Why do you believe in God?

[firedragon]

How do you evangelize nothing; a non-belief?

The same way anyone would do.

 

[Valjean]

By being on a religious forum and posting comments that there is no proof of God.

By posting a view that there is no proof of the Spirit of God.

The non belief is just that, a non belief.

The negation (no, non) precedes the affirmation (belief), but the affirmation is need to explain what is that one is expanding upon, or needed to have none of it.

Regards Tony

How is discussion or commentary evangelizing? The subject is already under discussion. Stating a relevant fact is just stating a fact

 

[Valjean]

Can there be a "Messenger of God" without "a God"? Thats an oxymoron. I am not gonna engage in that logic IT.

There can be -- and are -- plenty of people making this claim. A claim is not evidence, and conflicting claims are usually evidence against a claim.

 

[firedragon]

There can be -- and are -- plenty of people making this claim.

You are answering for someone else, and you missed the point due to that,.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Everyone is different, as much as their theologies, individually. Some believe because of a rational argument, some because of an emotional appeal, some because of personal experience, etc etc. This thread is to understand why as an individual, not as an institution, indoctrination or standards, although all of them would have influenced the individual, would believe in God.

As an individual, why do you believe in God?

Firstly - I believe in God because His existence makes sense to my rational mind.

Secondly - I believe in God because I have tested various ideas and found them to be good.

Lastly - I believe in God because I have had personal experiences where I saw and heard things that convinced me of Him.

 

[firedragon]

Firstly - I believe in God because His existence makes sense to my rational mind.

Secondly - I believe in God because I have tested various ideas and found them to be good.

Lastly - I believe in God because I have had personal experiences where I saw and heard things that convinced me of Him.

Excellent.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

How is discussion or commentary evangelizing? The subject is already under discussion. Stating a relevant fact is just stating a fact

Why is it Prolteszing when a theist does the same thing?

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Why is it Prolteszing when a theist does the same thing?

Regards Tony

It's not. It's only proselytizing when one's preaching in an effort to gain converts.
If people claim cars run on square tires, and I correct them, am I proselytizing? If I explain why square wheels wouldn't work, is that proselytizing?

 

[firedragon]

It's not. It's only proselytizing when one's preaching in an effort to gain converts.
If people claim cars run on square tires, and I correct them, am I proselytizing? If I explain why square wheels wouldn't work, is that proselytizing?

It is worse than proselytizing. It’s preaching. Because it is you who is preaching that cars run on square tyres.

The problem is you are indoctrinated to think unreasonably.

 

[Valjean]

It is worse than proselytizing. It’s preaching. Because it is you who is preaching that cars run on square tyres.

The problem is you are indoctrinated to think unreasonably.

Stating a fact is not proselytizing or preaching. It's just stating a fact.
It's not I who seem to have a problem with thinking and reason.

 

[firedragon]

Stating a fact is not proselytizing or preaching. It's just stating a fact.
It's not I who seem to have a problem with thinking and reason.

Theists are also in that case just stating facts.

What you did above is a proselytizing strategy. Different people have different strategies.

 

[Valjean]

Theists are also in that case just stating facts.

What you did above is a proselytizing strategy. Different people have different strategies.

Their "facts" are unsubstantiated, hence, questionable, as facts.
Proselytizing is pro-active. Pointing out falsehoods or faulty reasoning is re-active.

 

[firedragon]

Their "facts" are unsubstantiated, hence, questionable, as facts.
Proselytizing is pro-active. Pointing out falsehoods or faulty reasoning is re-active.

you too

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's not. It's only proselytizing when one's preaching in an effort to gain converts.
If people claim cars run on square tires, and I correct them, am I proselytizing? If I explain why square wheels wouldn't work, is that proselytizing?

Why? That is the nature of Faith, a person is showing why the faith based arguments are based in relative Truth.

It is explaining why the views held in one faith are square wheels and why that will not work.

The discussion does not have to be in any way aimed at converting, but again that is the nature of Faith, that is exploring spiritual truths. If one puts forward an argument that is reasonable and sound logic, then a person may have to consider that they may have to reconsider their frames of references.

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Why? That is the nature of Faith, a person is showing why the faith based arguments are based in relative Truth.

It is explaining why the views held in one faith are square wheels and why that will not work.

The discussion does not have to be in any way aimed at converting, but again that is the nature of Faith, that is exploring spiritual truths. If one puts forward an argument that is reasonable and sound logic, then a person may have to consider that they may have to reconsider their frames of references.

Regards Tony

Converting is what proselytizing, preaching or evangelizing is all about. The goal is to draw someone into a new status community or religious body.
Religion is usually associated with faith. Faith is not truth. Faith, as opposed to knowledge, is poorly supported belief.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Converting is what proselytizing, preaching or evangelizing is all about. The goal is to draw someone into a new status community or religious body.
Religion is usually associated with faith. Faith is not truth. Faith, as opposed to knowledge, is poorly supported belief.

Why is there a RF debate forum then?

Was it only set up for Atheism to debunk Theism?

Regards Tony

 

[Valjean]

Why is there a RF debate forum then?

Was it only set up for Atheism to debunk Theism?

Regards Tony

Yes. Yes it was. That's its whole raison d'être.
It was conceived as a crafty plot to lure in theists and convert them to our godless, atheist army.

We're taking over the world!

 

[alypius]

I suppose we could. Many do, but this is not the usual conception of a god, it's more like a law of physics.
A God is a personage, with qualities like consciousness, intention, likes and dislikes, goals, activities, &c.

How is first uncaused cause like a law of physics?