Why do atheists think they can argue a person out of belief? (best, different)

[97701]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

See...God exists as per my definition of "God" (A force that has Created, Controls, Maintains & Sustains everything)...if what we can directly observe counts for something...and I believe it does.

You'd better avoid taking any classes in logic, if you want to hold on to this belief.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by mordant

Well ... all-righty then, but I have to say, it's ironic to see a theist, who is apt to crab about people taking Bible verses out of context, to be taking dictionary definitions out of context. What matters about words is what people mean them in particular contexts. Many of your fellow believers would be offended at your willy-nilly conflation of trust and faith. For one thing, trust is based on evidence and experience and requires no "leap of trust". Many theists value the unique nature of faith (in the theological sense) and would be very uneasy conflating the two, in part because it would subject faith to the same standards of evidence as trust.

In the secular world people may well talk about having "faith" in a person or a concept or an institution but they most certainly don't mean it in the sense that theists use the word "faith". They DO in that context use the word interchangeably with "trust" but that does not take into account the special meaning of "faith" that is used to support god-beliefs. Faith, for you is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and that is NOT the same thing as trust.

Specialists often invent alternate meanings for words within the specialty. That is what I am talking about here, and you know full well that this special meaning exists and that you are ignoring it.

I'm not religious...so I don't take the religious aspect of things into consideration when I make determinations for myself.
Others can think and/or believe (or not believe) whatever they want...I'm fine with any/all of it.

To ME..."Faith" and "Trust" are as they are defined in their toatlity...the full definition of both being taken into consideration.
Those that want to edit those definitions so they can't be associated with things they don't like, can do that for themselves.
But I will be assessing using the full and broad definition.
That doing that leads me to see an association between them and others that fit the definition, may cause them angst...but that is their head-trip, not mine.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by 97701

You'd better avoid taking any classes in logic, if you want to hold on to this belief.

Already have...so you'll have to try another tack.

If you care to try to dispute my contention...go for it.

I define God the way I define God...there does exist that which fits my definition...thus, God exists (to ME)...per my definition, of course.

[97701]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Already have...so you'll have to try another tack.

If you care to try to dispute my contention...go for it.

I define God the way I define God...there does exist that which fits my definition...thus, God exists (to ME)...per my definition, of course.

Okay you win. Your definition.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

I define God the way I define God...there does exist that which fits my definition...thus, God exists (to ME)...per my definition, of course.

I define God as Jimi Hendrix. Totally and absolutely.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

I define God as Jimi Hendrix. Totally and absolutely.

So, according to GldnRule, God is dead.

[97701]

All people who believe in god believe in their own variation on god. Even two people in the same church will believe in slightly different versions. That's part of why I decided that man created god, not the other way around.

For a while I was thinking about if I was agnostic or atheist. As an agnostic I would believe there was a possibility of some form of what might be called god, either the same god, by chance, that someone else believed in, or a new version. That to me was like believing in the possibility of a cloud, of a shapeless mist or vapor, something without definition. I decided that was like believing in a chance of anything at all, which to me was the same as believing in nothing, but giving that nothing a name.

So I'm atheist.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

I define God as Jimi Hendrix. Totally and absolutely.

Many did consider Hendrix to be a God. So, to them, God existed as Jimi Hendrix.

And that was my point to you in this previous post...glad to see you "get it" now:
From a strictly "Real World" standpoint...all that one has to do is give their definition of "God", and that covers it.

MOF...If one were to say, "To ME, God is the big rock outcropping on my property"...and that rock outcropping does, in fact, exist...God then exists--as that person defines God.
Another can't then turn around and say, "That rock outcropping may exist...but it isn't God...show me evidence that it's God".

That's not how "God" works...God doesn't have to be some thing, or person, or action--it can be, but it doesn't have to be...God doesn't have to be something tangible, or even in any way discernible beyond a conceptualization..."God" is whatever anyone might define/perceive "God" to be...NOT what someone might think God MUST be, to be God.

Since "God" need be nothing more than the perception by someone that something or someone is "God" to them...the evidence of the perception of God, IS the evidence for God.

So...if ANYONE says they have a perception of God (and 98% of all the people that have lived DO)...and they actually DO have that perception, thus their perception exists...then God exists.

Even if God is just the concept of God in the conscious thought of the masses...if that conscious thought of God does, in fact, exist...then God does, in fact, exist.

Prove that anyone, anytime, EVER considered something/anything or someone to be "God"...and THAT is all the "hard evidence" that would be needed to prove the existence of God.

As respects, "The Way It Works In The Real World"..."God" is a conceptualization, a perception...like labeling someone a "king" or a "champion", for whatever reason you care to perceive them as that.

I'm sure you've heard someone call some athlete, entertainer, musician, or other, a "God"...or some woman a "Goddess"?!

"God" is a TITLE...regardless of what some DEMAND a "God" be to be "God". That title can be assigned to anyone or anything one cares to define/perceive as such.
Thus...all that has to be "proved" is that the perception/conceptualization of "God" has occurred in anyone at any time, to "prove" that "God" exists.

Like something/someone you "know" to be "Your Love", or "Your Hero"...you can assign someone/something as "Your God".

Of course...some will not accept this...because then "God" most certainly exists...and their "God Allergy" compels them to reject that concept at all costs.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

So, according to GldnRule, God is dead.

No...according to the definition of God as per BigCityDreamers definition of God, God is dead.
Besides...I didn't consider Hendrix a God...I preferred Clapton.

[97701]

Originally Posted by GldnRule

Of course...some will not accept this...because then "God" most certainly exists...and their "God Allergy" compels them to reject that concept at all costs.

I have an allergy to shapeless fluff.