Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

[Jesster]

Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

Believing is primary with the humans, with evidence one goes to another belief. It is a travel from one belief to another belief, yet it is a belief. Right, please?
Regards

Wrong

 

[Willamena]

Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

Believing is primary with the humans, with evidence one goes to another belief. It is a travel from one belief to another belief, yet it is a belief. Right, please?
Regards

How is it not the same belief?

We observe. We accept, and believe. "Evidence" comes after, in the sense that it was there all along but we are only required to label it "evidence" when picking it up to gift it to another. ("Here you go.") So evidence falls in the realm of communicative interaction with another, a large part of which is argument. Knowledge is the belief affirmed (i.e. it is now regarded objectively). But the belief doesn't change.

Edit: Or did you mean new evidence? Sorry if I mis-read that line. With new observations comes a new belief, and the cycle begins again.

 

[ChristineM]

Unfortunately, it's not really below the norm. In a world full of devout religionists it is the norm. You and I are outside the norm.
Tom

I think the threshold varies considerably from country to country, even area to area. And even in those areas with a low threshold there are some who think rationally.

I like to think kindly of the human race in general and believe those devout religionists are really few and far between outside those concentrations and make up a relatively small percentage of the population.

 

[columbus]

I like to think kindly of the human race in general and believe those devout religionists are really few and far between

Perhaps our views of the human race are colored differently because of where we live.
I live in the heartland of Protestant Jesustan. You live in a country deemed a "pagan nation" by the Pope, a few decades back.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cannot have confirmation bias because I had nothing to confirm before I became a Baha'i since I had no beliefs before that.

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias,[Note 1] is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[1]It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way.
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia

I cannot show what I know to others. It is their job to find it for themselves.
All I can do is show them where the evidence is and answer questions about it.

See @ChristineM 's response.

 

[LuisDantas]

Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist "

Believing is primary with the humans, with evidence one goes to another belief. It is a travel from one belief to another belief, yet it is a belief. Right, please?
Regards

From a certain perspective that is probably correct.

However, such a perspective fails to consider that evidence is a real thing, as well as that claims and beliefs that are not well supported are also often unwise and misleading.

Not all beliefs are equally wise, nor equally legitimate or equally likely to correspond to reality.

 

[ChristineM]

Perhaps our views of the human race are colored differently because of where we live.
I live in the heartland of Protestant Jesustan. You live in a country deemed a "pagan nation" by the Pope, a few decades back.
Tom

Yup areas.

Wiki give france as about 60% religious, i don't see that in the churches and the people.

And i think Britain is more atheist than pagan but trust a religious leader to get it confused.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

God does know that but God is not going to change His time-honored Method of communication, the Method He has used from the dawn of human history, just to accommodate a few atheists.

I always find it interesting when people think they can speak for God. Why can't God speak for himself?

I have verified that God exists in my own mind because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God on earth.

Verification should come before belief, not after.

Verifiable evidence if only possible for the Messengers to receive because God communicates to them through the Holy Spirit and they know they received communication from God, but even they are barred from ever knowing the Essence of God.

How do you determine if somebody received a message through the Holy Spirit?

 

[columbus]

Wiki give france as about 60% religious, i don't see that in the churches and the people.

This is the sort of information I don't trust Wikipedia to get right.

And i think Britain is more atheist than pagan but trust a religious leader to get it confused.

I am pretty sure that the Pope was lumping all the non-Christians together under the label "pagan".
But it was a long time ago, so I don't really remember.
Tom

 

[columbus]

How do you determine if somebody received a message through the Holy Spirit?

That's easy.
If somebody's Message agrees with your opinions It's from the Holy Spirit.
If not, It isn't.

Simple.
That's the advantage to a religious worldview. You can be completely wrong, but as long as you're sincere it doesn't matter. As @Trailblazer pointed out "YMMV"

Tom

 

[paarsurrey]

How is it not the same belief?

We observe. We accept, and believe. "Evidence" comes after, in the sense that it was there all along but we are only required to label it "evidence" when picking it up to gift it to another. ("Here you go.") So evidence falls in the realm of communicative interaction with another, a large part of which is argument. Knowledge is the belief affirmed (i.e. it is now regarded objectively). But the belief doesn't change.

Edit: Or did you mean new evidence? Sorry if I mis-read that line. With new observations comes a new belief, and the cycle begins again.

Yes, that is my point, a new evidence brings new belief, yet it is a belief.

Even in sciences the hypothesis starts from the data which is thought to be evident, it is only a belief that these are evident, and after the experiments/observations we come to a result that we believe is correct, yet it is a new belief, nothing more and nothing less. Right, please?

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes, that is my point, a new evidence brings new belief, yet it is a belief.

Even in sciences the hypothesis starts from the data which is thought to be evident, it is only a belief that these are evident, and after the experiments/observations we come to a result that we believe is correct, yet it is a new belief, nothing more and nothing less. Right, please?

