Why I raise my children without God.

[Bodhi]

i'm choosing to state what an atheist believes in a different fashion.

Well let's try not to make things up. You can't switch around the meanings of words to fit your agenda.

well, saying that would lead me to believe you wouldn't argue so hard to mash them together.

The definitions of these words don't cancel each other out or create a contradiction so it's not impossible to do that and continue to make sense.

there is no position on one's belief in god that cannot be expressed with a stance (atheist/theist/agnostic), so i remain unsure as to WHY we need the pointless frankenterms.

The bolded is why.

"Gnostic" derives from the greek term "gnostikos" which translates to "learned". Gnosticism is a term relating to knowledge, not belief.

good for you?

"American" is a term relating to nationality; "Male" is a term relating to gender. They are two different meanings that do not create a contradiction -- it is possible to "mash" them together in order to be specific about a person, the same way you would with something like "agnostic atheist".

which is another way of saying you think no gods exist.

Not exactly the same. Without evidence to support an idea in the first place, you simply lack belief in that idea. If you believe you have enough grounding to make the assertion that there are no gods, that's a slightly different position.

so again, in this scenario, you think god exists, but cannot be sure due to your lack of knowledge, which makes you an agnostic. what was the problem again?

In that scenario, you believe god exists but you also claim god's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That's agnostic theism.

Someone could be agnostic by claiming that god's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That has nothing to do with whether or not they personally believe in the existence of god. Anyone who claims that god's existence is unknown/unknowable could then follow that claim by stating "but I believe in god's existence" or "but I don't believe in god's existence" making them either theist or atheist; specifically an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

one, you're completely misreading this verse. you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a god? two... no, i will say it again, you're completely misreading it.

If that's the case, most Christians misread it because I've repeatedly heard that Christianity requires faith. You wouldn't need faith if you had proof, knowledge, or as the Bible verse reads, "sight" ie. "seeing" that something is true.

starting to doubt this

oh?

no.

Well then let's not jump to conclusions.

 

[janklow]

Well let's try not to make things up. You can't switch around the meanings of words to fit your agenda.

no one is making things up, hence the reason i said i was stating it differently.

The definitions of these words don't cancel each other out or create a contradiction-

i think you found the part where we don't agree. agnostics and atheists are not the same thing.

"Gnostic" derives from the greek term "gnostikos" which translates to "learned". Gnosticism is a term relating to knowledge, not belief.

repeating this doesn't really change the fact that agnostic IS a position on your religious belief: you do not believe you can know whether or not god(s) exist.

"American" is a term relating to nationality; "Male" is a term relating to gender. They are two different meanings that do not create a contradiction -- it is possible to "mash" them together in order to be specific about a person, the same way you would with something like "agnostic atheist".

gender and nationality are, of course, two different things. agnostic and atheist are positions on the same thing.

Not exactly the same. Without evidence to support an idea in the first place, you simply lack belief in that idea. If you believe you have enough grounding to make the assertion that there are no gods, that's a slightly different position.

without evidence, you can either choose to believe you cannot know (agnostic) or take a theist/atheist position.

In that scenario, you believe god exists but you also claim god's existence is ultimately unknown and/or unknowable. That's agnostic theism.

if you believe god exists, you're a theist. working out the specifics of your religious beliefs is another matter, but does not require you to say "well, i am an agnostic at the same time."

If that's the case, most Christians misread it because I've repeatedly heard that Christianity requires faith. You wouldn't need faith if you had proof, knowledge, or as the Bible verse reads, "sight" ie. "seeing" that something is true.

citing faith over proof is not the same thing as saying you don't know there's a deity, it's saying you're not basing your religious beliefs on some societal standard of proof.

oh?

yeah, especially since some of us have been around for a while.

Well then let's not jump to conclusions.

how about i base my conclusions on having read the arguments in question? "we're talking about people who define themselves in line with atheism and then refuse to accept that label."

 

[Bodhi]

citing faith over proof is not the same thing as saying you don't know there's a deity, it's saying you're not basing your religious beliefs on some societal standard of proof.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

Paul put his faith in Jesus; Christians of that time knew that no one had seen god, as admitted by the author of the gospel of John. Paul felt that through his relationship with Christ, whom he put his faith in, God was known. Hence the reason he claimed "we live by faith, not by sight".

----------------------------------

i think you found the part where we don't agree. agnostics and atheists are not the same thing.

Maybe if we focus on this, we can get further.

agnostic IS a position on your religious belief: you do not believe you can know whether or not god(s) exist.

without evidence, you can either choose to believe you cannot know (agnostic) or take a theist/atheist position.

if you believe god exists, you're a theist. working out the specifics of your religious beliefs is another matter, but does not require you to say "well, i am an agnostic at the same time."

Is it not true that you can claim god's existence to be unknowable yet remain a theist or an atheist??

 

[alissowack]

@oceanic. You can't be agnostic and a theist. An agnostic lends to skepticism of the existence of a deity and is not really invested in the idea...as for a theist, they may not know that a deity exist, but believe that this deity can be known. And as @janklow said, the specifics of religious beliefs is another matter.

 

[alissowack]

...I like to think that agnostics are indifferent when it comes to the existence of a deity. The agnostic doesn't really have concerns about whether it is true or false. The agnostic looks at both the theist and the atheist and question the commitment of their stances.

 

[janklow]

Paul put his faith in Jesus; Christians of that time knew that no one had seen god, as admitted by the author of the gospel of John. Paul felt that through his relationship with Christ, whom he put his faith in, God was known. Hence the reason he claimed "we live by faith, not by sight".

the point remains that living by faith, not by sight is not a statement that God is unknowable.

