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

[ToGodorNottoGod]

Yes, that is what I was asking, if you had enough good evidence that God exists in order to believe in God, would you like/want to believe in God. What you are saying is that would depend upon what kind of God He turned out to be. Some people would like to believe in God regardless of how He turned out to be because they realize that if there is an All-Knowing God, believing in that God would be in our best interest.

But that is a mere human assumption that God has OUR best interests in mind. Earlier you said there is NO ACCESS to the UNknowable God. Then you have no possible idea what God wants or thinks. It's all a guess and shot in the dark. Follow your own claims and their logic and see how come it is so confusing to so many of us. You cannot possibly know that God is all knowing because you have told me he is UNknowable. Therefore, there is literally nothing you can say about God that has any validity.

 

[Trailblazer]

When I finally become what I already am I will have that. For now I am a seeking agnostic as I have already said.

I am not sure what you meant by that.

Even with messengers? Then why pay attention to what they say about God when they also cannot possibly know... if we can't have access, then neither can anyone else, including messengers, hence they are completely irrelevant, as I have said. I think your statement helps make my point.

God chooses who He will communicate to but even the Messengers do not have access to God, so far be it for anyone else to think they can access that most holy and sacred being.

“God grant that, with a penetrating vision, thou mayest perceive, in all things, the sign of the revelation of Him Who is the Ancient King, and recognize how exalted and sanctified from the whole creation is that most holy and sacred Being. This, in truth, is the very root and essence of belief in the unity and singleness of God.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 191-192

“And now concerning thy reference to the existence of two Gods. Beware, beware, lest thou be led to join partners with the Lord, thy God. He is, and hath from everlasting been, one and alone, without peer or equal, eternal in the past, eternal in the future, detached from all things, ever-abiding, unchangeable, and self-subsisting. He hath assigned no associate unto Himself in His Kingdom, no counsellor to counsel Him, none to compare unto Him, none to rival His glory. To this every atom of the universe beareth witness, and beyond it the inmates of the realms on high, they that occupy the most exalted seats, and whose names are remembered before the Throne of Glory.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 192

 

[Trailblazer]

But that is a mere human assumption that God has OUR best interests in mind. Earlier you said there is NO ACCESS to the UNknowable God. Then you have no possible idea what God wants or thinks. It's all a guess and shot in the dark. Follow your own claims and their logic and see how come it is so confusing to so many of us. You cannot possibly know that God is all knowing because you have told me he is UNknowable. Therefore, there is literally nothing you can say about God that has any validity.

It is not a mere human assumption, it is what The Manifestations of God reveal about God.
We do not need access to God in order to know God's Will for us. God's Will is revealed by the Manifestations of God in every age.

The Essence (intrinsic nature) of God us completely unknowable, but we can know can know the Attributes and Will of God from what Manifestations of God reveal.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[columbus]

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization and the fallacy of jumping to conclusions to lump all believers and all nonbelievers together as if they are all the same. It is also a bit presumptuous to psychoanalyze believers as if you understand why they believe they know something important about God and why they believe they know something about an afterlife, implying that they are egotistical. Some of us simply believe we can know these things because we have evidence for them.

Ironic response, coming from someone who consistently misrepresents non-theists with assertions like:

God is just and fair so God provides evidence that everyone is capable of recognizing but atheists do not like the evidence God provides so they get left behind.

Maybe your views or are warped by the tiny set of non-theist people you've interacted with on the internet.
Tom

 

[paarsurrey]

"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." Unquote

So, one/you agree that up to this stage one's teachers are the people around you and hearing from them is an important faculty rather the most important one at this stage. Right, please?

Regards

And this stage is up-to the time or before such time one could analyse and decide on issues independently after due diligence. Right, please?

Regards

 

[QuestioningMind]

Worthless to YOU.


By contrast, I can search for Baha’u’llah and find all kinds of information.

However, logically speaking that does not mean that the ‘other evidence’ for their claim is false. It could be either true or false.

Comparing God to magical fairies is something only certain atheists would do. It only makes them look ridiculous, all in the interest of making a point. But *instead* of making a point they wind up looking ridiculous.

And again, those spiritual eyes and ears could lead them to truth or falsehood, logically speaking.

Some of what is in the Bible is verifiable.

