Atheists: If God existed would God……

[muhammad_isa]

Great. There's also a large number of christian, jewish, hindu, atheist, etc doctors. What of it?

..because people are claiming that education is the cause of declining faith in the west, and I disagree .. that's what!

Doctors have to be well-educated, particularly in science. My experience on meeting well-educated Christians & Muslims is a positive one, overall .. particularly doctors.
They don't get paid that well in the UK .. unless they are private consultants or executives etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..because people are claiming that education is the cause of declining faith in the west, and I disagree .. that's what!

It's certainly one of the factors.
And there's factually a correlation also.
Every statistic will tell you that the higher the education level, the higher the occurrence of atheism.

Doctors have to be well-educated, particularly in science. My experience on meeting well-educated Christians & Muslims is a positive one, overall .. particularly doctors.

Sure. Nobody is claiming that no educated religious people exist. Nobody is claiming that there are no religious scientists. So I'm not sure what point you think you are making.

They don't get paid that well in the UK .. unless they are private consultants or executives etc.

Ok.

 

[F1fan]

I can imagine it but I know it does not exist.

So who you refer to God not communicating to humans you admit it's because it doesn't exist?

Hobbits and elves can't communicate with humans in real life either. But we can talk about how they all communicate with each other in fiction.

 

[F1fan]

Not for you.

Why would any rational person decide a God exists when there is no evidence to base a judgment on?

Messengers are not fallible people. According to my beliefs, they are infallible.
That is a good reason to believe them.

Unless you are infallible too your judgment that Messengers are infallible could be wrong. So again, in debate you need evidence, not your beliefs.

We all have something on the line if there is an afterlife.
This life is a mere nothing compared to eternity.

But atheists aren't gambling on the idea that there's an afterlife. It's a religious thing so not relevant.

 

[F1fan]

There is plenty of people reminding others about G-d on these forums, but they continue to speak against G-d.

You are confusing BELIEF in God with an actual God. Religious people tell us what they believe God is, and we skeptic challenge these claims. We aren't convinced any of the popular Gods talked about here exist. I'll bet you reject the gods Hindus claim exist.

satan will never listen. he knows it all already. he uses his knowledge of religion to mislead others.

That is an excuse theists will use to make it seem as if their beliefs are true and challenging their beliefs is evil. What's odd is there are a lot of believers who disagree, so satan is affecting which ones? Why don't you theists fight it out and decide who is wrong and who is correct, then get back to we atheists.

G-d is in constant "communication" with everyone .. you know, that "little voice" in our heads that reminds us that what we are doing is not right. The problem is, that the more we incline towards evil, the more that voice gets ignored and sneered at.

Oh boy, here's an example. Trailblazer says the opposite. So here we have two believers who claim the exactly opposite thing, and who am I supposed to believe? You should challenge Trailblazer's claims about God since one or both of you are wrong.

 

[F1fan]

Do I?
What about this sort of thing?

Importance of religion by country - Wikipedia

I think that demonstrates quite well how people from poorer countries consider their religion more seriously.

Yes, they have less money, live under more stress and uncertainty, so will be motivated to find ways to cope with this extra stress. Religion offers a way to soothe anxiety through the distraction of ritual and hope. Does this behavior mean a God exists? No.

 

[F1fan]

Naturally, if people's faith is weak in the first place, they will be duped by "scientific atheism" much easier.

Ironic claim given that people being "duped" tends to be when they are manipulated through emotional appeals, and not simply educated like in science and reasoning. The more educated tend NOT to be coerced or influenced by religious claims. There is evidence and a rational process in science. There is neither in religion.

No one comes to a rational and fact-based conclusion that a God exists. they end up believing in a God due to their social experiences with other believers. The young learn to be believers by conforming to the norms of the society they live in.

..in fact it's part of prophecy that this will happen.
Poor people start off inheriting a stronger faith. They rely on G-d to feed and clothe them. and not feel it is an automatic right to be looked after by society.

Poor people have less education and stability, so will seek ways to soothe the emotional hardships of this stress, and religion offers the illusory world to accomplish that. It appeals to the emotions. If some people are living in hardship and see little hope they will be attracted to a priest who tells them things will be better in the next life.