Is it not true that you can claim god's existence to be unknowable yet remain a theist or an atheist??

pretty sure i am saying no

 

[Bodhi]

pretty sure i am saying no

Then we wont agree because my answer to that is "yes".

 

[Bodhi]

the point remains that living by faith, not by sight is not a statement that God is unknowable.

The point was never there. If you "know", you don't need "faith". Period. Paul said "not by sight" but faith.

 

[janklow]

Then we wont agree because my answer to that is "yes".

looks like you could have saved yourself a lot of time here if you'd have cut to the chase earlier

The point was never there. If you "know", you don't need "faith". Period. Paul said "not by sight" but faith.

i am sorry that you misread the Bible verse and it didn't work out for you. Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "God is unknowable" argument?

 

[Bodhi]

looks like you could have saved yourself a lot of time here if you'd have cut to the chase earlier

I didn't ask you to say anything to me. I guess you wanted to know my opinion so I gave it to you.

i am sorry that you misread the Bible verse and it didn't work out for you. Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "God is unknowable" argument?

Yes; like I said, belief is "faith based".. You would not need faith if you had, in your words "tangible" proof or evidence. That is what Paul said.

Not only did Paul say it, but the writer of John 1:18 agreed in claiming that "no one has ever seen god".

 

[alissowack]

@oceanic. Seeing is different from knowing. I can see something and not know what it is. Not that it will happen anytime soon, I can see you and not know who you are. Faith is more is in what is said about who God is than just one day laying eyes on Him.

 

[janklow]

I didn't ask you to say anything to me. I guess you wanted to know my opinion so I gave it to you.

i'm referring more the fact that you're only just now saying "i guess we won't agree."

Yes; like I said, belief is "faith based".. You would not need faith if you had, in your words "tangible" proof or evidence. That is what Paul said.

let us remember that you stated this as proof that most theists believe God is not knowable. is THAT what Paul is arguing there? the author of John is talking about Jesus Christ explaining God. is he saying God is unknowable?

 

[Bodhi]

i'm referring more the fact that you're only just now saying "i guess we won't agree."

I knew that a long time ago. Disagreement is the basis for debate isn't it? I've only been expressing my opinion because I assumed you wanted to know since you've been pressing me about it. Your very first comment told me we wont agree but sometimes it's useful to hear things from another point of view, which is partly the reason I'm here in the first place. That comment was to sum things up and show you specifically where we don't agree. Both sides have already been expressed enough so there is where I'm willing to agree to disagree. I still don't believe you know exactly where I'm coming from but maybe it will sink in later.

let us remember that you stated this as proof that most theists believe God is not knowable. is THAT what Paul is arguing there? the author of John is talking about Jesus Christ explaining God. is he saying God is unknowable?

God's existence is not knowable as in no one has proof of it; no one has direct experience or perception of it; in other words, no one "sees" God as both authors admit but rather Christians walk by faith. Without proof, you need faith. I'm referring to "knowable" in that sense. Christians claim to "know" God through Christ but really that is a matter of faith as well.

 

[zombie]

Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to god's existence, we know he exists that's taken as fact both Paul and John saw and knew Christ. WE walk by faith in reguards to the promises of god not his existence. The holy spirit is the experiencing of god.

 

[LUClEN]

I realized I don't dislike religious people. Many religious people do great things; churches played a crucial role during the civil rights movement.

I hate people that reject science out of fear that it threatens their religious belief though.

 

[Bodhi]

Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to god's existence.

1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

2 Corinthians 5:7

We live by faith, not by sight.

John 5:37

And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

John 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him

^^^ The above verses is what Christianity is, in a nutshell. Christians place trust in Christ that he is the son of God and serves as intermediary between God and man. As the Bible says, no one has seen or had direct experience with God. But Christianity is belief in God through Jesus Christ as the son of God.

 

[zombie]

Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to god's existence.

1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

2 Corinthians 5:7

We live by faith, not by sight.

John 5:37

And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.

John 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him

^^^ The above verses is what Christianity is, in a nutshell. Christians place trust in Christ that he is the son of God and serves as intermediary between God and man. As the Bible says, no one has seen or had direct experience with God. But Christianity is belief in God through Jesus Christ as the son of God.

living by faith not by sight refers to the trust christains are to have in the promises of god not in the fact of his existence.

read the whole thing: 2 corinthians 5 : 5-7

5 Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight.

John 5:37 and john 1:18 Not seeing god is not the same thing as not knowing he exist and at this point in the time line that would make sense because christ had not yet died and came back so the holy spirit did not live within anyone on earth at that time.

According to christian theolgy The holy spirit is god so if you have it within you you have effectively experienced god.

You have a deep misunderstand of what you think you are talking about.

 

[janklow]

God's existence is not knowable as in no one has proof of it; no one has direct experience or perception of it; in other words, no one "sees" God as both authors admit but rather Christians walk by faith. Without proof, you need faith. I'm referring to "knowable" in that sense. Christians claim to "know" God through Christ but really that is a matter of faith as well.

the problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable and then claiming Christians (among others) also say God is unknowable, which is unfair to them since it's likely they don't agree on that point. it's fine for you to say, "well, this is what i mean by unknowable," but it's different to extend it and say "the majority of theists agree."

also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen God/Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well.

 

[ohhhla]

Lol

 

[Bodhi]

also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen God/Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well.

The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.

He also wrote Timothy:

1 Timothy 6:16

Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might forever

the problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable.

I'm using context clues.