posted
What reason is there to believe in (insert your god(s) here) instead of (insert other god(s) here), or in no god at all.
I feel like there needs to be a reason for positions one holds. I am atheistic because I feel a lack of evidence undermines the credibility of religions and reduces my belief in them.
Please work objectively. Do not attack me, or others. State your rationale. Period.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belief in God is a great comfort. You may have spiritual experiences, but I don't think those support it.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Believing in God is not necessarily comforting, if things are going wrong in your life the idea that a supreme being is causing or allowing it can be rather discomforting.
Mostly I believe in God, and because of my faith, have received various miracles, manifestations, and blessings. Though I did have a dry run of about 7 years when I was pretty angry at Him. But even then, I believed in Him. I just didn't want anything to do with Him.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If belief in God weren't a comfort (i.e., didn't make you feel good), I find it hard to find a logical explanation.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I can see how believing there's a god who'll make everything all better when you're in a jamb?jam? But I also can't see TRULY believing in a god if that's the only reason you want to believe in him. If you're logically denying his existence, but wishing you could honestly believe that there's some reason why everything should work out the way you want it to, only by deluding yourself and betraying your logic can you get the comfort you want.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In faith, the evidence comes after the conclusion. It's annoying, from a logical standpoint, I realize. But a lot of things are like that, like the benefits of eating right, monogamy, agriculture... you have to put in the work before you get the fruits.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Err... how is the evidence of agriculture and eating right not indicative of a conclusion that they are good things (maybe not in your personal experience YET but from seeing others eat well and subsequently lose weight or seeing other tribes develop agriculture and then have a decrease in death from starvation)
And monogamy I question sometimes... Though I allow that society's frowning on any other kind of situation would make it by default worse.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Folks who post, please be mindful of the registration agreement, that this might not turn into an attempt at conversion. It's a gray area, so please try to stay to the appropriate side of the gray.)
Posts: 441 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why one should believe in God, god, or whatever. It's certainly easier when you don't, imo. I can't explain why I do believe, but as much as I've tried to deny and ignore faith and religion it keeps coming back up to me. So I decided to give in and listen. And I must say life is a lot better, and imo I'm better, since.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in God because I get confirmation all the time, continually now (many times a day), that there's a higher being outside of me who loves me and helps me. I was an atheist for most of my adult life, from the age of around 16 when I first made up my mind on my own, to around age 36 or so.
But then I became religious. It started for me with prayer. I exercised a particle of faith, a wish or hope or crazy hypothesis only, and prayed to a God whom I didn't believe existed. I got back some kind of answer, something that came from outside of me, that wasn't something I made up or invented or wished into being. I was positive of that. Then I kept on trying from that point and got more and more confirmation. Now it's a constant dialogue. I'm in partnership with the living God to bring about the exaltation of humankind, a state in which we'll grow up to be like him, gods ourselves, since we're his actual spirit children and he's our father. (The process takes a long time, though.)
The ways in which he helps me are not to take all troubles magically away and make my life only joy, but he partners with me to teach me things. Oftentimes they are hard truths that he tells me, but learning them always does bring more joy in the long run, and just more maturity and understanding. I want to know the truth no matter what. I've become much more than I ever was alone.
Anyway, I believe in God because there is, in fact, this person we call God. I get important information and aid from him all the time. When I learned how to talk to him and began trying to follow him in my fitful cantankerous way, my life became enormously better. So then I had to revise my theories to fit observed fact, is all. I believe in him because he exists.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: In faith, the evidence comes after the conclusion. It's annoying, from a logical standpoint, I realize. But a lot of things are like that, like the benefits of eating right, monogamy, agriculture... you have to put in the work before you get the fruits.
This is not a universally-held belief by theists.
Why do I believe? Because I know it to be true.
Why should you believe? I don't know. Why should you?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Why do I believe? Because I know it to be true.
Why should you believe? I don't know. Why should you?
So, you’re not concerned with the “salvation” of other people, however “gentile” they are? Many might see that as a very selfish and immoral stand. *points in the general direction of Tresopax*
posted
I don't believe in the concept of salvation, period.