Comparing magical pixies to the Holy Bible only makes you look foolish. There is no comparison. I cannot think of any scholar who would agree with you, even if they were an atheist. Religious scholars almost universally agree that Jesus existed, even though everything that is attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be verified.

The verifiable proof that Jesus was a Prophet of God is the effect He had upon humanity. No ordinary man has ever had that kind of effect upon humanity that has lasted over 2000 years.

“What then is the mission of the divine prophets? Their mission is the education and advancement of the world of humanity. They are the real teachers and educators, the universal instructors of mankind. If we wish to discover whether any one of these great souls or messengers was in reality a prophet of God we must investigate the facts surrounding His life and history; and the first point of our investigation will be the education He bestowed upon mankind. If He has been an educator, if He has really trained a nation or people, causing it to rise from the lowest depths of ignorance to the highest station of knowledge, then we are sure that He was a prophet. This is a plain and clear method of procedure, proof that is irrefutable. We do not need to seek after other proofs.” Bahá’í World Faith, p. 273

Worthless to YOU.

I guess I should have said worthless to anyone who genuinely cares about the truth. If this 'other evidence' can lead people to fly planes into buildings then it's CLEARLY not a reliable means to obtaining the truth.

If you have any ‘other evidence’ for magical pixies let me know. I cannot even do a search for evidence because nothing comes up on the internet... hmmm.

Boy, then you really didn't make much of any genuine effort, did you? When I googled magical pixies I got loads of hits. Here's just a single example:

5 Magical Fairy Beings You Need To Know About: Pixies | Soul and Spirit

Comparing magical pixies to the Holy Bible only makes you look foolish. There is no comparison. I cannot think of any scholar who would agree with you, even if they were an atheist. Religious scholars almost universally agree that Jesus existed, even though everything that is attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be verified.

That's funny, because I was just thinking how you claiming that believing in god is perfectly reasonable, but believing in magical pixie's is ridiculous, truly makes you look foolish, when there is the exact same amount of verifiable evidence for both claims... that is to say, none whatsoever. It just another indication of just how far theist are willing to delude themselves in order to cling to their unsubstantiated beliefs.

And again, just because some guy named Jesus actually lived doesn't mean this Jesus guy had magical powers and came back to life after he died. That would be as moronic as claiming that just because some ancient Greek named Hercules really existed that it means this guy was the son of Zeus and accomplished all sorts of fantastical feats.

However, logically speaking that does not mean that the ‘other evidence’ for their claim is false. It could be either true or false.

You could also flip a coin to decide whether or not a claim in true or not. Just because the flip of the coin might at times be correct does NOT mean that flipping a coin is a reliable means of ascertaining the truth. Your 'other evidence' is JUST AS RELIABLE as flipping a coin... and that makes it WORTHLESS when it comes to reliably determining the truth of a claim.

 

[Trailblazer]

Ironic response, coming from someone who consistently misrepresents non-theists with assertions like:

I said: "God is just and fair so God provides evidence that everyone is capable of recognizing but atheists do not like the evidence God provides so they get left behind."

I do not misrepresent atheists. Atheists do not like Messengers of God which is the evidence God provides, therefore what I said above is accurate.

 

[columbus]

I do not misrepresent atheists. Atheists do not like Messengers of God which is the evidence God provides, therefore what I said above is accurate.

Your ability to make assertions about people like me, contradicting what I actually say and based on your belief that you can read minds, is pretty good evidence that your religious beliefs are more about ego than reality.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

Worthless to YOU.

I guess I should have said worthless to anyone who genuinely cares about the truth. If this 'other evidence' can lead people to fly planes into buildings then it's CLEARLY not a reliable means to obtaining the truth.

The ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) can also lead people to the truth. I am sorry you cannot understand that logical point.

It is true that some cars are junky cars, but just because some cars are junky that does not mean all cars are junky. In order to find out if a car is a good car or a junky car, we look at the evidence. If we know about cars we thoroughly check the car out before we buy it but if we don’t know about cars we take the car to the shop and have it checked out by a mechanic.

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions to assume that because some cars are junky all cars are junky.

Likewise, it is the fallacy of generalization to assume that because some of the ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) is junky evidence that all the ‘other evidence’ for God’s existence is junky evidence. There could just be some good evidence for God’s existence that is not verifiable but also not junky.

