A Christian becomes a nonbeliever

[Sgt. Pepper]

More properly and more fully, the critical thinker should say that there is insufficient evidence to justify belief in gods according to academic standards and the rules of critical thinking.

I also believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God or other deities. Furthermore, I believe that believing in God or any other god is a matter of personal faith rather than a firm belief based on empirical evidence that conclusively proves the existence of God or other deities.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, I mean life in our physical world.
You do not know that there could be life in a physical world doesn't entail the existence of suffering, you only believe it is possible.
But it really does not matter if it is possible or not, since it is nonexistent.

Depends on what you mean by 'could'. I meant it as in: There is no logical necessity between the existence of a physical world and the existence of suffering.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

If I can interject. @Trailblazer has a type of evidence that she believes. She believes in the claim of the evidence of the words of her prophet, Baha'u'llah. @joelr doesn't believe this evidence is evident enough for him, therefore, he does not believe it is evidence. The truth is, however, it is evidence, but Joelr doesn't believe it's valid evidence, whereas Trailblazer does believe the evidence is valid enough to believe. So, ultimately, I disagree with Joelr when he says that there is no evidence, but I do agree with him that Baha'u'llah's scriptures and written word isn't valid evidence enough to blindly believe all of it. I find Baha'u'llah's God too restrictive and limiting, making Baha'u'llah's evidence invalid to me.

I do believe that Baha'u'llah was special. He created a religion that more than five million people now believe, long after he died, but the evidence he provides isn't entirely valid to me. He, just like all people, understands God in certain ways, because something conditioned him to believe it in that way. He was highly influenced by Islam, and the Baha'i Faith is indeed very similar to that religion. But instead of believing it or not, I try to understand what is true about what he said, which is different, because while reality is of but one, the way to interpret that reality is shaded by a variety of colorful beliefs and opinions.

Yes, @Trailblazer has her personal religious beliefs, and I respect her for remaining steadfast in her spiritual convictions despite facing constant criticism on this forum. And you have your own beliefs and seem to stand strong in them. I have my own spiritual beliefs. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is "to each his or her own," and it is pointless trying to convince someone else that their religious beliefs are nothing more than superstitious woo-woo.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The existence of God is common knowledge to everyone but atheists and agnostics

Belief in gods is not knowledge as I use the word. An idea needs to be demonstrably correct to be called that. Also, you seem to see that as a defect in the critical thinker's view. There isn't much defense against a god belief but critical thinking, which is rare (not common) knowledge, so it shouldn't be surprising that so many believe absent sufficient evidence to justify belief.

Education lifts one above common knowledge, which is what remains without it. Education teaches critical thinking skills, which unlocks a world unavailable without it - analogous to learning to play bridge or learning to play a musical instrument competently.

it seems to me that the atheists and agnostics are just unable to understand what evidence for God looks like.

You have that backwards. The believer doesn't know or care what sufficient evidence to justify belief would look like.

It is obvious to some people that God exists without looking at any evidence!

Once again, you say that like it's a good thing. It's not. Thats exactly the kind of thinking some labor to learn to avoid. Such opinions would be of little interest to the critical thinker.

@Trailblazer has a type of evidence that she believes. She believes in the claim of the evidence of the words of her prophet, Baha'u'llah. @joelr doesn't believe this evidence is evident enough for him, therefore, he does not believe it is evidence. The truth is, however, it is evidence, but Joelr doesn't believe it's valid evidence, whereas Trailblazer does believe the evidence is valid enough to believe. So, ultimately, I disagree with Joelr when he says that there is no evidence, but I do agree with him that Baha'u'llah's scriptures and written word isn't valid evidence enough to blindly believe all of it. I find Baha'u'llah's God too restrictive and limiting, making Baha'u'llah's evidence invalid to me.

You say that like any rules one chooses to justify belief are as good as any other.

I see it differently. Trailblazer believes in a god by faith but wants to be seen as reasonable and her belief justified, and so points to something and calls that her evidence the way others point to nature and call that evidence for a god that they chose to believe in by faith but want to be seen as more reasonable than that.

Others trained in the art of evaluating evidence disagree that the evidence cited supports belief according to academic standards for belief, such as those seen in scientific peer review or a courtroom trial. Her evidence would not be enough to get her god "convicted" of existence.

