Muslims who go bat **** crazy insane when someone mistreats a Koran.

Another example is the American Flag...
It is not the cloth that is what is important, but what that cloth means to them.

So provided I understand your inquiry correctly, yes, I agree.

The symbols you listed have an actual existence. I can understand people idolizing symbols with an actual existence, but a symbol that does not exist?

 

[McBell]

The symbols you listed have an actual existence. I can understand people idolizing symbols with an actual existence, but a symbol that does not exist?

what symbol does not exist?

 

[Kfox]

what symbol does not exist?

Back in post #105 I asked if an actual existence is not necessary to believe in God, you said existence was not necessary and listed examples of symbols that don’t exist that one could believe in.

 

[Willamena]

So an actual existence is not necessary; one can "believe in" God, even though they know he doesn't actually exist? Is this what you're saying?

I doubt it.

I'm confused as to why you consider actual existence to be "not necessary," or how you got that from anything I said. All existence is essential. None of it fails to be painted on the canvas (despite your denials).

One believes in God if one accepts "God" as (painted as) actual or real.

 

[Willamena]

Concerning your view, you mentioned some people may believe in a symbol, but I think people may care about what the symbol represents; not the symbol itself. Do you agree?

A symbol essenitally means what it represents. The "STOP" sign at the corner means stop.

If a person cares about one and not the other, they're just doing it wrong.

 

[Kfox]

I doubt it.

I'm confused as to why you consider actual existence to be "not necessary,"

I’m asking you if it’s necessary.

or how you got that from anything I said. All existence is essential. None of it fails to be painted on the canvas (despite your denials).

You spoke of Sasquatch and other imaginary characters that don’t have an actual existence. I’m asking if when one says they believe in “X”, are they saying they believe in his actual existence? Or are they saying something else.

One believes in God if one accepts "God" as (painted as) actual or real.

So if one does not believe Sasquatch is an actual being, they would not believe in Sasquatch; is this what you are saying?

 

[Kfox]

A symbol essenitally means what it represents. The "STOP" sign at the corner means stop.

If a person cares about one and not the other, they're just doing it wrong.

Stop sign might be a poor example; nobody cares about the Stop sign, they obey it because it represents the law, but as far as the sign, nobody really cares about it.

 

[Willamena]

I’m asking you if it’s necessary.

Ah. You began your premise with "So," so I didn't get that.

You spoke of Sasquatch and other imaginary characters that don’t have an actual existence. I’m asking if when one says they believe in “X”, are they saying they believe in his actual existence? Or are they saying something else.

The word "belief" implies that they are investing in actual existence, informed by truth.

People use "belief' in many different ways, but I take belief in X seriously.

So if one does not believe Sasquatch is an actual being, they would not believe in Sasquatch; is this what you are saying?

Yes.