Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?

[paarsurrey]

So? Originally I was ignorant. Now I am less so. I don't need to observe my parent having sex to know that this is how new people are formed. And, for the most part, there is no good reason to doubt the statements that they were the ones involved. Clearly *someone* was.

Yes, originally when one gains consciousness everybody is ignorant and then gets to know things from hearsay and then from reasoning, observation, learning, research benefits from other sources of knowledge. Right, please?

Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

All sciences and other sources of knowledge one comes to know at a later stage, when one gets consciousness for the first time one knows nothing of them. The first source is hearsay. Right, please?

Regards

Yet with that later stage knowledge I KNOW that I'm the product of procreation. Do you honestly not understand how this works?

 

[paarsurrey]

Yet with that later stage knowledge I KNOW that I'm the product of procreation. Do you honestly not understand how this works?

"Yet with that later stage knowledge"

So, one/you agree that before "later stage knowledge" one's comprehension was based on the hearsay and or consisted on what the people around told one/you. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

So? Originally I was ignorant. Now I am less so. I don't need to observe my parent having sex to know that this is how new people are formed. And, for the most part, there is no good reason to doubt the statements that they were the ones involved. Clearly *someone* was.

"I don't need to observe my parent having sex to know that this is how new people are formed."

I agree with one/you that you needed not to observe certain two specific individuals/parent having sex, yet one/you based your comprehension in this matter on hearsay basis to start with, and of course with time one got more information/knowledge to add confirmation to your previous understanding. Right, please?

Regards

 

[wandering peacefully]

I certainly do not think this life is useless. I just do not find the material world all that attractive or enjoyable, except for nature, animals, and people.

But people, nature and animals are all material. What more mportant things are there in this life besides those? The rest of what you call material is just stuff. You don't need to bother yourself with it if you don't want to.

I don't enjoy suffering, greed, or purposeful ignorance which are also part of the material life but we can avoid or fix most of that with enough effort both personally and collectively. They are not wonderful but I also would not want to miss this life because of them.

Hopefully everyone can find something that they can enjoy and feel a sense of purpose for living. Especially because this is the only life we have for sure. I guess some find that purpose to be sharing their beliefs about some other life. I'm not sure how helpful that is to people who don't believe in that but if it helps you, it's a good thing.

 

[QuestioningMind]

"Yet with that later stage knowledge"

So, one/you agree that before "later stage knowledge" one's comprehension was based on the hearsay and or consisted on what the people around told one/you. Right, please?

Regards

Do you honestly not know how biological reproduction works?

 

[paarsurrey]

Do you honestly not know how biological reproduction works?

That is not the issue I/we are discussing. The issue is how the humans comprehend things when one gained consciousness.
The first stage is comprehending things from what others tell us. The initial source is "hearing" from others. Right, please?

Regards

 

[InChrist]

But that is not the meaning understood by the vast majority of christianity.

Yet, those are the accurate meanings of the words. Besides, I don't know of any majority of Christianity that believe God creates or can sin.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

What I MEANT to say is that Messengers of God are the Only Way we can know anything about God's Will for us

I simply don't believe this. It leaves us helpless and with a third party in-between us and God. It smells of human invention to me in order for so-called messengers to have power over us. There is no only one way to God through someone else who is human. I honestly just don't believe it at all.

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is not the issue I/we are discussing. The issue is how the humans comprehend things when one gained consciousness.
The first stage is comprehending things from what others tell us. The initial source is "hearing" from others. Right, please?

Regards

Wrong. because it IS the issue we're discussing. I stated that my existence is proof that my parents procreated. You asking me whether or not I knew this upon being born or if it's something I learned over time is completely immaterial to my claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Except that I have NEVER made the claim that there is no god... ONLY that due to a lack of verifiable evidence that it's impossible for me to believe that there IS a god. You yourself have stated that it's impossible to get verifiable evidence for god, so regardless of how much 'consideration' I give the matter, there will NEVER be sufficient evidence for me to genuinely believe.

That is true. Verifiable evidence is proof, and there will never be any proof of God.

I find it to be a perfectly apt example. Because:
1. There is EXACTLY as much verifiable evidence for your god claim as there is for my magical pixie claim. That is to say, absolutely ZERO.
2. Not according to my claim. IF you genuinely believe in the magical pixies THEN your every wish will be granted. Not sure how you can claim that being given the power to have your wishes all come true would have no bearing on your life.

There is no verifiable evidence for God but there is evidence. There is no evidence at all for magical fairies. That is the salient difference.

Magical fairies would not have any *real bearing* on our lives, but if God exists, He would have a lot of bearing on our lives.

Sadly your 'divine author' is no more convincing to me that the 'divine authors' of all of the thousands of other man-made religions out there. You may as well be telling me that Jesus could never have accomplished all that he did unless a god was involved. Or that Hercules could never have accomplished all that he did unless a god was involved. For that matter, I can claim that the magical pixies could never have accomplished all that they have, unless magical pixies were involved.