Your religious beliefs are your job, not mine. And I'm still wondering if you know what "gentile" means -- or the rules for using quotation marks.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: And I'm still wondering if you know what "gentile" means -- or the rules for using quotation marks.
I thought I knew. This showed me that in English the meaning is different to what I would have expected, meaning that I thought it also meant “delicate” or “innocent”. My bad.
As for the quotation marks, that’s even more personal. I use them essentially when using a “conflictual” term ( ), when the meaning is not straight forward (for me or the group using it). I also use it, “wrongly” for emphasis, which I try to avoid, end use italics instead…
posted
Why don't I believe? Because I see no evidence for the existence of a god.
Would I believe? If I saw good evidence, sure.
Should you believe? Up to you. As long as you're not hurting yourself or others, or trying to force beliefs or non-beliefs on others, I say do what makes you happy.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Should you believe? Up to you. As long as you're not hurting yourself or others, or trying to force beliefs or non-beliefs on others, I say do what makes you happy.
- - - emphasis added - - -
See, I have a question about the bolded part. How do you define "harm"? Is your concept physically related? Is there any other kind of harm? You see, I know theists who think that the spiritual harm you put through with your wrong beliefs justifies conversion and why not (historically) death. One word: heresy.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Should you believe? Up to you. As long as you're not hurting yourself or others, or trying to force beliefs or non-beliefs on others, I say do what makes you happy.
- - - emphasis added - - -
See, I have a question about the bolded part. How do you define "harm"? Is your concept physically related? Is there any other kind of harm? You see, I know theists who think that the spiritual harm you put through with your wrong beliefs justifies conversion and why not (historically) death. One word: heresy.
A.
I was making a statement on whether or not I would object to it. Not trying to say anything about legality or what should be 'allowed'. So, since it would only be my opinion, it's just the way that I would define harm.
Sorry for being unclear. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Evidence is all fine and good, but since evidence can't describe the whole of the universe to us, I choose to fill in some of the details in ways that make sense, are comforting, and derive purpose and meaning where before there was nothing.
It's kind of like my vision. I don't have central vision, but I don't see a black hole -- my brain fills in details from the periphery so that in my mind, there's a blurry colored spot that looks like whatever's around it.
I have never even considered being an atheist. The position that there is no God requires a lot of faith and science does not currently account for all the things I see in the world.
Agnosticism makes more sense to me and I was there for a long time -- not sure if there was a God or not. What finally convinced me was a bit of reason and a bit of need. The coincidences that would have caused the universe to form and to come up with us are so infinitely small that a higher power started to make sense. It filled in the blurry areas. It also opened up the possibility that there is a purpose to our lives.
So then we get to the question of WHICH deity? I was raised in the Catholic church, but when I studied the Bible I felt that the men who wrote it had no better understanding of God than I did. They had no worse understanding and there is wisdom to be drawn from many sources, but I absolutely reject the idea that it is "The Word of God" or that its tenets should rule my life. In truth, I don't even like the God in the Old Testament. He's mean. (No lightening...whew! )
I considered looking elsewhere, but that didn't make sense to me either. If God had ever made WHO HE WAS obvious enough that someone had it exactly right, then the atheists among us would have their proof, wouldn't they?
That's why I decided to go independent and find a model of God that felt right without accepting an entire belief structure -- something I would be free to modify at will if I changed my mind.
I'm always willing to change my mind. It's not like I think I'm any more right than anyone else. With that in mind, I've considered going back to the Christian church a few times and just accepting what I can, leaving what I can't. There is definitely a draw to COMMUNITY, but unfortunately I find when I listen to a priest, preacher, or minister talk about God I don't recognize Him.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I have never even considered being an atheist. The position that there is no God requires a lot of faith and it does not account for all the things I see in the world.
Agnosticism makes more sense to me and I was there for a long time -- not sure if there was a God or not.
I have no idea what these two paragraphs, taken together, might mean.
