|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined:
|
RAZD writes: Out of curiosity, have you looked at Hinduism? There are several varieties, but one of the seemingly central tenets is that all concepts of god/s are just different faces of the one god. Yes, you sort of pick your favorite 'sub-god' - Shiva, Vishnu, etc. and go from there.
How would your fundamentalists feel about self ident as deist? I do that when I get door walkers "spreading the good news," and I get a blank look. Then I ask them how old the earth is ... Oh, that would have to be fun. I don't believe I've every met a fundamentalist christian who even knew what a deist was. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: Surely Americans can't really think that the term 'god' is reserved only for the Jewish/Christian god?? Oh, of course it is -- since no other gods exist it's absolutely reserved. I'm sure it must get the same treatment in the Muslim fundamentalist world.
I certainly have no position on any debate in this thread beyond my own comments - I truly haven't read the thread, but I DO know that to most fundamentalist Christians, "God" is reserved *solely* for reference to YHWH for what they consider to be inarguable logical reasons. That's 'Murica baby. JB Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Yeh, y'all need to get out more - it's embarrassing. Damn straight. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Jon writes: Most fundamentalist Christians don't even know what a YHWH is, and can't imagine anyone using the word 'god' to refer specifically to YHWH. While I likely agree with you on the actual letters "YHWH", I was understanding those letters to represent "Yahweh" who IS widely known and referred to in the fundamentalist communities where I was raised. They most definitely use the word "god" to refer to Yahweh specifically. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Cat Sci writes: Taking the position of just not believing that a god does exists is a piece of cake and is perfectly rational. Depending on the qualities, taking the position of believing that a god actually does not exist is a little tougher, and takes a stronger rationale. When, in a philosophical discussion, you are questioned whether you believe in a god - and that god's qualities are well defined - then its easier to reject certain ones and just say "No.". But in ordinary life, when you are questioned whether you believe in a god - and that god's qualities are not well defined - then its easier to not reject them and just say "I don't know." Better defined questions result in better defined answers. Simple as that. Well said. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Straggler writes: So I would suggest that if they are going to talk about god/s whose "qualities are not well defined" then they need to at least come up with a sensible set of qualities that something must possess in order to qualify as a "god" in the first place. Otherwise how do they know the thing they believe in is a "god" and that they are a "theist"? And with this I also agree. This is why my common response to the question "Do you believe in god?" is "Define your god -- only after that can I rationally assert a position." JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
IMHO, the primary (only?) purpose of language is to accurately update your knowledge to include my position.
If I know that you are aware of a word definition that fits my position close enough to satisfy my, I might choose to just use your definition even if it's not my preferred one (because it works, mate!). That doesn't need mean that I must use the exact same word in my next conversation with an entirely different person. Call the space at the rear of a car the "boot" in the US and confusion ensues. Call it a "trunk" in the UK and the same. I just can't figure out what seems to be the problem with allowing for both regional and even individual definitions as long as the particular definition is understood between the parties. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: and to which definition of God do you rationally answer yes? "The kindness of the human spirit - the natural desire of humans to do good for one another.", to name just one. Now, I don't find that definition meets MY definition of a god, but it meets theirs and so I can happily answer the question based on their definition. I believe in the kindness of the human spirit and thus I believe in what THEY call god. There are other definitions that involve nature that I could also answer in the affirmative ("Natural beauty is god - it warms me and makes be feel whole.") . Once again, not god to me but to them. I actually know people who give versions of the above. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: Well yes, but that - as you say - is not god, it's people. And using their definition that's not a problem now is it?
But that was the question.... No it wasn't, but that likely gets into definitions as well and you've shown that only your definitions matter to you. Fair enough. Bottom line is this: You apparently feel that the only honest/rational answer is one which forces the questioner to live by your own chosen definitions of words. I don't find that true, useful or productive. As long as they can articulate to me what their definition actually is, I'm usually quite capable of answering their question using their definition.
At the moment it seems that you're just finding weasley ways of avoiding admitting that you're an atheist. And by holding to the notion that your definitions are the only definitions validly in use, you can maintain that position indefinitely. JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
Tangle writes: They're not my definitions, they're bog standard, dictionary definitions. And this is where you fail to realize and accept that there are MANY dictionary definitions of the word "god". That's demonstrably your problem, not mine. Example: God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote: Just the facts. My highlighted definition fits perfectly well with "the kindness of the human spirit" that my friend would use.
These people that use these apple pie and motherhood phrases I assume are actually god fearing Christians? Oh, absolutely not. Christians of my family would consider those friends of mine demon possessed and those friends would consider my family misguided and abusive.
Do they never ask you if you believe in Christ? Well, I've established that your assumption leading to this question is false, but as a separate answer to your question: The fundamentalists of my family and friends (and a great swath of the US), wouldn't generally think to use the word "Christ" in place of the word "God". In fact many would even object to it. In their world when one refers to God, one is referring to the Father (of the trinity). Christ is the Son. (No, don't ask me to make sense of their beliefs). JB
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ThinAirDesigns Member (Idle past 2404 days) Posts: 564 Joined: |
That speaks of the desire of people to be kind. Which is nothing at all to do with this: It has everything to do with this if you've decided that this this spirit of kindness in humans is "god".
Now does it? Come on be honest, one is describing a desire in people, the other is a standard definition of a god. Yes, a standard definition of god that can be matched to that spirit.
Ho hum, I really don't mind what they call it, I'm sure we both know what I'm asking. And that's where you'd be wrong because you have NO idea how they might mean if they were to ask me if I believe in Christ. I have a friend believes in Christ but doesn't believe in God. I have a friend who openly idents as a "Christian Satanist" (and not as a joke). You have a VERY small world view of what people might mean when they use the words "Christ" and "God." I personally have found it more productive to not assume I know what a persons choices might be among the myriad of life philosophies and rather ASK them what it is they mean by the labels they apply. If I'm in Trenton, Georgia, I might be able to take a damn good stab at what a questioner might mean by "Christ" ... not so much in Boulder, Colorado or Santa Cruz, California. (and I've spent long periods of time in all three) Your results may vary (whether you admit it or not).
Have you ever been asked any of them? I assume you are re-asking your original question from a few posts ago - this one:
quote: The answer is no, they are not Christian and also no, I can't recall any of my friends who claim some version of 'nature' or 'spirit of kindness' as their god asking me if I believed in Christ. I'm done Tangle. Thanks for the exchange. I find your world view on this particular topic to be quite narrow and ignorant, but I'm ignorant on many other topics where you would likely shine so that's no big deal at all. I promise that I agree with much more of what you have written during my time on this thread than I disagree with. Cheers.JB
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024