Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Polymath257]

I'm not sure I can agree with that in totality.

If I were to hold that they see not evidence of a God is sufficient to declare there is no God... it again dictates that they don't have to prove it. 10 years ago there was no evidence of black holes but that didn't mean there weren't any black holes. It simply meant to continue digging.

And it was quite reasonable before the existence was demonstrated to *lack* a belief in black holes. To some extent, it was reasonable to doubt their existence.

If there was no evidence of a God, then scientists, atheists, chemists etc who, would never believe that there was a God through the evidence that they found in their studies.

Not necessarily true. People are very good at reading in whatever they want. That is why we want people of a wide variety of backgrounds to help pick out biases.

As far as "why", certainly some may qualify in what you said but it hardly encapsulates everybody.

Dr Hugh Ross comes to my mind as an example of an atheist who came to the conclusion through reasoning.

And how many people have moved the other direction? Isolated cases like this simply don't provide evidence of the existence of deities.

 

[McBell]

Do glorphs exist?

Seems to me that they are reptilian natives of the planet Glorph

 

[Polymath257]

Seems to me that they are reptilian natives of the planet Glorph

No,no, those are the *other* glorphs. I didn't mean *those*.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

If one does not believe that there are undetectable pixies living in the garage and one has no evidence that there are no such pixies, does that then mean that there are no such pixies?

Answer: non-existance is assumed until existance is demonstrated.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
The positive claim is: "god / pixies exist".

That claim requires evidence to be accepted. If no such evidence is forthcoming, the only rational thing to do is reject the claim. Does that mean no god exists? No. Just like it doesn't mean that no undetectable pixies live in the garage.

But it DOES mean that there is no rational justification to accept that god / pixies exist.

And that's why I don't believe in god or undetectable pixies in my garage.

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

Is believing that there are no undetactable pixies living in the garage a religion based on faith and not evidence?

Again: the burden of proof. It's on the claim that say that such pixies DO live in the garage.

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

Does it worry you that you might be wrong about the scriptures of Allah, Visjnoe, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Ra, Odin, ... ? Or about being wrong about the undetectable pixies in your garage?

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other.

Correct. There are thousands of religions, all believing in different mutually exclusive gods.
They can't all be right. At most one can be right.

But you know what? They CAN all be wrong.

And considering they all make the same species of outlandish, extra-ordinary claims with an equal amount of no evidence whatsoever, it is far more likely that they indeed are all wrong.

How would one go about finding what is the correct faith?

Essentially, what this is about, is how one determines if a claim is true or not.
So what does "true" mean in such context?

I'ld say that "true" are those things that are reflective of reality, while "wrong" are those things that are not reflective of reality.

So the way to go about finding out if a claim is true or false, would be to test it against reality.

But in order to do that, the claim must be falsifiable. That is to say, one should be able to say "if we would see this or that, then my claim would be incorrect".

It just so happens that religious claims are unfalsifiable. Which is to say: untestable; unverifiable.

Such claims are literally infinite in number. There is no rational reason to believe such a claim.

My example of undetectable pixies was chosen for this specific reason. I'm reading your post as I'm replying, so I don't know what sentence you wrote next. But from the very start, I sensed this was coming.

The undetectable pixies are unfalsifiable. You can't verify they exist. No evidence would ever support them, just like no evidence could be presented against them. The claim can't be shown accurate and it can't be shown wrong. To belief such claims, is irrational.

Ever single religion, is such a claim. I can invent a thousand more of such claims. There's no reason to believe any of them.

I submit that you understand that, for every claim that isn't your religion. For some reason, you hold a different standard for your religion. Without reason.

Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

Nope. I only believe things that can be rationally justified. I have no use for faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith, is gullibility.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures

Only because your religion says so.

Can you prove they are not

I will, as soon as you prove that there are no undetactable pixies living in your garage.

Thanks for your thoughts...

No problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure as posted earlier they are still beliefs that have no evidence for what they believe therefore faith IMO

Not believing X, is not a belief.

