- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
-Removed-Yes, and? He was still Jewish, had a Jewish upbringing, and whatever he may have done in later years, was culturally very well grounded in the Old Testament. He may not have believed in God, but the philosophy of the Bible was a large part of his background. This is clear from much of his writing.
Originally posted by josephwWhat is there to discuss?
No, just the ones that deny God. Denying the existence of God is the same as saying there is no knowledge of God. Simple conclusion is that the one that denies the existence of God is saying they know nothing about God.
That makes them disqualified to discuss what they know nothing about.
Originally posted by josephwAs you know, I believe that everyone is "spiritual", whether they believe in a divine being or not. To a person who believes there is no God, the thoughts and opinions of people who believe there is one, and who believe that He has revealed Himself to them, have a bearing on their behaviour and interactions with fellow believers and non-believers and believers in other religions. This means they can know a lot about what the believers think and do. If one believes there is no God, it certainly doesn't disqualify them from knowing and understanding what believers claim they "know" about God.
Do you think that if one believes "there is no God" that that disqualifies them from knowing and understanding anything about God, and that their thoughts and opinions have no bearing on anything related to God and things spiritual?
Originally posted by josephwSupposed "knowledge of God" manifests itself in religious beliefs and doctrines. People who do not think there is a God are well able to know what these beliefs and doctrines are if they want to. So they are not disqualified from discussing them at all. What someone who denies the existence of God is disqualified from doing is to claim that they are Christians or Muslims or Hindus, etc.
No, just the ones that deny God. Denying the existence of God is the same as saying there is no knowledge of God. Simple conclusion is that the one that denies the existence of God is saying they know nothing about God.
That makes them disqualified to discuss what they know nothing about.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIn my experience, the problem for religious people who declare that they "know" the "truth" about supernatural things is that this settling for a package of ready-made answers so often deactivates their "curiosity" and meaningful "discovery" of things that they in fact do not "know".
Knowing trumps discovery in any realm.
Originally posted by FMFYes they can "know and understand" what believers claim to know about God, but I didn't say they couldn't.
If one believes there is no God, it certainly doesn't disqualify them from knowing and understanding what believers claim they "know" about God.
Perhaps what I was inferring didn't come through clearly enough. If one knows nothing about something, other than what they hear another say, and has no direct knowledge of the person, place or thing being discussed, what would recommend that one to be considered qualified to draw conclusions about the subject discussed?
If one believes there is no God, how can that one have a qualified opinion about anything related to the knowledge of God?