I know you think that education, particularly TOE, will make people realise that religion is superstition, but I can assure you that those who have accurate religious knowledge are not affected by scientific discovery. On the contrary .. it makes their faith stronger.

Yet there is nothing that distinguishes "accurate religious knowledge" objectively. You have your certainty while other believers have theirs. Who is correct? What is your test in reality that demonstrates your particular religious view is true and others wrong? I'll bet you can't offer anything except faith, and we all observe how unreliable faith can be.

Is it fair to suggest you are bluffing?

Education is an important part of faith. A broad knowledge in academia is of great value.

So you accept cognitive studies that show religious thoughts process in emotion centers, and bypass the reasoning centers of brains?

 

[F1fan]

..because people are claiming that education is the cause of declining faith in the west, and I disagree .. that's what!

Doctors have to be well-educated, particularly in science. My experience on meeting well-educated Christians & Muslims is a positive one, overall .. particularly doctors.
They don't get paid that well in the UK .. unless they are private consultants or executives etc.

You seem to be confusing wealthy and educated societies versus wealthy and educated people. Those who grow up in religious countries will learn to be religious. Their brains will actually develop to BE religious. Brains grow neurons through life, and the young will grow neurons that function more religiously. This is called social learning. The memories of being religious as a child will project onto adulthood and the identity the person has. It becomes a sort of operating software of our brains. That some of these people will get higher education does not mean their memories and religious meaning will be offset and displaced. Smart people can compartmentalize both irrational concepts and knowledge, and manage two opposing viewpoints in a single mind. This is part of the capacity of intelligence. So doctors can be both highly educated and religious if they choose, or can manage it.

Better brain development is tied to wealth and stable environments. More money means better nutrition. More stability means more focus, better sleep, less distraction, better body functions and growth due to less stress hormone. So poor and unstable nations will have people less educated, less matured, and more susceptible to emotional influences like religion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If an all-knowing deity existed it could not do any better than it has already done in communicating to humans, or in anything else it does. That is logically impossible.

Disagree. That is why I reject the claim that a tri-omni deity with a message for man exists.

Your comment is a conditional statement (beginning with if). But then you switch to it does exist, therefore you cannot expect it to do better than what it did. That's how faith derails reason. Reason does not get one to a god. You're assuming that such a god does exist, and since it has done nothing more than send messengers, that must be the optimal method of communicating. It's no longer a conditional statement. You've moved the goalpost.

An all-knowing deity cannot do better than it has done because it has always known the best course of action of all the available options by virtue of being all-knowing.

Yes, this is a fine example of what I just posted. That's faith speaking. Since this god DOES exist (unshared premise held by faith), it's choice must have been optimal.

do you know what the best method of communication would be in order to garner the belief of the maximum number of people?

No.

But this discussion isn't about what the best method would be for such a deity. It's more about what wouldn't be the best method for a tri-omni god to choose. It is you that is saying that messenger is the best option open to such a deity. I'm saying that that is not a tri-omni deity's best option, not what is. Actually, it's hard to think of a less effective means for a deity to reach all of humanity.

You have no idea what a omnipotent deity that wants to be heard would do

I have some idea, a pretty good one in fact. Also, I know what it wouldn't do. Can you imagine a worse way to get a message out to mankind? I can't. How have governments with access to modern communications technology trying to get the message out to humanity to take the vaccine if eligible and it's available? Why didn't they choose to send Fauci out on foot preaching to whomever was in his presence?

How do political candidates get their messages out? They use the most effective means available to them, not the least.

It would be no different for a deity. I know that your position is that I can't know that, but I disagree. If a tri-omni deity exists and uses messengers who deliver very human messages that can't be recognized as superhuman, then it is not trying to be an effective communicator or even trying very hard to be known.

The only option on your list that is logically possible is that no deity exists, so obviously it could not communicate directly to everyone or communicate in any other way.

Disagree. Every option I named is logically possible until it can be shown to be impossible.

These claims are believable to everyone in the world except atheists, who comprise a mere 7% of the world population.

Most people in the world aren't skilled critical thinkers. They believe what they are told. Critical thinking rejects believing insufficiently supported beliefs.

The evidence is not the claim. The evidence is what these Messengers did on their missions, including the scriptures they wrote, in the case of Baha'ullah.