Just like "off" is not a TV channel.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How can I not understand it? I simply quoted the dictionary definition of athiesm. What is there do not understand? You have already told me elsewhere you do not beleive in the existence of God did you not?

Do you understand the difference between:

1. I don't believe the claim "god exists"

and

2. I believe the claim "there is no god"

It sounds like you don't....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Not at all. I love athiests or I would not be here. However, the better question would be, do I agree with what athiesm promotes? Well of course not. I guess that is pretty obvious. The statement about atheism being a religion was not that it is but simply some that are athiests follow the same patterns of those who have a religion that believe in God but in the opposite direction. This OP is simply observations on two belief systems being the same and being based on faith, nothing more and nothing less.

Okay, then re-read my post replacing the words "atheist" and "theist" with "atheism" and "theism" respectively. THe sentiment still exists, and you didn't answer to it, but instead dodged by saying you love "atheists" for the people that they are. You may as well replied with "Hate the sin and not the sinner." This is what you replied with and it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. You are equating theism and atheism on the score of ritual adherence and even validity. I would never do this with atheism, and I have not known a single atheist who has. This is a tactic solely reserved for theists, and for very good reason. Because it is illogical, an attempt to do no more than insult, and completely dismisses the facts of what atheism is.

 

[sojourner]

Do glorphs exist? What? You don't know what a glorph is? Well, humans don't know a lot of things. Just because you don't know how to define them doesn't mean they don't exist

I don’t see how this addresses my point in any constructive way.

So just use the word 'existence' and get rid of the superstitious mumbo jumbo

Why? Should we just get rid of all meaning-making? Should we stop using endearing terms for our loved ones? Maybe we should just stop celebrating the beauty of music and concentrate instead on its raw mathematics. Perhaps we should just stop “oohing” and “aahing” over sunsets and simply contemplate the frequencies of light we can see.

And I don’t see how calling existence Divine is in any way being “superstitious.”

But to call it 'God' seems to be counter to common use

It may be; it may not be. So now you’re going to what? Gripe about my using a particular definition for something you don’t believe in anyway? Isn’t that bit ... oh, I don’t know ... fundamentalist of you? To insist that I conform to your definitions of God?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Sorry I do not see any difference as it is the same in all religions. Also, within most religions. Christianity being a good examples of over 40,000 different versions. Yet you would notice that of the 40,000 versions of Christianity they also all call themselves "christian". No difference in my view. People can make a religion out of anything. Athiesm in my opinion simply being an example of people making a religion out of a belief that has no evidnence living by faith in what they believe.

If a person hails as Christian, then I can know all sorts of things about them, right off the bat. I can know that they believe in God, that they believe Jesus was a real figure from history, that they believe The Bible holds useful knowledge, that they believe God was instrumental in creating humanity. Etc. Etc. Etc. Plenty of things that simply must be adhered to if one is to call themselves Christian. These aren't "No True Scotsman" items either - this are related to the very core tenets. If "Christianity" is to mean anything at all, these things must remain. Now tell me - do you advocate that your religion instead be an "open book?" As open as atheism? No... I don't think that you do. And herein lies you error. "Religion" is a "set of beliefs." Atheism only requires NOT believing. The opposite of belief. That's it. And its one thing. Doesn't matter why a person doesn't believe. Doesn't matter how many gods they have rejected or how many other ideas they subscribe to. You are wrong here, sir. Just plain wrong.

Not really the core common beliefs are the disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

You just called "not believing" a "common belief." Do you see how contradictory even you yourself are being? How am I supposed to take you seriously?

You have missed the point the example you gave earlier is plausable to one person but not relavant to 1/3 of the worlds population that are all saying the same thing that God has revealed himself to them personally. Something they cannot prove and something you cannot disprove. Therefore not matter what you say does not mean what 1/3 of the earth's population have experiences is not true.