"I have never considered believing that God does not exist. This does not account for all the things I see in the world. However, for some time I was not sure whether God existed."
quote:It's not like I think I'm any more right than anyone else.
You think you're more right than the atheists, right?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:What reason is there to believe in (insert your god(s) here) instead of (insert other god(s) here), or in no god at all.
I think the best reason to believe in God would be the same reason one might believe that 1+1=2, or that the world is round, or that ice cream tastes good: because it seems most likely to be true, given the evidence and observations you have available to you.
I think for most people this evidence typically consists of a combination of personal experience, claims made by trusted authorities or other testimony, accounts of history such as the Bible, the ability of God's existence to explain certain mysteries of the universe, miracles, and/or recoginizing the wisdom behind acting in accordance with a given religious belief system that includes a God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I was making a statement on whether or not I would object to it. Not trying to say anything about legality or what should be 'allowed'. So, since it would only be my opinion, it's just the way that I would define harm.
Sorry for being unclear.
You are being more unclear now than in the first quote I gave. I ask you for your definition of harm, and you’re talking about “legality” and “your own opinion”. Cool, but you didn’t really answer my question.
quote:Evidence is all fine and good, but since evidence can't describe the whole of the universe to us,
Why can't it?
Just curious as to your opinion. And I'm not saying the evidence can necessarily describe the whole universe...but why start from the assumption that it can't?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I was making a statement on whether or not I would object to it. Not trying to say anything about legality or what should be 'allowed'. So, since it would only be my opinion, it's just the way that I would define harm.
Sorry for being unclear.
You are being more unclear now than in the first quote I gave. I ask you for your definition of harm, and you’re talking about “legality” and “your own opinion”. Cool, but you didn’t really answer my question.
A.
Sorry again. This is what happens when you try to respond as you're running out the door.
Like your theist friends, I too see beyond physical harm. There can be mental harm. Some people, I believe, are harmed intellectually by their religious beliefs.
Does that justify forceful conversion? Not in my eyes. But it does justify pointing that harm out, and bringing it up for discussion.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What reason is there to believe in (insert your god(s) here) instead of (insert other god(s) here), or in no god at all.
I think the best reason to believe in God would be the same reason one might believe that 1+1=2, or that the world is round, or that ice cream tastes good: because it seems most likely to be true, given the evidence and observations you have available to you.
I’m sorry but you really are failing to make some useful distinctions.
Do you believe that “1+1=2”? Why? In what context? Why don’t you believe that “1+1=10” ? For each “belief”, there should be a context and a possibility to present the reasons to hold it, if there are some.
In the case of arithmetic “truths”, as it is generally in Mathematics, you start with some premises (or axioms) and then you build from there. The advantage is, in formal systems like that, that the “context” is clearly defined, and once the premises are accepted, most of the propositions can be demonstrated to be true or false. And there is no ambiguity there. (I say “most” and not “all” because of Göedel).
In the case of “the Earth is round” a photo from space should settle it directly.
The fact that the ice cream tastes good is subjective and has nothing to do with Scientific Method, and I don’t believe it to be “likely true”.
The religious belief requires also a context and some premises, but many forget that. When you start with the postulate “My favourite deity exists” all “proof” to support that is not only NOT necessary, but irrelevant for the non-believers. It’s the shortest circular logic: “I believe in my favourite deity because it exists.” (Forgetting the part that it only exists (for you) in the first place because you believe in it.)
I accept that you can’t see the distinction (or take it as irrelevant), but the point is that I see a crucial one and I’m trying to show you why.
quote:Err... how is the evidence of agriculture and eating right not indicative of a conclusion that they are good things (maybe not in your personal experience YET but from seeing others eat well and subsequently lose weight or seeing other tribes develop agriculture and then have a decrease in death from starvation)
I guess I just have a disposition to the sort of logic that wouldn't be consider good results "rigorous". It's not a Why should, but a How to, and that is not the subject of this thread.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evidence is all fine and good, but since evidence can't describe the whole of the universe to us,
Why can't it?
Just curious as to your opinion. And I'm not saying the evidence can necessarily describe the whole universe...but why start from the assumption that it can't?