What you offer as evidence for a god is not that. It is evidence that people make claims for gods. The words and deeds would need to transcend human potential to be considered evidence of a deity.

The evidence of Messengers such as Jesus and Muhammad is also the impact they have had upon humankind for centuries of human history. That is undeniable.

That is not evidence that Jesus or Muhammad were messengers of a god. It is evidence that people can have a significant impact on history.

you are the one who is claiming that only atheists are rational.

I am saying that agnostic atheism is the only rational position for a skilled critical thinker to take. Any other position requires a leap of faith, which is a deviation from reason.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Doctors have to be well-educated, particularly in science. My experience on meeting well-educated Christians & Muslims is a positive one, overall .. particularly doctors.

Many doctors will say that because it is comforting to the patient. They may or may not believe it. My father and brother were doctors.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is it fair to suggest you are bluffing?

No .. I don't like lies.

No one comes to a rational and fact-based conclusion that a God exists.

..just because you don't, doesn't mean that other people don't.

I am 100% convinced that the Bible and Qur'an is evidence that G-d exists.
Furthermore, they contain guidance for mankind that is invaluable.

I know very well that atheists won't accept the evidence, as they prefer to ignore it and do what they like. It is not difficult to deny. It is not a proof, but it is evidence for those who seek truth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Smart people can compartmentalize both irrational concepts and knowledge, and manage two opposing viewpoints in a single mind..

..smart people like you, you mean?

I don't think that a person prays 5 times a day without a good reason. These same people have studied the sciences including evolution, to a high level.
..no, it doesn't "add up" I'm afraid. It is not cultural, it is strong faith and knowledge.

..poor and unstable nations will have people less educated, less matured, and more susceptible to emotional influences like religion.

Arrogance is not a sign of education, so forgive me if I believe the Bible over you.

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth"
(Matthew 5:5)

 

[F1fan]

No .. I don't like lies.

Do you think Trailblazer is lying when she says things contrary to what you claim is true?

..just because you don't, doesn't mean that other people don't.

Thus far no theist has presented facts and a reasoned, coherent explanation of those facts that conclude any sort of god exists. So others haven't either.

If you disagree then please present facts and a reasoned explanation that demonstrates a God exists outside of human imagination.

I am 100% convinced that the Bible and Qur'an is evidence that G-d exists.

So?

Furthermore, they contain guidance for mankind that is invaluable.

Like what? Give examples that a rational mind can't sort out for itself.

And isn't it true that Christians and Muslims have interpreted texts and meanings that led to violent consequences? Explain how this happens.

I know very well that atheists won't accept the evidence, as they prefer to ignore it and do what they like. It is not difficult to deny. It is not a proof, but it is evidence for those who seek truth.

This sounds like an excuse.

Instead of making excuses why not offer us this evidence and we will assess its value. Maybe you are correct. If you are confident then you won't hesitate. If you have doubts then you will avoid it.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think that a person prays 5 times a day without a good reason.

Behavioral studies show that some people like routine and ritual as it brings them stability and peace of mind. Not all people use religious ritual for this purpose. People will use what they learn and what is useful to them as individuals.

These same people have studied the sciences including evolution, to a high level.
..no, it doesn't "add up" I'm afraid. It is not cultural, it is strong faith and knowledge.

Sorry but "strong faith" is a cultural phenomenon. And knowing what a religion states doesn't imply it is a set of facts and true statements. Christians learn that Jesus is the savior for mankind, and that accepting his sacrifice is the path to heaven. Given you are Muslim I suspect you don't accept this knowledge.

Arrogance is not a sign of education, so forgive me if I believe the Bible over you.

Who told you the Bible is true? What in the Bible is true, and why do you think that?

Yet, it's not about believing people, which is what theists do when they adopt the beliefs of those around them. In debate and reasoning it is about presenting facts, data, and a reasoned and coherent explanation. If there is something I say that is in error, then deal with that. It isn't about me.

If your religious beliefs are true as you assert, then you should have no problem printing facts and a reasoned explanation for why they are objectively true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If your religious beliefs are true as you assert, then you should have no problem printing facts and a reasoned explanation for why they are objectively true.

Yes, but if you expect me to do that in a couple of posts, you must be a joker.

In any case, you will always find a reason why I'm wrong, so why should I waste my time on somebody who is not interested and shows no manners?