Note the part in red where you state that they are "all saying the same thing." What a load of crap. They are NOT all saying the same things. You even admitted this in your first paragraph. "People can make a religion out of anything." - remember? And "it is the same in all religions" is what you said when I told you atheists can be all over the place with respect to all actual, positive beliefs. So no... people are not all saying the "Same things." And even if they were... the popularity of their beliefs would not amount to anything. NOTHING AT ALL. Why do you keep trying so hard to make this point? I have already rejected it, and you very obviously have nothing cogent in your arsenal of arguments to convince me otherwise.

 

[3rdAngel]

It is on the page where you made this post. Are you blind?

Ok thanks for this. I missed your post here. So just to make sure I am understanding you correctly. Your trying to argue that bearing false witness in the ninth commandment is not lying is that correct? I will respond in detail after I hear back from you.

 

[3rdAngel]

Why does the number of people with a false belief matter?

Well firstly you haven't proven their belief to be false, you have not proven there is no God or that God does not exist or have you proven that God has not revealed himself to them. Your comparing isolated cases with billions of people that claim God has revealed himself to them personally. If your talking about an isolated case you have to wonder if there is any truth in it. When your talking billions or people throughout time all world-wide all believing the same thing you have collective witnesses of truth the begs investigation. For example (hypothetically), a single person comes up to you and says I saw GODZILLA but no one else saw it, you would have to question the truth of this claim. However if you woke up the next morning reading the newspaper with a front page cover GODZILLA PASSES BY LONG ISLAND IN NEW YORK and these claims are seen by 1000's of people then you have collective witness to the event even though you never saw it and perhaps then cannot prove that it happened.

 

[3rdAngel]

People, even billions of people, can be wrong. And the fact that nobody seems to be able to agree on basic points when it comes to God suggests that there isn't a common entity that they are all discussing. Instead, it suggests that they are each making up whatever appeals to them the most.

Very true and I agree, billions of people can be wrong however if you have no evidence to show that these people are wrong you have a collective witness that bears to the truth and this in and of itself is evidence. I of course disagree to the claims of people making these things up. This is simply your opinion thay you cannot prove.

As a comparison, it is quite easy for someone who is color blind to realize that people able to see colors are consistent in their descriptions, and that there are observable physical aspects of color. So even a colorblind person can know that colors exist. But there isn't this level of evidence for a God. People seem to be unable to agree on even basic properties of a God.

Well that is not true. People do indeed agree on the basic properties of God this is called religion. Of course not all religions agree together. Yet this does not prove that there is no a religion that has got it right now does it? Keep in mind I have never said all religions are right either. Many contradict each other. However a contradiction does not prove or disprove that God is real or not real and that God does not exist.

As a mathematician, I have found that *all* probability calculations for something like this are based on faulty assumptions simply because we don't know what it takes for life to arise. Once we have several different examples of how life can arise, we can start to consider probabilities.

I have a similar background but not in general mathamatics. My proffession leads me more towards biometrics but that said many of these models are indeed based on assumptions. Something that cannot be quatified with out them unfortunately as you would agree. I am sure not every assumption used in many mathamatic models are correct. However they do give us a general understanding of the probabilities and chances of things that are likely to take place IMO so are useful as a general guide.

So, again, you have failed to give some way of distinguishing a universe with natural laws and no God from one with a God. So, the universe, as it is, simply isn't evidence one way or the other.

I would argue that it is you who have failed as you have not really addressed any of the content of my posts to you. You simply hand waived the chances of life occuring through intelligent design and the probability of life occuring without it. Or have you proven that there is no God and that God does not exist. If we pretend we know all things when we do not we are only fooling ourselves.

On the other hand, the *lack* of definitive proof of the existence of a deity is good evidence against the existence simply because *if* such a deity exists, we would *expect* a lot of unambigiuous evidence.

I would argue that the lack of evidence is simply a lack of evidence before evidence is discovered and revealed. I believe God will reveal himself to all one day but at that time it will be too late for the many.

Thanks Poly I am enjoying our discussion thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[3rdAngel]

Except you were FLAT OUT ASKED to explain it.
And you still haven't.