The critical thinker doesn't normally mind people believing by faith, but he objects when the fideist usurps the critical thinker's language and applies it to his own undisciplined thinking. I liken it to stolen valor. I posted this recently to a creationist claiming to be a critical thinker:

"And I suggest you give up the phrase critical thinking until you know what it is. Have you ever heard the phrase stolen valor? It's used in the military to refer to people trying to take credit for things they didn't do and gain respect they didn't earn. You haven't put in the necessary hours to use that term in reference to you own thinking."

The war hero doesn't mind that you weren't also a hero - unless you try to take credit for being one fraudulently.

 

[Exaltist Ethan]

I also believe that there is insufficient evidence to prove the existence of God or other deities. Furthermore, I believe that believing in God or any other god is a matter of personal faith rather than a firm belief based on empirical evidence that conclusively proves the existence of God or other deities.

Indeed, the belief that there is a God is more of an opinion than something that is either true or false. Remember, believing in God is dependent on two separate but interconnected variables. (1) You must believe that something exists that you could consider to be God. (2) You must believe what could consider to be God is actually God. For example, I have heard atheists say that even if the God of the Bible is true, fulfilling the first requirement, they still wouldn't believe, because they don't believe that God should be vengeful, jealous and full of hatred and anger for gentiles. Religions have become more ubiquitous since the time of Zoroaster and Judaism, with new scripture and beliefs which no longer view God as a hateful being.

In fact, some of the newest scriptures created, especially those by Baha'u'llah, seem to be poignantly positive and optimistic. My problem with Baha'u'llah and @Trailblazer 's idea of God is that when I had my epiphany at the age of 14 I eventually took that to mean that instead of having messengers or prophets create religions, that each and every single individual person goes through life raising and lowering their own divinity, depending on how they act and what they do in their lives. Simply put, I see God in all things, and all faith, beliefs and opinions are part of one divine reality. I do believe that the prophets Baha'u'llah claims are in essence more actively divine than other people, but we shouldn't ignore or go past that which we need to recognize also as passive divinity.

My kind of divinity that is there and present in all things, all animals, all people, and we should all recognize how important and special and unique Earth is and celebrate our diverse ideas of religion, theology and divinity. Ultimately I reject the idea of monotheism and a God that is separate from creation. Rather, I believe in a God of all, that all things are divine in their own right, and God can be found anywhere you look. I have also come to realize my beliefs in more transcendent realities, such as the concepts of the multiverse, omniverse, etc. So, I reject Baha'u'llah's claim of a transcendent being separate from its creation, and likewise, Shoghi Effendi, caretaker of the religion in the first half of the 20th century, has also rejected my idea of a God that is identical to reality.

However, this does not mean I don't think the Baha'i Faith isn't good, simply because I don't believe. I cherish the ideas and concepts the Baha'i Faith expresses, and the Faith has also led me to realize that theology as a discipline of religion is not done changing, growing, evolving as we further our understandings of reality even further. For every one thing I don't like about the Baha'i Faith there are like four or five things I do like about it. While I have expanded my ideas of God to include both the immediacy and transcendent nature of reality, I have been undoubtfully influenced by this religion. Especially how I believe that right now we are transitioning from a world which is now going further from global sovereignty to global unity, and that unity itself is the final piece of the extropy on human affairs.

The religious ideas that most influence me are the spiritual transhumanists and Earthseed, however, I have adopted many ideas of many faiths and the Baha'i Faith is just one religion that I have high regard and esteem for. Baha'u'llah had one of the worst lives anyone could procure, but excelled exceptionally for himself and his ideals. I am in awe of how someone who was in prison for much of his life ended up becoming one of the prophets for over five million people and counting. But instead of blindly accepting and following the religion by faith, I take the parts of it, and others, and adopt my own idea of faith based on how I see the world myself. While I haven't fully embrace or accepted the Baha'i Faith for several years, it does have the power to shape and transform the broken to live happy, productive lives. And that to me is more prolific than the religion itself.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Belief in gods is not knowledge as I use the word. An idea needs to be demonstrably correct to be called that. Also, you seem to see that as a defect in the critical thinker's view. There isn't much defense against a god belief but critical thinking, which is rare (not common) knowledge, so it shouldn't be surprising that so many believe absent sufficient evidence to justify belief.

