I don't believe in Theists

[Dr. Mobius]

Sure, I know there are plenty of people who claim to have had a personal experience with theism, but I just don't buy it. I think they're just expressing their own personal need to believe in something.

[vendor]

I get the point of the new thread. You're right the reason why theists have such conviction is because it is a personal experience. Do you want a personal experience? The first step is a desire to know if there is a god.

[hive_king]

I've had the desire to know if there is a God, I've prayed, I've searched, I've pondered, I've come up empty handed. No personal experience for me so far.

[pooka]

I've never experienced fluency in a foreign language, and my major was linguistics. I minored in Arabic and took Latin, German, Chinese, and Russian. So I'm not just picking out some bizarre thing that doesn't really matter to me. I'm capable of accepting that it was never important enough to me to apply myself to that degree, combined with not sticking to one thing for long enough at any point.

I also haven't permanently given up, though I know it would require a major shift of my priorities.

[hive_king]

May I ask what foreign languages have to do with anything?

[Dr. Mobius]

She's linguistically agnostic.

[vendor]

she's saying that even though she doesn't get foreign laguages, she knows that others do. She's admitting that her failure was a lack of committment....or linguistically agnostic works too.

[suminonA]

I've never experienced fluency in a foreign language, and my major was linguistics. I minored in Arabic and took Latin, German, Chinese, and Russian. So I'm not just picking out some bizarre thing that doesn't really matter to me. I'm capable of accepting that it was never important enough to me to apply myself to that degree, combined with not sticking to one thing for long enough at any point.

I also haven't permanently given up, though I know it would require a major shift of my priorities.

I would see the point in your parallel, if you were talking about the usefulness of languages/deities.
But, there are some fundamental differences, and I’m not sure what you’re saying with your parallel.

Languages are useful because they permit highly complex communication between individuals. It is very useful for people living in societies. And it is not useful at all for any isolated person. Languages were “invented” and stick with us even today because those using them noticed that using language to communicate helped and improved life in large communities.
As far as my rational knowledge goes, different languages evolved in different societies, because it was a personal way to express things for geographically distant/disconnected communities, so the “mere chance” to all arrive to the same language was practically nil.
Furthermore, the level of sophistication of human societies evolved greatly during history, new concepts appear constantly and so the languages evolved accordingly. Different communities entered in contact and got all mixed with others, so languages also were affected. Hence the diversity of languages that we can here/know today on Earth.
Yet, there is no “perfect” language, if one would want to judge which language is better and which is worse, there are no final criteria to do it. Looking only at the “utility” part, an overcomplicated language would be “inferior” to a simpler one if it can transmit the same messages. But there is beauty and culture related to each language, and even “dead languages” such as Latin have their usefulness even today.
So I’d say that there is no “unique true” language at all. But there are languages and we use them to communicate.

Now, what if we read all that, but instead of “language” we put “deity”? What that parallel tells us? It only talks about the usefulness of the “deities”, but doesn’t tell us anything about their existence.

We hear people talking languages, so languages exist. We hear people talking about deities, but that doesn’t prove the existence of the deities. What we are sure is that there is such a thing as “talking about deities” (i.e. religions).

Therefore, I’d say that not being able to speak different languages is not the same as not being able to believe in different deities. They might be both personal choices, both require effort to accomplish, but that is about all they have in common. Even the nature of the needed effort is different. One is intellectual, the other one is irrational.

And I can speak fluently 3 languages, other than my mother tongue. So I know what it takes to learn them.

A.

[vendor]

We both know Pooka didn't intend for the comparison to be all inclusive.

suminonA wrote:

Languages are useful because they permit highly complex communication between individuals. It is very useful for people living in societies. And it is not useful at all for any isolated person.

I guess theists might say that it is useful to talk to god, and theists are striving to become more like god (perfect).

when no 'earthly' companions are around, theists can still express themselves to their god through the laguages they understand.

suminonA wrote:

As far as my rational knowledge goes, different languages evolved in different societies, because it was a personal way to express things for geographically distant/disconnected communities, so the “mere chance” to all arrive to the same language was practically nil.
Furthermore, the level of sophistication of human societies evolved greatly during history, new concepts appear constantly and so the languages evolved accordingly. Different communities entered in contact and got all mixed with others, so languages also were affected. Hence the diversity of languages that we can here/know today on Earth.
Yet, there is no “perfect” language, if one would want to judge which language is better and which is worse, there are no final criteria to do it. Looking only at the “utility” part, an overcomplicated language would be “inferior” to a simpler one if it can transmit the same messages. But there is beauty and culture related to each language, and even “dead languages” such as Latin have their usefulness even today.
So I’d say that there is no “unique true” language at all. But there are languages and we use them to communicate.

There have been some theories of a Protolanguage. or a language that is mother to all languages. if such a language existed that all people spoke, then it can be said rationally that it was 'given' to our ancestors. Which, if this be the case, it would be the perfect language.

No theory on the origination of laguage can be verified because it is a Continuity Paradox. Thus, your explanation is holds just as much water as a protolanguage.

suminonA wrote:

Therefore, I’d say that not being able to speak different languages is not the same as not being able to believe in different deities. They might be both personal choices, both require effort to accomplish, but that is about all they have in common. Even the nature of the needed effort is different. One is intellectual, the other one is irrational.

If theists ask their deity for an answer to a question, and it is answered by the deity, that is intelect gained.

[vendor]

You know, it's late... I just noticed that the atheists have all been super patient and polite (even saying at times that their lack of belief could be corrected with a personal experience!) while all of the theists (except neodragon?) have not budged. At times even proselyting. I fall in that category too.

I think I understand some variations atheism, maybe not as well as neodragon, but my mind isn't comepletly shut. the endless 'I have this evidence' and 'I don't accept that evidence' is old. It got old on the last pweb. It would be nice if we could reserve these threads for new, sincere questions for one another.

If we could all truly see things from the other's perspective, and still believe what we have come to know, then we can be certain of the other's intentions when they question us. To learn and appreciate us more.

wow. it's late! I hope this makes sense

[hive_king]

While we have our fair share of militant, rude atheists, I think that one difference between a large part of theists and atheists is that many atheists come from a religious background, and might have been religious themselves, while not as many christians have had as personal experiences with atheism. I myself came partially from a very religious household, and I know many other atheists on this site did too, including one who was in training to be a priest at one point.

[suminonA]

suminonA wrote:

Therefore, I’d say that not being able to speak different languages is not the same as not being able to believe in different deities. They might be both personal choices, both require effort to accomplish, but that is about all they have in common. Even the nature of the needed effort is different. One is intellectual, the other one is irrational.

If theists ask their deity for an answer to a question, and it is answered by the deity, that is intelect gained.

You and I must have different definitions of “intellect gained”.
For me, the intellect is a tool that allows individuals to analyze data and produce reliable (repeatable/verifiable) results.
If you’re talking about information, I’d use the same criterion: Is that information verifiable (by intellect)? If not, then it is irrational, by definition.

There might be such a thing as “divine inspiration” (and maybe it's the only kind , I don’t know that). But claiming the truth of an information based only on that, without any other way of validation, that I’d never call “intellect gained”.

A.