I don't feel I have to prove anything to anybody. I enjoy discussion up to a point.
..but everybody is entitled to believe what they like.

..or in your case, not believe what they like.

 

[F1fan]

Yes, but if you expect me to do that in a couple of posts, you must be a joker.

I expect you to confidently explain why you believe in your religion. If that isn't doable then you can say so.

In any case, you will always find a reason why I'm wrong, so why should I waste my time on somebody who is not interested and shows no manners?

You are trying to make this about me. If you have facts and a reasoned explanation then you won't be worried about what others say. You will have truth on your side. But if you aren't confident in your beliefs, then i understand.

I don't feel I have to prove anything to anybody. I enjoy discussion up to a point.
..but everybody is entitled to believe what they like.

..or in your case, not believe what they like.

We aren't discussing freedom to believe. We are discussing what is believed and why. You are making excuses to avoid explaining why you believe in your religious concepts.

If you are going to participate in debate and you post your position, then you should expect questions.

 

[viole]

You are making an assumption, that God could make Himself known by speaking directly to anyone, but you do not know that.
I explained why that would not work to Polymath: #428 Trailblazer, Today at 2:32 PM

Well, of course, that is the mother of all rationalizations.

God cannot be understood by who has not a divine mind, but what the ones with divine minds say can be understood by people also without a divine mind. Really? And God is not able to correct that? Why not just say the same things those middle men say, telepathically? Since the message is the same of the middle men must be necessarily understood, if they are understood. Plus, you have telepathy, that adds a little divine touch. Easy.

c’ mon, isn’t much more likely that those middle men just made everything up?

So, what God needs to do is to strt telepathically transmitting the message to every brain at the same time: hallo, I am God, this is the start of a relationship with you. I will be back. Over.

And i am sure that even people without a divine mind would understand that.

Please let me know when you find anyone who can do what the Messengers of God have done to get their messages out to humanity. What happened after they delivered the messages is all on humans, it is not the Messenger's fault or God's fault.

Well, God should attend a course in modern communication theory. He should know that relying on Chinese whisper is not particularly effective. The entropy goes way up in no time.

i mean, maybe it is not His fault. By if I interviewed someone for an open God position, I would expect a minimum of omniscience. Wouldn't ‘t you?

No, by now God has realized that the Messenger method of communication has been fully successful for almost all people in the world, except for the 7% of the world population who are atheists.

Well, better late than never.

so, He was so successful that people now, and in the past, believe in Gods which are contradicting each other. We have gods with sons, gods without sons, gods looking like elephants, gods causing lightnings, and the rest. Which, I am sorry to say, is much better explained by the respective local prophets having made things up without talking to each other first.

And that is why critical thinkers are not convinced. Because as long something is much better explained by mundane things (people making gods up), then such explanations will always win against alternatives involving a metaphysical godly world that has the same evidence and plausibility of Pinocchio and his Blue fairy.

and again, all He has to do is communicate telepathically with me. And then I might reconsider. Someone at my level never speaks with lower ranked middle men

ciao

- viole

 

[muhammad_isa]

You are making excuses to avoid explaining why you believe in your religious concepts.

No I am not.
I quoted a well-known saying..

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man [who places his faith in wealth and status] to enter the Kingdom of G-d"
-Matthew 19-

..and it was challenged.
I presented evidence to support it when asked.
Now, if you don't mind, I'm done here.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

No, there is no reason for me to care how many people LIKE my evidence because I do not commit logical fallacies.

Oh of COURSE not.....like a drunk refusing to admit to being drunk.....ok.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

The converse of this is that if many or most people do not believe it, it cannot be so, and that is fallacious.

Actually KNOWING of such rational gobbledegook, and actually PRACTICING it, are two entirely different things.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

WHY do you insist on quoting what some indigent uneducated Goat-Roper wrote. I have learned from having read that book myself, that only a very GULLIBLE individual would take much, if ANY of it, seriously.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I do not do my boss's job, I only do my job.
God did not stop it because that is not His job.
That does not mean that God did not give a damn.

Gee, not His job was it? Try telling that to the survivors of that horrific event. See what THEY think about their God, turning His Godly back on them like that.
The way I, and any SENSIBLE person would see it, is that this God did NOT REALLY GIVE A DAMN about it.