Well, perhaps I should have said "doesn't right now" rather than can't. I am skeptical of the idea that science will one day explain everything, but I am open to all possibilities. It is even possible that science will one day find God.
Hmmm...I'm not sure I even like the idea that science will one day explain everything. What's the universe without a little mystery? Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Evidence is all fine and good, but since evidence can't describe the whole of the universe to us,
Why can't it?
Just curious as to your opinion. And I'm not saying the evidence can necessarily describe the whole universe...but why start from the assumption that it can't?
Well, perhaps I should have said "doesn't right now" rather than can't. I am skeptical of the idea that science will one day explain everything, but I am open to all possibilities. It is even possible that science will one day find God.
Hmmm...I'm not sure I even like the idea that science will one day explain everything. What's the universe without a little mystery?
Well, I'm not sure that we will have everything explained. There could, potentially, always be more. I just happen to think that when people say there are certain things that we can never know through science, it impedes the path to that knowledge.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I’m sorry but you really are failing to make some useful distinctions.
Do you believe that “1+1=2”? Why? In what context? Why don’t you believe that “1+1=10” ? For each “belief”, there should be a context and a possibility to present the reasons to hold it, if there are some.
In the case of arithmetic “truths”, as it is generally in Mathematics, you start with some premises (or axioms) and then you build from there. The advantage is, in formal systems like that, that the “context” is clearly defined, and once the premises are accepted, most of the propositions can be demonstrated to be true or false. And there is no ambiguity there. (I say “most” and not “all” because of Göedel).
In the case of “the Earth is round” a photo from space should settle it directly.
The fact that the ice cream tastes good is subjective and has nothing to do with Scientific Method, and I don’t believe it to be “likely true”.
I deliberately took three very different sorts of belief to emphasize the point that, even though the method through which we come to each of those beliefs is so different, they each are still based in some sort of observations and evidence - and thus even though religious belief seems based on such a different method than other beliefs, it too is built upon observations and evidence.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I deliberately took three very different sorts of belief to emphasize the point that, even though the method through which we come to each of those beliefs is so different, they each are still based in some sort of observations and evidence - and thus even though religious belief seems based on such a different method than other beliefs, it too is built upon observations and evidence.
The knowledge that all belief is built on “observation and evidence” may be your point, but I know for a fact that it is not the case. Blind faith is by definition outside your “point”.
quote:The thing is, I don't think many, if any, religious believers actually start with the premise that God exists. Some think they do, but I've found that if you talk with them in depth they typically have reasons for believing what they do, even if it is just a vague sort of experience or the fact that when they were young people they trust told them it was true.
The thing is, I know many religious believers that when pushed “far enough” admit that they start with that postulate. It liberates them from further questions, at least from me. I have no problem with anyone starting with that postulate, as long as they admit it. But they won’t ever be able to “demonstrate” anything to me in the context where I start with the postulate that the same deity doesn’t exists (because I need first the proof of that existence, not like in pooka’s case for example.)
The people that have some vague experience of that fact when they were young people and so on, were “indoctrinated” as long as they don’t have a firm reason to make that choice. (And it’s more the fault of the indoctrinators than of themselves).
All in all, it is DIFFERENT from the Scientific Method and I will never put the equal sign between the two.
quote:The knowledge that all belief is built on “observation and evidence” may be your point, but I know for a fact that it is not the case. Blind faith is by definition outside your “point”.
My point is that even though religious faith is different from other sorts of belief, that doesn't make it blind faith. It is very different from (for instance) the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it isn't also based on evidence and observation.
quote:The thing is, I know many religious believers that when pushed “far enough” admit that they start with that postulate. It liberates them from further questions, at least from me.
Yes, sorry... I actually realized after I wrote it that I DO in fact know people who start with that postulate, so I edited out that section. But it looks like you responded first!
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Secondly, I'm not sure if you interested in the nature of truth, how we discover truth, what I meant by peace, or what good reasons to believe in God are. It isn't very specific, and it comes off as you just yelling skepticism in my general direction. I'm not interested in that conversation.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by suminonA: Why don’t you believe that “1+1=10” ?
