Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[Magic Man]

So, as I said. IF the dominant religion is rational, you will feel some need to say "That's not me!"? Why?

What does whether or not it's rational have to do with anything?

And you can't when someone claims to be experiencing God? Umm, yes you can. So what's the difference?

The difference is when you claim the experience is something more than it is. There is a feeling humans feel sometimes. We have named it "love". If all your god is is a feeling, then I don't see the point in calling it "god".

But I'm going to cut to the chase again to hopefully keep from getting too far away from it. Again, if your god is simply an experience you have when you do some particular thing, that's great, but calling it "god" only confuses the conversation. When I look at photos of beautiful landscapes, I get a sense of wonder and awe. If I decided to call that "god", it would really confuse people, and rightly so. It's better to just describe it as a sense of wonder and awe.

 

[raw_thought]

Most versions of God are defined. If it's not defined and in fact ineffable, it's not a very useful concept.

See posts 267 and 268 for context.
I am an agnostic. For this thread I will provisionally accept that God exists.
God ( for us) is an experience rather than a concept. Concepts have a purpose but are meaningless. For example, if I say, " pass the book over here" it facilitates my purpose ( obtaining the book). However, the concept "book" does not refer to anything in particular. The concept "book" lacks a title, language , size, mass etc. Nothing resembles that! Type in ( cut) " http://search.findwide.com/serp?guid={37A9289B-0366-4D2B-AF00-1ADDB4637FD2}&action=default_search&serpv=22&k=nagel+what+does+it+all+mean " and paste into the search bar and then click yimg , go to page 38
Also see
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts/


PS; I am at Town of Surf City and so my responses will not be timely! :beach:

 

[Magic Man]

See posts 267 and 268 for context.
I am an agnostic. For this thread I will provisionally accept that God exists.
God ( for us) is an experience rather than a concept. Concepts have a purpose but are meaningless. For example, if I say, " pass the book over here" it facilitates my purpose ( obtaining the book). However, the concept "book" does not refer to anything in particular. The concept "book" lacks a title, language , size, mass etc. Nothing resembles that! Concepts (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

You say you're an agnostic, but do you believe in a god?

I'm not sure how you meant this to be a response to what I said. Either God is effable (yes, I'm using that as a word) and defined and therefore relevant, or God is ineffable and undefined and therefore irrelevant.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here is what I said that you first responded to:



Here is what you said in your explanation of your position:



Can you explain what the differences are? I said atheists generally only reject the personal theistic god (like Yahweh). You said there are only a few god-concepts you reject outright. You don't accept other god-concepts because either you don't believe the being exists or because you don't believe it can reasonably be called "god". I've said atheists generally don't reject those other god-concepts; they just may not agree with calling them god. That's why I used the example of the universe. Atheists don't reject the universe, we just reject calling it "god".

I don't reject most versions of Yahweh (BTW: I think the term "Yahweh" is applied to a wide range of god-concepts); I just don't accept them.

And I think that telling someone that their "god-concept" isn't a concept of a god at all does constitute rejecting it.

Regardless, the stuff you've been saying for the last few pages makes it sound like most atheists agree that pantheists and deists are atheists, which is different from what you're saying now, so it sounds like your past posts just weren't communicating yoyr intended meaning properly.

 

[JM2C]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

I think it's the other way around. Non-believers always challenging the believers about the existence of God, the Only One true God.

 

[raw_thought]

Response to post 283,
Put into words how to move my middle finger. You cannot! To say, " send electrical impulses to your middle finger" is not helpful in my quest to move my middle finger. In other words ( pun intended) I know how to move my middle finger even tho the instructions are ineffable ( cannot be put into words). To say that ineffable knowledge is not knowledge is inaccurate.

 

[raw_thought]

I think it's the other way around. Non-believers always challenging the believers about the existence of God, the Only One true God.

Those that debate are the only truth seekers. See post 267
I love the fact that both theists and non-theists debate me vigorously! Most of the time they ( both) get emotional, which shows that core issues are being addressed!

 

[Magic Man]

I don't reject most versions of Yahweh (BTW: I think the term "Yahweh" is applied to a wide range of god-concepts); I just don't accept them.