As Jesus said, some people have eyes to see and ears to hear and others don’t. He was referring to spiritual eyes and ears.

You can claim anything you want to about magical fairies and Hercules but you have no evidence they did anything at all. By contrast, the Holy Bible is evidence that Jesus did a whole heck of a lot. Nobody denies that except atheists. Even people of other religions acknowledge Jesus.

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.” Some Answered Questions, p. 101

 

[Trailblazer]

I didn't write the quotes you attributed to me here.

Sorry, that was meant for QuestioningMind. I just deleted it and re-posted it to him.

 

[Trailblazer]

How do you figure?

I figure that because of what *I consider* to be evidence for the existence of God.

At this point, I'm not looking to be convinced of a god. However, you might be able to convince me that there's something in your belief system worth respecting.
You're failing so far, but I try to hold out hope.

What would be worthy of respect about a belief system, and what is *so far* lacking in what you know about my belief system?

I'm not asking you to dump your beliefs. I'm also not asking you to persuade me that I should adopt your beliefs.

What I'm trying to do is figure out whether there's even an internal logic to your beliefs and other theistic beliefs. If there is, I haven't seen it yet.

You need to explain what you mean by “internal logic.”

Edit: what I'm also trying to do is correct any misrepresentations or misunderstandings of my own position.

Have you corrected them?

 

[Trailblazer]

And some that would be thought to be messengers that are not even if God does exist.

That is true, but that still does not preclude the possibility that some of the Messengers are real Messengers of God.

So there are four possibilities:

1. God exists and there are real Messengers of God who represent God, or
2. God exists and there are phony messengers of God who make false claims, or
3. God exists but does not communicate via Messengers, or
4. God does not exist and all so-called messengers of are phony.

And I have trouble even imagining what *could* support such a claim.

As I have been saying for the past three weeks, @ Left Coast asked me to post a thread on evidence for Baha’u’llah. I wrote that three weeks ago and it will be called Evidence that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God but I have not yet posted it since I know I won’t have time to field any more posts until the threads I am now posting on die down.

But you have already agreed that any evidence for God will be weak. And that must include the evidence that some person is a messenger. So, that default position is considerably strenthened.

Maybe you can withhold your opinion until you see my new thread about Baha’u’llah. Then at least you will understand why I think Baha’u’llah was evidence for God even if you disagree.

What rock would you suggest to look under that would give high enough quality evidence to support a belief in the existence of a God? You claim that there can be evidence someone is a messenger *prior* to there being evidence that there is a God.

Yes, I claim that because the Messenger is the evidence that there is a God.

OK, now you have to provide evidence for this 'spiritual station'. Why should I believe such a thing exists?

You should not believe such a thing exists, at least not until you understand what it means and what it involves.

Hmmm...it seems to me that even having the best 'teachings' is far from being evidence for a God. At best, it shows that someone is wise in some capacities.

That is true, so that is probably why I did not *really believe* in God when I first became a Baha’i. I had to learn a whole lot more about who Baha’u’llah was and the significance of Manifestations of God before I really believed in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Good luck with that one. I'd like to see the calculation.

I was just spoofing. Of course there is no way to calculate that.

If the existence of *any* God is unlikely, then the existence of *your* God is unlikely. Are you interested in the argument that the existence of *any* God is unlikely?

Now that is just not true at all. First off, there is only one true God, so there is not *my* god and *any* god. There is just God, and although there are many human conceptions of God, one is more likely to be the correct conception, and that would point you to the religion that has the most accurate conception of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

But people, nature and animals are all material. What more mportant things are there in this life besides those? The rest of what you call material is just stuff. You don't need to bother yourself with it if you don't want to

That was my point. The rest is just stuff. Unfortunately, I do have to bother myself with it to a certain extent because in order to live in this world I need a place to live and a way to get around, food to eat and clothes to wear.

I don't enjoy suffering, greed, or purposeful ignorance which are also part of the material life but we can avoid or fix most of that with enough effort both personally and collectively. They are not wonderful but I also would not want to miss this life because of them.

I think we can fix greed or purposeful ignorance but I do not think we can fix suffering, although in most cases we can ameliorate it. It is a tossup whether I would want to miss this life if I had a choice.Of course, if I believed as atheists do that this is our only chance at life, I would have a very different perspective. I would want to live this life to its fullest.

What I have endure has made me stronger, so there is an upside to suffering. I just don’t want it to be a way of life. I think it will get better once I get past some of my stressful life circumstances. The more I endure the stronger I become and the easier it is to not allow certain things to bother me the way they used to.

Hopefully everyone can find something that they can enjoy and feel a sense of purpose for living. Especially because this is the only life we have for sure. I guess some find that purpose to be sharing their beliefs about some other life. I'm not sure how helpful that is to people who don't believe in that but if it helps you, it's a good thing.