Regards

So, in essence, you are telling us not to trust scientific findings "too much" (despite being literally the best that can be found) because it is always possible that a miracle is behind it all?

 

[ChristineM]

This is the sort of information I don't trust Wikipedia to get right.


I am pretty sure that the Pope was lumping all the non-Christians together under the label "pagan".
But it was a long time ago, so I don't really remember.
Tom

I don't trust Wikipedia to get anything right, but I'll use it as a guide and its better than using religious sites.

I don't remember anything a pope says, if I'm listening I'll hear him speaks words, by the time they reach my brain, gone. For which I'm very happy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't trust Wikipedia to get anything right, but I'll use it as a guide and its better than using religious sites.

I don't remember anything a pope says, if I'm listening I'll hear him speaks words, by the time they reach my brain, gone. For which I'm very happy.

At least Wikipedia usually has links to its sources. Creationist sites usually have links to only other creationist articles. For some reason they appear to be loathe to link the peer reviewed articles that they abuse.

 

[ChristineM]

At least Wikipedia usually has links to its sources. Creationist sites usually have links to only other creationist articles. For some reason they appear to be loathe to link the peer reviewed articles that they abuse.

The reference links in wiki are a good source, wiki itself could be written by anyone with a computer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The reference links in wiki are a good source, wiki itself could be written by anyone with a computer.

And often is. But at least the science articles appear to be reviewed and corrected fairly often. The more "cutting edge" a Wikipedia article is the less reliable it will turn out to be, but it is an excellent source for older settled claims. For anything in the last 20 years or so I would always go to an original source if possible.

 

[columbus]

I don't remember anything a pope says, if I'm listening I'll hear him speaks words, by the time they reach my brain, gone. For which I'm very French.

Fixed your post.
You're Welcome.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

the Method He has used from the dawn of human history, just to accommodate a few atheists. But the salient point is that God does not want to be verified, so that is why He is not verifiable, not the way you want Him to be verified. I have verified that God exists in my own mind because I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Manifestation of God on earth.

Verifiable evidence if only possible for the Messengers to receive because God communicates to them through the Holy Spirit and they know they received communication from God, but even they are barred from ever knowing the Essence of God.

Terrorists were not following what God revealed to Muhammad in the Qur’an. They go by Hadiths which are sayings that changed the original message. All religions have been changed by humans except the Baha’i Faith. It is the only religion that remains in its pristine condition because we have the Original Writings of Baha’u’llah and they cannot be tampered with. So we know exactly what God’s Will is for us.

No, it would have been better if they had read the Qur’an and actually understood it and followed what was written. It would have even been better if the Muslims had recognized Baha’u’llah and followed Him because He outlawed Holy War in His Book of Laws:

“In another Tablet Bahá’u’lláh stresses the importance of fellowship with the followers of all religions; He also states that “the law of holy war hath been blotted out from the Book” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 241

This has nothing to do with God. It has to do with distorting the message of God that came through a religion, in order to suit their agenda. The Christians did the same thing all throughout history.

"God does know that but God is not going to change His time-honored Method of communication,"

No one is asking God to change his 'time honored method of communication'. But if God WANTS me to believe in him, then God KNOWS that I will require actual verifiable evidence for his existence. Since God apparently doesn't want 'be verified' then clearly God does NOT want me to believe in him, because God KNOWS that I require verifiable evidence.

"God does know that but God is not going to change His time-honored Method of communication,"

I'm not claiming that they were. However, what they did was 'verify in their own minds' that the voices in their heads telling them to kill people was the voice of God. They used the exact same method that YOU use, but came up with completely different conclusions. That suggests that using the 'verify in my own mind' method for determining reality is NOT a reliable method. Such a shame that they didn't insist on some sort of outside verification, instead of simply relying on their own mind to tell them what's true.

"This has nothing to do with God. It has to do with distorting the message of God that came through a religion, in order to suit their agenda. The Christians did the same thing all throughout history."

You're right, it has nothing to do with god. It's all about people making up in their own minds what they want to believe without any verifiable evidence and then pretending as if it comes from God. If the terrorists can delude themselves into believing that the nonsense they made up in their minds is reality, it's just as possible that YOU are deluding yourself into believing that what you made up in your mind is actual reality.

It would be SO much better if people were to simply insist upon verifiable evidence for their beliefs before adopting them.

 

[England my lionheart]

The truthful revealed religion people have the belief "God exists" and
Atheism people have a belief "God does not exist ", nevertheless both have a belief. Right, please?

So basically and Imo it works like this, "God is everywhere", atheist says "OK show me this god?" and atheist still waits for an answer so it's not a belief at all.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

So basically and Imo it works like this, "God is everywhere", atheist says "OK show me this god?" and atheist still waits for an answer so it's not a belief at all.

Regards

Sorry, the above sentences have not been written by me.
Regards