If you do not understand this you have a serious problem with logic.

I could give so many more examples of how these fallacies could be applied. Just because I had a bad boss once that does not mean all bosses are bad. Just because I once bought a house that had a lot of problems once that does not mean all houses have problems. Just because there are false prophets, that does not mean all prophets are false. Just because one religion is false that does not mean all religions are false. The list goes on.

Even if we try to find verifiable evidence and verify it that is no guarantee, because nothing can be verified 100%. For example I completely screened a tenant and I had verifiable evidence that he would be a good tenant and then after that he turned out to be a bad tenant.

If you have any ‘other evidence’ for magical pixies let me know. I cannot even do a search for evidence because nothing comes up on the internet... hmmm.

Boy, then you really didn't make much of any genuine effort, did you? When I googled magical pixies I got loads of hits. Here's just a single example:

5 Magical Fairy Beings You Need To Know About: Pixies | Soul and Spirit

Anyone can post a website. I do not consider that evidence.

Comparing magical pixies to the Holy Bible only makes you look foolish. There is no comparison. I cannot think of any scholar who would agree with you, even if they were an atheist. Religious scholars almost universally agree that Jesus existed, even though everything that is attributed to Jesus in the Bible cannot be verified.

That's funny, because I was just thinking how you claiming that believing in god is perfectly reasonable, but believing in magical pixie's is ridiculous, truly makes you look foolish, when there is the exact same amount of verifiable evidence for both claims... that is to say, none whatsoever. It just another indication of just how far theist are willing to delude themselves in order to cling to their unsubstantiated beliefs.

There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God because verifiable evidence is proof. However there is plenty of ‘other evidence’ for the existence of God whereas there is no evidence for the existence of magical pixies. A personal opinion that someone posts on a website is not evidence.

And again, just because some guy named Jesus actually lived doesn't mean this Jesus guy had magical powers and came back to life after he died. That would be as moronic as claiming that just because some ancient Greek named Hercules really existed that it means this guy was the son of Zeus and accomplished all sorts of fantastical feats.

I believe that Jesus existed but I do not believe that Jesus came back to life after He died because the evidence is not good enough to believe that. A story in the Bible that says that Jesus rose from the dead is not evidence that the story is true. That is a circular argument. Moreover, there were no eyewitnesses who were not part of the story, so what does that tell you?

However, logically speaking that does not mean that the ‘other evidence’ for their claim is false. It could be either true or false.

You could also flip a coin to decide whether or not a claim in true or not. Just because the flip of the coin might at times be correct does NOT mean that flipping a coin is a reliable means of ascertaining the truth. Your 'other evidence' is JUST AS RELIABLE as flipping a coin... and that makes it WORTHLESS when it comes to reliably determining the truth of a claim.

I am not suggesting that you flip a coin and then decide if the other evidence is valid. I am only suggesting that the other evidence could be valid even though it cannot be verified. But actually, a lot of the evidence for Baha’u’llah can be verified (unlike the evidence for Jesus), and that is precisely why I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. What cannot be verified is that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, but all the evidence indicates that He was telling the truth regarding His claim. That is as good as it gets because God is not a person so God is not going to show up and verify that He exists, so there is no way to verify that God exists. This is logic 101 stuff.

The only way we could ever have verifiable evidence (proof) that God exists is if God did something to prove He exists. I cannot say what that would be, I cannot even imagine what it would be, but I am not holding my breath because God has never operated that way. God has always required that humans verify His existence by looking at the Messengers He sends, from the beginning of human history.

 

[Trailblazer]

Your ability to make assertions about people like me, contradicting what I actually say and based on your belief that you can read minds, is pretty good evidence that your religious beliefs are more about ego than reality.
Tom

I was not referring to you.
I do not have to read minds. Atheists actually told me they do not consider Messengers of God to be evidence for the existence of God. There are only about 100 atheists who have told me this over the last five years.

 

[columbus]

I was not referring to you.
I do not have to read minds. Atheists actually told me they do not consider Messengers of God to be evidence for the existence of God. There are only about 100 atheists who have told me this over the last five years.

