Belief in ...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or he means something different by 'God' or 'finding' than you think he does.

I used the word ' probably ',did not I?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
why can't islam be a door to finding god? or buddhism?


each try and reach the truth in their own way. jesus and christianity might be mine, but i am not arrogant enough to say muslims are wrong.

Jesus is the arrogant one that said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life;
no one comes to the Father, but through Me. (John 14:6) This means
belief in Mohammed or Buddha is useless, believe it or not.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Theists ultimately cling to their belief. It is the ultimate ; killing off any debate.

But belief in what?

I can believe in a friend when they say they will pay me back a loan.

I can believe a co-worker when they tell me how a job is to be done.

But religion?
Aren't theists believing in the person(s) that told them?
Their belief isnt ...[text shortened]... belief that some guys once upon a time hit upon some divine truth.

Its not a belief in god.

I think there is probably some equivocation here. Theists surely do believe in god, in the sense that they think their particular conception of 'god' picks out something actual. In this sense, to say "S believes in god" is just to say that S thinks some concept of 'god' is instantiated. But obviously this is not the sense in which you mean it, since it is obvious that when you say you "believe in" your friend or coworker, you do not just mean that you think your friend or coworker exists. What you actually believe here may be some proposition that some word or testimony is good or reliable (or that some person is generally a source of reliable testimony). But, then, I do not really see a problem here for the theist. Compare the following:

I can believe in a friend when they say they will pay me back a loan.

I can believe a co-worker when they tell me how a job is to be done.

Surely a theist can believe in what they take to be the word of god when it says this or that will eventuate or when it says such and such is how something ought to be done.

Or maybe you do not just mean to talk about passive belief in the proposition that some testimony is reliable, but also mean to talk about belief coupled with conative/affective or pro- attitudes specifically toward some thing. But I still do not see the problem for the theist. I think, as Conrau K mentioned, this touches on the subject of 'faith'.

I guess I do not really understand your argument. It seems like you would agree with the following statement: a theist does not believe in god in the same sense that wolfgang believes in his coworker. But why not? Going down the list of conceivable readings, I do not see the incongruence: the theist thinks god exists just like wolfgang thinks his coworker exists; the theist takes the word of god to be a reliable source of testimony just like wolfgang takes the word of his coworker to be a reliable source of testimony; the theist puts faith in god just like wolfgang puts faith in his coworker. I'm not getting it.

Just because its written down doesnt make it true - its just a belief that some guys once upon a time hit upon some divine truth

But the theist thinks that, ultimately, the word is god-inspired. Why should it matter that the word is proximately delivered to the theist by other mortals? Why would this show that the theist does not believe in god in the same sense that you believe in your coworker?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Theists ultimately cling to their belief. It is the ultimate ; killing off any debate. SHORTENED...

But belief in what?
.

Its not a belief in god.

Belief...is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

So it is a contradictory to ask a person with a belief to prove it. Else it would not be a belief.

Imagine two persons having a debate about a belief or any other subject, then a third person comes along and says that the belief or subject doesn't exist. I would suggest that the third person kills off the debate.

Originally posted by sonhouse
But yet you can't separate your upbringing from your faith. They were just more effective than you first assumed. Their brainwashing worked perfectly in your case.

You think it was free will that brought you to your present state but I can assure you it was no such thing, you were programmed to react exactly as you did.

You and billions of people arou ...[text shortened]... t, anyone can. Some children have a built in sniffer of BS and I am thankful I was one of them.

My BS sniffer is adequate. I was told there was a Santa Claus, and I figured the circumference of Earth, speed a sleigh would have to travel to accomplish such a remarkable task, etc., so I'm capable of discerning what I believe to be fiction from fact. The problem is people like Bill Maher who believe there is ALWAYS only ONE side to a scientific or spiritual argument. In some cases, he's quite correct. Gravity DOES exist. The earth IS 4.5 billion years old, give or take. But there are some scientific ideas that even scientists disagree on (global warming comes to mind). Spiritual arguments are the same. Just because no one has ever seen a black dwarf star (because as I understand it, there aren't any yet) doesn't mean they won't exist in the future. Hence I BELIEVE in black dwarfs. I also believe in a creator of the universe (we happen to call him God, or Big G, in my denomination of choice). Others don't. That doesn't make some of us idiots and others enlightened. It makes one right and the other wrong. That's a big difference.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Theists ultimately cling to their belief. It is the ultimate ; killing off any debate.

But belief in what?

I can believe in a friend when they say they will pay me back a loan.

I can believe a co-worker when they tell me how a job is to be done.

But religion?
Aren't theists believing in the person(s) that told them?
Their belief isnt ...[text shortened]... belief that some guys once upon a time hit upon some divine truth.

Its not a belief in god.

Forget books.

Forget what persons write.

When an honest person observes the universe and everything in it, they are convinced of God at that moment.

It is only then they investigate knowledge which has been compiled by various sources about god and religion and spirituality.

Why have you then conclude that their is not an intelligent cause / creative factor behind the cosmos?

Dishonesty and foolishness.