You keep going on about critical thinkers, as if it is meaningful in this context.
Can a critical thinker not believe in G-d?
Would such a critical thinker be wrong in saying that they find the Bible/Qura'n helped
to convince them about the nature of G-d?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can a critical thinker not believe in G-d?

Some do, but that belief was not arrived at critically. I assume that it was accepted for a pragmatic reason. We have several here on RF - experienced and competent critical thinkers that call themselves Christian in each case (I call them theistic humanists). And they're all scientists.

You grow up in such a family, get your education, and leave university with humanist values and skill in critical thinking in addition to a large fund of knowledge and the ability to continue learning after formal education ends. But you enjoy the social aspects of belonging to and attending church, and you care how your families views you, knowing that your unbelief would trouble their loved ones. And so, assuming that you don't find praying and referring to God off-putting, you become a social Christian.

Would such a critical thinker be wrong in saying that they find the Bible/Qura'n helped to convince them about the nature of G-d?

Wrong? If he believes that, he believes that. If this god doesn't exist, then yes, he is wrong about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Depends on what you mean by 'could'. I meant it as in: There is no logical necessity between the existence of a physical world and the existence of suffering.

*OPTIMISTIC*

 

[Trailblazer]

Can a critical thinker not believe in G-d?

I think a better question is: Can a person who thinks critically be an atheist?
Atheists are not critical thinkers because if they were they would believe in God.
Imo.

Atheists think they are so smart but they miss the most important kind if knowledge one can ever have, the knowledge of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Wrong? If he believes that, he believes that. If this god doesn't exist, then yes, he is wrong about that.

If he believes that, he believes that. If this God does exist, then yes, he is right about that.

 

[Trailblazer]

Some do, but that belief was not arrived at critically.

Says who? You think only atheists can think critically but that is laughable.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Some do, but that belief was not arrived at critically.

How do you know that?
It is as if you are claiming that a person's belief in God is totally devoid of reason.
That might be your experience, but you can't know that it is the experience of all.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Some do, but that belief was not arrived at critically. I assume that it was accepted for a pragmatic reason. We have several here on RF - experienced and competent critical thinkers that call themselves Christian in each case (I call them theistic humanists). And they're all scientists.

You grow up in such a family, get your education, and leave university with humanist values and skill in critical thinking in addition to a large fund of knowledge and the ability to continue learning after formal education ends. But you enjoy the social aspects of belonging to and attending church, and you care how your families views you, knowing that your unbelief would trouble their loved ones. And so, assuming that you don't find praying and referring to God off-putting, you become a social Christian.

Or when you grow up in a Christian home and you learn early on in life to never question God, the Bible, or any other Christian-related beliefs that you were taught, or else it will upset your parents, your extended family, your Christian friends, your pastor, and the rest of the church congregation. I learned at a young age that it is even considered a grave sin by other Christians to ever question God. So, you learn to keep your mouth shut and keep all of your doubts about God and the Bible to yourself until you're living on your own and you muster up enough courage to reexamine the Bible, your beliefs about God, and everything else you were taught as a Christian. I believe that it is then that you learn how to be a genuine critical thinker by honestly reexamining your beliefs and rereading the Bible without wearing the rose-colored glasses that you were forced and coerced to wear during your Christian upbringing.

In my personal life, I grew up in an abusive Christian home where I endured years of abuse and neglect at the hands of my Christian mother and learned at a young age from my Christian family and local Christian community that girls and women were to be seen and not heard, which meant they should only speak when spoken to in the presence of "godly" Christian men. It took me thirty years to muster up enough courage to question my Christian beliefs and eventually renounce the devout faith and belief in God I had held onto since I was a child. I can honestly state that doing so was one of the most difficult and frightening things I've ever done, but it was also the best decision I've ever made for my mental health. It was such a crucial decision, and it eventually led to my emotional and spiritual healing, which gave me the courage to change my life for the better for myself and for my family. It is only second to the decision I made to confront my abusers when I was 18 years old. I saved myself from the abuse that day, and God had absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[F1fan]

Critical thinkers would be able to understand that the three different versions of God existing are not in conflict and do not cancel each other out, but are all from the same Source, but it requires a lot of critical thinking in order to understand that.

Only three? No, I just pointed out three of the many hundreds of gods currently believed these days.

But not only have you zero evidence for one God, you have none for three. Or hundreds. It doesn;t matter how you try to justify the inconsistencies in the broad religious beliefs on the forum, there's still no evidence that any exist outside of your imagnation.