I don't consider your claim that some people are special "Messengers of God" to be particularly compelling either. All it tells me is that you consider yourself better than those of us who didn't find your opinions about God important.

That isn't the same as "don't like the Messengers". Frankly, I prefer the Bahai ethics to those of similar religions. So, I like them better than most prophets. But I still don't find your claim that they are official spokesmen for God especially credible.
I don't believe that God wants, much less needs, human spokesmen.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't consider your claim that some people are special "Messengers of God" to be particularly compelling either. All it tells me is that you consider yourself better than those of us who didn't find your opinions about God important.

I do not consider myself better and there is no basis for you to say that because you cannot read my mind.
People are just different, they are not better or worse than other people.

I might consider myself fortunate, but that does not mean I think I am better.
But sometimes I do not even consider myself fortunate because being a Baha'i is a very difficult road to travel.

That isn't the same as "don't like the Messengers". Frankly, I prefer the Bahai ethics to those of similar religions. So, I like them better than most prophets. But I still don't find your claim that they are official spokesmen for God especially credible.
I don't believe that God wants, much less needs, human spokesmen.
Tom

Okay, thanks for explaining that. It is not necessarily that atheists do not like the Messengers, it is more that they they do not like the idea that God might use Messengers to communicate, because they think that if God exists, God could communicate to them directly or do something else to prove He exists.

 

[CG Didymus]

I was not referring to you.
I do not have to read minds. Atheists actually told me they do not consider Messengers of God to be evidence for the existence of God. There are only about 100 atheists who have told me this over the last five years.

So you believe in the message from God that Baha'u'llah brought. I think you've said that the Quran was pretty good too. But, what about the others? Would you believe in the God or Gods presented in the Scriptures of the other religions?

The other thing is that it is hard to believe that this God is all-loving. The natural world, that I would assume follows things set forth by this God, is a scary place filled with death and disease. Natural disasters earthquakes and hurricanes and the like. That is a loving God's best plan? That is how that God thought it would be best to show humans how wonderful and caring he is? I don't know, I think there has to be someone who created all this, but I think it went out of its way to make the world a battle and challenge to survive... like a game.

Maybe more like the Greek Gods? Do you think they were real? No, I don't think you do. How about the Hindu Gods? They make room for Gods that help us and those that are trying to get us. How about the Christian Gods? A loving Father, a Son that gave his life to save us, and a Holy Spirit that helps us and guides us.... and a lower evil being, Satan, that is out to get us. No, I don't think you believe in any of those Gods. So other than the God described by Baha'u'llah, do you believe in any Gods? Or, are all these other Gods false and not real?

 

[Trailblazer]

So you believe in the message from God that Baha'u'llah brought. I think you've said that the Quran was pretty good too. But, what about the others? Would you believe in the God or Gods presented in the Scriptures of the other religions?

Yes, I believe in the God of the Bible. I cannot say about the others because I am not that familiar with them.

The other thing is that it is hard to believe that this God is all-loving. The natural world, that I would assume follows things set forth by this God, is a scary place filled with death and disease. Natural disasters earthquakes and hurricanes and the like. That is a loving God's best plan? That is how that God thought it would be best to show humans how wonderful and caring he is? I don't know, I think there has to be someone who created all this, but I think it went out of its way to make the world a battle and challenge to survive... like a game.

You are preaching to the choir. This material world is a storehouse of suffering, more for some people than for others, and then there are also animals that suffer and die. I have a bigger problem with animal suffering than I do with human suffering because animals are innocent.

I personally do not believe that God is All-Loving, because such a belief is impossible to accommodate in my logical mind. Obviously, God prefers some people over others. The only way this could be wrong is if the recompense in the afterlife is so great that it offsets the suffering in this hellhole. I am not holding my breath.

Maybe more like the Greek Gods? Do you think they were real? No, I don't think you do. How about the Hindu Gods? They make room for Gods that help us and those that are trying to get us. How about the Christian Gods? A loving Father, a Son that gave his life to save us, and a Holy Spirit that helps us and guides us.... and a lower evil being, Satan, that is out to get us. No, I don't think you believe in any of those Gods. So other than the God described by Baha'u'llah, do you believe in any Gods? Or, are all these other Gods false and not real?