Patience my friend all will be revealed no need to be upset

 

[3rdAngel]

Most atheists are agnostic atheists not hard atheists. The live practical lives without the idea of God hanging over their head. They reject a claim made by theists and move on.

So your saying most athiests are really agnostic? Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?

 

[3rdAngel]

We have up a thread about the "faith" of "believing in"
evolution, and the "faith" of atheists.

I dont get it, it is as if "faith" is a dirty word, and
/ or a word with absolutely no nuance of meaning
or depth.

Faith that the waitress will bring a menu
is the same thing as faith in
God?

If she fails to return, will it have the life
changing emotional, existential impact
as being betrayed by God, or
learning he does not even exist?

Dirty word like to have faith in evolution
would be a base and ignoble thing a
basis for contempt and ridicule?

Do we have posters here so dimly lit
that they cannot think of anything to say
but must trot out sonething so moldy
unoriginal, shallow and witless as
this "faith" complaint?

Boys of the faith! Stop it!

Faith has never been a dirty word. It is simply a believe that one may have without definitive evidence. It does not mean that there is no evidence simply a belief that cannot be proven. Religions live by it and so do athiests. Hence this thread.

 

[3rdAngel]

Hi TM nice to meet you. Some comments provided below for your consideration.

If one does not believe that there are no undetectable pixies living in the garage and one has no evidence that there are no such pixies, does that then mean that there are no such pixies?

Answer: non-existance is assumed until existance is demonstrated.

The burden of proof is on the positive claim.
The positive claim is: "god / pixies exist".

That claim requires evidence to be accepted. If no such evidence is forthcoming, the only rational thing to do is reject the claim. Does that mean no god exists? No. Just like it doesn't mean that no undetectable pixies live in the garage.

But it DOES mean that there is no rational justification to accept that god / pixies exist.

And that's why I don't believe in god or undetectable pixies in my garage. Is believing that there are no undetactable pixies living in the garage a religion based on faith and not evidence?
Again: the burden of proof. It's on the claim that say that such pixies DO live in the garage.



Does it worry you that you might be wrong about the scriptures of Allah, Visjnoe, Thor, Quetzalcoatl, Baal, Ra, Odin, ... ? Or about being wrong about the undetectable pixies in your garage?



Correct. There are thousands of religions, all believing in different mutually exclusive gods.
They can't all be right. At most one can be right.

But you know what? They CAN all be wrong.

And considering they all make the same species of outlandish, extra-ordinary claims with an equal amount of no evidence whatsoever, it is far more likely that they indeed are all wrong.



Essentially, what this is about, is how one determines if a claim is true or not.
So what does "true" mean in such context?

I'ld say that "true" are those things that are reflective of reality, while "wrong" are those things that are not reflective of reality.

So the way to go about finding out if a claim is true or false, would be to test it against reality.

But in order to do that, the claim must be falsifiable. That is to say, one should be able to say "if we would see this or that, then my claim would be incorrect".

It just so happens that religious claims are unfalsifiable. Which is to say: untestable; unverifiable.

Such claims are literally infinite in number. There is no rational reason to believe such a claim.

My example of undetectable pixies was chosen for this specific reason. I'm reading your post as I'm replying, so I don't know what sentence you wrote next. But from the very start, I sensed this was coming.

The undetectable pixies are unfalsifiable. You can't verify they exist. No evidence would ever support them, just like no evidence could be presented against them. The claim can't be shown accurate and it can't be shown wrong. To belief such claims, is irrational.

Ever single religion, is such a claim. I can invent a thousand more of such claims. There's no reason to believe any of them.

I submit that you understand that, for every claim that isn't your religion. For some reason, you hold a different standard for your religion. Without reason.

Nope. I only believe things that can be rationally justified. I have no use for faith. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Faith, is gullibility.

Only because your religion says so.

I will, as soon as you prove that there are no undetactable pixies living in your garage.

No problem.