I have no doubt that there is another life that follows this one but I know how atheists feel about that so I do not want to harp on it. Anymore, I just tell my atheists friends that they will have the evidence they require after they die. If I am wrong then none of us will have any evidence, and it won’t matter.

In a sense it is good to live life as if there is no afterlife as long as we do good works and acquire spiritual virtues, which simply means a good character. Baha’u’llah wrote that the light of a good character surpasses the light of the sun, it’s that important. Believers certainly don’t have a corner on that market.

 

[Trailblazer]

I simply don't believe this. It leaves us helpless and with a third party in-between us and God. It smells of human invention to me in order for so-called messengers to have power over us. There is no only one way to God through someone else who is human. I honestly just don't believe it at all.

You do not have to believe it and you won't be the first one who doesn't nor the last.
If you think there is *another way* please let me know next time you get a message from God with God telling you what His Will is.

I have finally come to the conclusion that the reason nonbelievers do not like the *idea* of Messengers of God is because they need to be in control so they do not like the *idea* of someone else being in control. But Messengers do not have control over us, not if we freely choose to believe in them. This is not an issue for most people because most people believe in what I refer to as Messenger of God; be it a holy man or someone who reveals God's Will, it is all the same, and these men establish the great religions.

84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger.

 

[Peter Sawrie]

Or the fact that I actually understand quantum mechanics. And unless you have actually dealt with self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space, you don't.

If you have studied quantum mechanics then you should clearly understand that consciousness dictates how matter responds and thus consciousness is creating matter is the clear conclusion.

You would do well to read the book biocenterism by Robert Lanza.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

On another thread….

Trailblazer said: Many atheists say they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence.

@ ecco said:
Name one. Show where he/she said "they would like to believe in God if they only had the evidence." That isn't what atheists say. That's what theists would like to believe atheists say.

Trailblazer said: Holy moly! ~~~ This is practically all atheists say, at least to me. Sorry, I cannot quote atheists from other forums because that is not right. They posted to me on other forums in confidence. Sure, they are public forums, but it is bad practice to take posts from one forum to another forum. But it is not only on the “other forums” where atheists have said this. They have also said it on RF. I am not saying that ALL atheists would like to believe in God if they had the evidence, since some atheists probably have no interest in God. But if they don’t have any interest in God, why is this forum comprised of as many atheists as believers? Hmmmmm.....

This would be a great topic for a new thread:

“Atheists: Would you like to believe in God if there was good evidence for God?”

Please answer 1, 2 or 3.

1) Yes, I would like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
2) I am not sure. I might like to believe in God if there was evidence that was good enough.
3) No, I would not like to believe in God even if there was evidence that was good enough.

* By good enough I mean evidence that was sufficient for you to believe that God exists, evidence that proved to you that God exists.

The way the question is framed is just bizar...

It's not asking me if I would believe god exists... it's asking me if I would LIKE to believe that.
How does one "like" the act of holding a belief? It makes no sense to me.

Now....
Given sufficient evidence, yes I would accept that a god exists.
I don't think it's relevant if I would "like holding that belief" or not.
And frankly, I don't even know what that means exactly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is not the issue I/we are discussing. The issue is how the humans comprehend things when one gained consciousness.
The first stage is comprehending things from what others tell us. The initial source is "hearing" from others. Right, please?

Regards

As an infant, your brain is pretty much hardwired to receive input in "overdrive". A chinese child can learn chinese in 2 years. It takes an adult 10+ years.

The learning you do in that stage in life, comes from all kinds of sources. Sound, touch, smell,... Pretty much everything you do, you are learning about the world.
A baby that's banging 2 objects together and throwing them around, is learning about tear, sound, gravity, hard and soft materials, ...

No, the "initial source" is not just "hearing" and certainly not listening to explanations. Since you need to learn how to speak and how to interprete language. Nobody is born speaking english.

Your first source are your primal senses. Touch, smell, sight and yes, hearing.

Once you master language, you're hardwired to pretty much swallow up everything your perceived authorities tell you. In most cases, these consist of your parents and teachers primarily, and other adults to some extent.

This is the "indoctrination stage" of religion. This is the same period that children are told about Santa Claus (and they are completely on board with the story!). After a while, they figure out that things aren't right about it. And since the parents don't believe it themselves, and are getting pretty tired of having to sneak around with christmass gifts, they don't put up much of a fight and acknowledge / admit very fast that it's idd just a story.

But they don't do that with god. God is talked about as if it's a real member of the family. When youngsters come with questions (just like they come with questions about santa), those questions are quickly crushed and very oftenly demotivated / frowned upon. You might have to start going to sunday school, where the indorctrination will be kicked up a notch. Etc.


As you grow up, your brain grows out of this "spunge" stage. After that, learning becomes slower and more difficult as you grow older. If throughout that "spunge" state, and thoughout your rebellious teen years, you were constantly submerged in a religious environment, it will prove very hard psychologically to let that go. Even if in college you learn things that clearly are incompatible.