Because binary very quickly becomes unwieldy for "in my head" math where the numbers involved are greater than 8 (1000)
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: My point is that even though religious faith is different from other sorts of belief, that doesn't make it blind faith. It is very different from (for instance) the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it isn't also based on evidence and observation.
See, I think we’re making progress. I completely reject “blind faith” and I accept religious faith, as long as it is different from the blind kind. The main and crucial distinction that I make between scientific “faith” (that I call trust) and the religious “faith” (that I call faith), is that the first is based on duplicable evidence and experience, while the second does not. You may use the evidence that you like (or have) but the distinction is very important for me (it being the sole reason of not liking, for myself, the second kind).
--- Javert Hugo, please excuse my Caps. I was trying to point to the platonic kind of truth, and used the Caps to make that distinction. My very bad. Sorry.
I am interested in this discussion and in what you meant by peace and what the good reasons are for you, but I wish you could understand that your telegraphic intervention sounded to me as if you were in possession of some Absolute Truth (some Caps are needed, I think).
quote:The knowledge that all belief is built on “observation and evidence” may be your point, but I know for a fact that it is not the case. Blind faith is by definition outside your “point”.
My point is that even though religious faith is different from other sorts of belief, that doesn't make it blind faith. It is very different from (for instance) the scientific method, but that doesn't mean it isn't also based on evidence and observation.
Faith is an interesting word. I always understood that lack of proof was part of faith. A least, that's how the nuns explained it to me.
So by the definition I understand, faith is always blind.
So I guess I'm trying to figure out if you can have faith at all if evidence and observation have led you there.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know these means, but I can't parse your meaning.
--
You mean you're offended by declarative statements? I think what you're really objecting to is not the declarative statement or the lack of a caveat, but the lack of evidence that followed it.
How about this:
Because God exists, and there is peace to be found in following truth. <insert evidence here, except I'm lazy>
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I know these means, but I can't parse your meaning.
Giving short declarative statements in such a thread, might ask for some clarifications, such as: is this what you think is the case (and therefore, why?), or is it some Absolute Truth we should all be ashamed of not knowing?
quote: You mean you're offended by declarative statements?
Offended … Quite a strong word. I’m mostly surprised. And my “knee-jerk” reaction is to ask for clarifications.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Because God exists, and there is peace to be found in following truth.
No caps lock, I promise!
So...would you clarify how you know God exists? I'm not particularly interested in truth vs. absolute truth. I assume you mean that you are certain enough in your belief to consider it true rather than simply possible. The important question here is how you know?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I think what you're really objecting to is not the declarative statement or the lack of a caveat, but the lack of evidence that followed it.
I think you’re right.
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: How about this:
Because God exists, and there is peace to be found in following truth. <insert evidence here, except I'm lazy>
Same thing. You give the same declarative sentence, but you are lazy to sustain it with evidence, which is kind of the point of this thread.
It’s like saying to your child: "Do this because I say so. Why? Because I say so. (And I know why but you have to trust me on that)."
I’m not your child and without that evidence I think your declarative statement is useless. (Not quite absolutely useless, as it started this argument )
quote:you are lazy to sustain it with evidence, which is kind of the point of this thread.
There's no need to call people names, summinonA. There are lots of reasons other than laziness not to answer your questions.
I only used the same term he used for himself (see the quote). Is that wrong?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Moreover, you should have realized by now that the thread starter doesn't control the course of a thread.
I did realize that, and I’d point out that I’m not the starter of this thread. If I’m wrong about the point of this thread Starsnuffer is the perfect one to correct me.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I’m not your child and without that evidence I think your declarative statement is useless.
Refusing to play your game does not mean you're being treated as a child.
I didn’t say I was treated like a child (or felt like it). I gave an analogy to explain why I ask what I ask.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), when the meaning is not straight forward (for me or the group using it). I also use it, “wrongly” for emphasis, which I try to avoid, end use italics instead…![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