A couple things. Can you give a couple examples of different concepts you think Yahweh applies to? I'm just trying to get a sense of what you mean. I can't think of a god-concept it applies to other than the personal creator god who is active in the universe.

Also, what is it that you reject, if not this type of god?

And I think that telling someone that their "god-concept" isn't a concept of a god at all does constitute rejecting it.

Another couple of things. First, sure, that's a form of rejection, but not in the same way, which is all I'm saying. Second, your previous comment differs from this. Before you said you only outright reject a few god-concepts, but you just don't accept some others because you disagree with the idea of calling whatever it is "God".

Regardless, the stuff you've been saying for the last few pages makes it sound like most atheists agree that pantheists and deists are atheists, which is different from what you're saying now, so it sounds like your past posts just weren't communicating yoyr intended meaning properly.

I'd be curious to see which of my comments gave you the impression that I'm saying most atheists agree that pantheists and deists are atheists. It might be that I was not communicating effectively, but it's also possible that you were reading it wrong. The one post you did respond directly to doesn't imply what you say here, as far as I can tell.

 

[Magic Man]

Response to post 283,
Put into words how to move my middle finger. You cannot! To say, " send electrical impulses to your middle finger" is not helpful in my quest to move my middle finger. In other words ( pun intended) I know how to move my middle finger even tho the instructions are ineffable ( cannot be put into words). To say that ineffable knowledge is not knowledge is inaccurate.

If someone posits that a particular thing exists, it has to be able to be described. If it's truly ineffable, then it's irrelevant.

 

[JM2C]

Those that debate are the only truth seekers. See post 267
I love the fact that both theists and non-theists debate me vigorously! Most of the time they ( both) get emotional, which shows that core issues are being addressed!

What truth are you talking about? How can you debate someone or something you have no knowledge about?

As a Christian, if I debate a Muslim and have no knowledge at all about their religion, I can OR should call myself an IGNORANT of this knowledge, but since pride took over, instead of admitting my IGNORANCY on this matter, I am becoming ARROGANT without even knowing it.

Now, the person or the Muslim that I would be debating can sense my overbearing pride or ARROGANCY, from lack of knowledge about their religion, which in nothing but IGNORANCY, which I knew nothing about at all.

 

[raw_thought]

response to post 290
?????

 

[raw_thought]

please scroll back and read.

 

[raw_thought]

If someone posits that a particular thing exists, it has to be able to be described. If it's truly ineffable, then it's irrelevant.

So my ineffable knowledge that I can move my middle finger is irrelevant? That knowledge helps me communicate.:yes:
See post 286 to see that I am not being gratuitously rude.

 

[Magic Man]

So my ineffable knowledge that I can move my middle finger is irrelevant? That knowledge helps me communicate.:yes:
See post 286 to see that I am not being gratuitously rude.

You don't seem to be following. You say something exists called "God". To be a useful and relevant concept, you'd have to define it in some way, which means describing it.

 

[raw_thought]

See posts 282, 286 and especially post 268 where there is a link http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/philosophy/164132-truth-real-thing-2.html#post3803713 post 15

 

[CompleteSubmission]

So I take it that you find that a good thing?

Maybe you want to tell me why exactly?

Find what a good thing? To take the time and talk to the person.

God is watching your every move..everything is being recorded, even evil thoughts you indulge in, that's why repentance, good deeds and prayer is crucial..life is so short compared to the hereafter..might as well develop a good resume.

 

[LuisDantas]

Find what a good thing?

This:

Because there is a possibility that something you say will spark something within their heart which will get them to research and maybe become a believer

To take the time and talk to the person.

That is certainly fine, but you should be aware that not everyone can or should become a believer.

If you can't accept that, I fear that you are not being very respectful at all when you attempt to convince us into belief.

God is watching your every move..everything is being recorded, even evil thoughts you indulge in, that's why repentance, good deeds and prayer is crucial..life is so short compared to the hereafter..might as well develop a good resume.

I understand that such is your sincere belief.

However, God either does not exist, does not care, or chose not to make me so that I could believe that he exists and cares.

Besides, belief in God and in an afterlife can be very harmful indeed.

Therefore, I must disagree.