Anyone who had any logical abilities would understand that evidence is not what makes God exist.

You could say the same for Santa Claus and it would read the same.

God either exists or not.... Evidence is only what people want in order to believe in God.

And the logical default is disbelief since we have more intellectual stability by being convinced ideas are true rather than assuming all ideas are true. The evidence that believers claim are not good enough for critical thinkers OR other believers. So the only logical solution is confirmation bias and selective assumptions.

God could exist absent any evidence at all, although that is not the case, since it would be unjust for God to expect people to believe absent evidence.

All we have is a huge set of inconsistent lore, and no evidence than any of the many gods exist. If a god does exist it is surely indifferent to us, and we live our lives without there being any effects whether we believe or not. Belief is god offers no more advantage than believing you have a special invisible friend. You will surely protest this, and I will say that believers do affect their own lives by opting to believe. The assumption is that the god affects people when it's really the human who makes decisions assuminga god is out there pulling strings. Of course we see that many parents who pray to God for a miracle when their kids are dying, and the life or death outcome is tied to natural factors, not magic.

It is obvious to some people that God exists without looking at any evidence!

They ended up believing due to some reason, and that would likley how these people are like robots programmed by their social experience. Those who believe and aren't using their agency are not rational beings.

 

[Tiberius]

I don’t think so

I do.

If someone creates everything and sets it up in a way that he knows will result in the suffering of innocents and yet decides not to change it so the innocent do NOT suffer, why shouldn't he be called a jerk?

I agree

And yet the Bible clearly states that God does pass judgement on us.

 

[F1fan]

The existence of God is common knowledge to everyone but atheists and agnostics, who comprise a very small percentage of the world population.

Knowing about the existence of God is similar to knowing about the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, as these are readily believed real by children. They believe because they learn that these characters exist, just as many people on the world learn that some sort of God exists. The differenc eis that children are eventually told Santa isn't real. It's notable that I had first hand exveriences of the Tooth Fairy existing. I saw first hand that the teeth I put under my pillow did in fact get switched with money. What other explanation is there other than the Tooth Fairy? That was good evidence. I never saw the transaction but I could infer that there was indeed one as I slept. The Tooth Fairy was the being that did the transaction. I even got presents marked From: Santa on Christmas. That's impressive evidence.

So there being common knowledge of something does not imply it is true. The truth of ideas comes from assessing the evidence and coming to a reasoned conclusion that it's true, or at least likely true. Is there any more evidence for any God than for Santa Claus? Not enough for critical thinkers. And theists will decide their Santa, or Tooth Fairy, or Easter Bunny gods exist because that is what they learned, or decided was more satisfying than what they learned in younger years.

There's a reason critical thinkers will agree with each other to a high degree, and that's because they follow facts. There's a reason theists disagree about what gods are, and that's because traditions differ, and are inconsistent. Your idea of God differs is very important ways from Muslims and Christians, and that is a huge discrepancy.

According to sociologists Ariela Keysar and Juhem Navarro-Rivera's review of numerous global studies on atheism, there are 450 to 500 million positive atheists and agnostics worldwide (7% of the world's population), with China having the most atheists in the world (200 million convinced atheists).​

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia​

Thus it seems to me that the atheists and agnostics are just unable to understand what evidence for God looks like.

Crtical thinkers understand the rules well. That's why the so called evidence by believers isn't adequate to make a sound conclusion. Believers can't point out what they get that critical thinkers don't. That's bad for your claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Knowing about the existence of God is similar to knowing about the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, as these are readily believed real by children. They believe because they learn that these characters exist, just as many people on the world learn that some sort of God exists.

No, believers believe in God because of the evidence that atheists are too blind to see.

 

[Trailblazer]

But not only have you zero evidence for one God, you have none for three.

Evidence for God is in all three of these holy scriptures, the Bible, the Qur'an and the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

How does that make you feel when they not only marginalize your suffering, they also imply that you should be glad for it and are being impious not being grateful for it?

It makes me feel like not talking to them, and I don't, but most Baha'is are not that insensitive.

 

[Trailblazer]

You have that backwards. The believer doesn't know or care what sufficient evidence to justify belief would look like.

You have that backwards. The believer knows what sufficient evidence to justify belief looks like because they have it.
That is why they are believers.