Sorry my friend I do not know of anyone that believes in pixies or have made a religion out of pixies. So your example here is not relavant when comparing billions of people that claim God has revealed himself to them personally. If your talking about an isolated case you have to wonder if there is any truth in it. When your talking billions or people throughout time all world-wide all believing the same thing you have collective witnesses of truth that begs investigation IMO. Further you claim is that you do not believe in God yet here you are not able to prove that God does not exist or can you prove there is no God. You simply have no evidence for your view therefore you live by faith just as those who believe there is a God. Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction. I appreciate you sharing your opinion TM thanks for sharing your view.

 

[3rdAngel]

Not believing X, is not a belief.
Just like "off" is not a TV channel.

Not really. Not believing in God for example is a belief that does not believe in God. If you do not believe in God and have no evidence for your belief then you are living by faith just as much as those who believe in God

 

[3rdAngel]

Do you understand the difference between:

1. I don't believe the claim "god exists"

and

2. I believe the claim "there is no god"

It sounds like you don't....

Indeed I do but thankyou, If you disagree your welcome to try and prove your point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So your saying most athiests are really agnostic? Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?

It's a common misconception that agnosticism and atheism are two distinct positions.

In reality, they aren't mutually exclusive. They are different answers to different questions.
(A)gnosticism pertains to knowledge while (a)theism pertains to beliefs.

Here's a helpfull diagram:

I've never met a gnostic atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry my friend I do not know of anyone that believes in pixies or have made a religion out of pixies.

It's an analogy to make a point about the burden of proof and the nature of belief, which apparantly went over your head.

So your example here is not relavant when comparing billions of people that claim God has revealed himself to them personally

It doesn't matter how many people make a claim or believe the claim.
What matters is the nature of the claim and the evidence (or lack thereof) for it.

100% of people can believe an unfalsifiable claim on faith (that is to say: without evidence) and 100% of people would be irrational to believe said claim.

If your talking about an isolated case you have to wonder if there is any truth in it. When your talking billions or people throughout time all world-wide all believing the same thing you have collective witnesses of truth that begs investigation IMO.

Disagree.
Number of followers / believers, doesn't change anything about the burden of proof.

Consider another analogy: alien abduction. Plenty of believers there. Plenty of people alive today that you can go and talk to that will claim to have been abducted by aliens. They believe it so hard that they'll even pass lie detector tests.

I don't believe them for a second. Outlandish claims require outlandish evidence. As it stands, there is zero evidence instead. So no reason to believe them - and no responsability on my part whatsoever to provide counter evidence to justify my non-belief.

My non-belief is justified by default, simply because they fail to meet their burden of proof.

Claims aren't to be accepted by default until proven otherwise.....

Further you claim is that you do not believe in God

That's not really a claim though, but okay.

yet here you are not able to prove that God does not exist or can you prove there is no God

I don't need to. Just like you don't need to prove that there are no undetectable pixies in your garage if I claim there are. Your nonbelief of that claim is justified by my inability to meet my burden of proof.

Just like you don't need to prove that people have NOT been abducted by aliens. Your nonbelief is justified by their inability to meet their burden of proof for their claim that they were.

You simply have no evidence for your view

Nonbelief of a claim that has not met its burden of proof, does not require any evidence.
Claims require evidence. The claim here, is that god exists. That's what requires evidence. Failure to provide that evidence, is enough justification to not believe said claim.

I was abducted by aliens last night. I guess you don't believe me. Can you prove I wasn't?

therefore you live by faith just as those who believe there is a God.

No. As explained above.
Faith is what you need to accept a claim as true when you have no evidence.
I'm not accepting a claim as true. YOU are accepting a claim as true.

Me not believing your claim, is me NOT accepting your claim as true.
I don't require "faith" to not believe something that has no evidence.

Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction

Nope.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion TM thanks for sharing your view.

I didn't share an opinion. I shared facts. Facts about the nature of evidence and the concept of the burden of proof. Facts that seem completely foreign to you.