Like I said, I believe in the God presented in the Bible, but I do not necessarily believe in everything that was presented about that God because there are transcription and translation issues with the Bible and it was written by men, not by a Manifestation of God.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) can also lead people to the truth. I am sorry you cannot understand that logical point.

It is true that some cars are junky cars, but just because some cars are junky that does not mean all cars are junky. In order to find out if a car is a good car or a junky car, we look at the evidence. If we know about cars we thoroughly check the car out before we buy it but if we don’t know about cars we take the car to the shop and have it checked out by a mechanic.

It is the Fallacy of Hasty Generalization and the Fallacy of Jumping to conclusions to assume that because some cars are junky all cars are junky.

Likewise, it is the fallacy of generalization to assume that because some of the ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) is junky evidence that all the ‘other evidence’ for God’s existence is junky evidence. There could just be some good evidence for God’s existence that is not verifiable but also not junky.

If you do not understand this you have a serious problem with logic.

I could give so many more examples of how these fallacies could be applied. Just because I had a bad boss once that does not mean all bosses are bad. Just because I once bought a house that had a lot of problems once that does not mean all houses have problems. Just because there are false prophets, that does not mean all prophets are false. Just because one religion is false that does not mean all religions are false. The list goes on.

Even if we try to find verifiable evidence and verify it that is no guarantee, because nothing can be verified 100%. For example I completely screened a tenant and I had verifiable evidence that he would be a good tenant and then after that he turned out to be a bad tenant.

Anyone can post a website. I do not consider that evidence.

There is no verifiable evidence for the existence of God because verifiable evidence is proof. However there is plenty of ‘other evidence’ for the existence of God whereas there is no evidence for the existence of magical pixies. A personal opinion that someone posts on a website is not evidence.

I believe that Jesus existed but I do not believe that Jesus came back to life after He died because the evidence is not good enough to believe that. A story in the Bible that says that Jesus rose from the dead is not evidence that the story is true. That is a circular argument. Moreover, there were no eyewitnesses who were not part of the story, so what does that tell you?

I am not suggesting that you flip a coin and then decide if the other evidence is valid. I am only suggesting that the other evidence could be valid even though it cannot be verified. But actually, a lot of the evidence for Baha’u’llah can be verified (unlike the evidence for Jesus), and that is precisely why I believe that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God. What cannot be verified is that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, but all the evidence indicates that He was telling the truth regarding His claim. That is as good as it gets because God is not a person so God is not going to show up and verify that He exists, so there is no way to verify that God exists. This is logic 101 stuff.

The only way we could ever have verifiable evidence (proof) that God exists is if God did something to prove He exists. I cannot say what that would be, I cannot even imagine what it would be, but I am not holding my breath because God has never operated that way. God has always required that humans verify His existence by looking at the Messengers He sends, from the beginning of human history.

The ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) can also lead people to the truth. I am sorry you cannot understand that logical point.

And like I said, flipping a coin to determine if you should believe something CAN lead to the truth as well, but that does NOT make it a reliable means of determining the truth. So I agree, your 'other knowledge' is JUST AS reliable as flipping a coin would be at figuring out what';s true and what's not.

Likewise, it is the fallacy of generalization to assume that because some of the ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) is junky evidence that all the ‘other evidence’ for God’s existence is junky evidence. There could just be some good evidence for God’s existence that is not verifiable but also not junky.

If you do not understand this you have a serious problem with logic.

You are right, it's POSSIBLE that there COULD be good 'other evidence' that is not 'junky'. JUST LIKE it's POSSIBLE that a flip of a coin COULD be accurate in determining the truth of something. The problem is that it's impossible to say whether 'other evidence' is good or bad unless you have some way to VERIFY its accuracy.

If you do not understand this then you have a serious problem with logic.

What cannot be verified is that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, but all the evidence indicates that He was telling the truth regarding His claim.

Sorry, but this 'other evidence' that you claim indicates he was telling the truth is NOT verifiable and thus is JUST AS reliable as flipping a coin would be.

A claim that can NEVER be verified should NEVER be accepted as true. To do otherwise is to abandon logic and reasoned thinking.

 

[ToGodorNottoGod]

God has always required that humans verify His existence by looking at the Messengers He sends, from the beginning of human history.

This is a Western bias however. The Chinese, Taoists, Zen practitioners, Vedanta and Buddhists (representing well over 1,000,000,000 human beings) don't have this take on religion. The idea of messengers is a human invention. It's why its unconvincing to the majority of the world.

I don't eat my food after another has chewed it first. I want it fresh and first hand, just like God is supposed to be. God and me, not someone else in between.

 

[Trailblazer]

The ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) can also lead people to the truth. I am sorry you cannot understand that logical point.

And like I said, flipping a coin to determine if you should believe something CAN lead to the truth as well, but that does NOT make it a reliable means of determining the truth. So I agree, your 'other knowledge' is JUST AS reliable as flipping a coin would be at figuring out what's true and what's not.

I am not suggesting you simply flip a coin in order to decide if God exists or not.
Since you do not even know what the ‘other evidence’ is you cannot say it is no more reliable than flipping a coin.

Likewise, it is the fallacy of generalization to assume that because some of the ‘other evidence’ (that is not verifiable) is junky evidence that all the ‘other evidence’ for God’s existence is junky evidence. There could just be some good evidence for God’s existence that is not verifiable but also not junky.

If you do not understand this you have a serious problem with logic.

You are right, it's POSSIBLE that there COULD be good 'other evidence' that is not 'junky'. JUST LIKE it's POSSIBLE that a flip of a coin COULD be accurate in determining the truth of something. The problem is that it's impossible to say whether 'other evidence' is good or bad unless you have some way to VERIFY its accuracy.

There is a way to verify its accuracy. What surrounds the Revelation of Baha’u’llah is verifiable and it can be verified that His Writings were written by Him..

What cannot be verified is that God communicated to Baha’u’llah, but all the evidence indicates that He was telling the truth regarding His claim.

Sorry, but this 'other evidence' that you claim indicates he was telling the truth is NOT verifiable and thus is JUST AS reliable as flipping a coin would be.

It is more reliable than flipping a coin but you can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. God can never be verified so you will die not believing God exists. You might even continue to believe that after you die, so there is a certain risk involved.

A claim that can NEVER be verified should NEVER be accepted as true. To do otherwise is to abandon logic and reasoned thinking.

Speak for yourself. Logical people know that God cannot EVER be verified to exist so they just accept that as the reality and look for the best possible evidence. Logical people do not expect to find verifiable evidence for God. That is completely insane.

 

[Willamena]

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.

If there was evidence of god, there would be no choice but to believe in god. Belief isn't a fancy.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a Western bias however. The Chinese, Taoists, Zen practitioners, Vedanta and Buddhists (representing well over 1,000,000,000 human beings) don't have this take on religion. The idea of messengers is a human invention. It's why its unconvincing to the majority of the world.

It does not really MATTER what people believe or how many people believe it. The Truth is whatever it is. People either discover it or fail to do so.

I don't eat my food after another has chewed it first. I want it fresh and first hand, just like God is supposed to be. God and me, not someone else in between.

God is not 'supposed to be' anything. God is whatever God is.

You will never have anything to do with God first hand because God is concealed from ordinary human beings. There is always a Mediator in between and even they do not see God first hand.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318

 

[Willamena]

It does not really MATTER what people believe or how many people believe it. The Truth is whatever it is. People either discover it or fail to do so.

God is not 'supposed to be' anything. God is whatever God is.

You will never have anything to do with God first hand because God is concealed from ordinary human beings. There is always a Mediator in between and even they do not see God first hand.

“Immeasurably exalted is He above the strivings of human mind to grasp His Essence, or of human tongue to describe His mystery. No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created, nor can the most abstruse and most remote allusions of His creatures do justice to His being. Through His world-pervading Will He hath brought into being all created things. He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence, and will everlastingly continue to remain concealed in His inaccessible majesty and glory. All that is in heaven and all that is in the earth have come to exist at His bidding, and by His Will all have stepped out of utter nothingness into the realm of being. How can, therefore, the creature which the Word of God hath fashioned comprehend the nature of Him Who is the Ancient of Days?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 317-318

The truth is what it is; when it comes from messengers, people must take it with a grain of salt. God is what it is; if it's hidden behind the world, the great mystery, then belief in the words of the messengers is nothing more than that: belief in the words of messengers.