Do "Believers" really believe?

[Feathers in Hair]

Not necessarily. I think it's more like the conscience denial of reason.

Even if they're fully aware that their own beliefs may be without reason?

 

[matthew.william]

Why does this not surprise me. Embracing the logic of an archaic understanding of nature and denying the overwhelming evidence in opposition to it is in keeping with the symptoms of delusional reasoning.

What is the evidence you speak of? You say it is overwhelmingly there, but I have not seen you give any.

For starters, it's the lack of empirical evidence to support assertions for the existence of the supernatural.

I believe that empirical evidence deals with the natural and tangible aspects of our world. Supernatural, by defintion, is above the natural order of things. If something that is seen as supernatural, is shown through empirical evidence to have a very natural explanation, it is no longer supernatural. Even if science explains all of the natural things in our world, it does not constitute that there is no supernatural. I assume your overwhelming evidence is more than, "we have proven a lot of things that were once thought to be supernatural, as very natural."

Science is based on the observation that the universe is governed by natural laws that can be discerned through repeatable experiments. Science serves as a reliable, rational basis for predictions. Skeptics use critical thinking to decide the validity of claims, and do not base claims on faith.

That's a very nice definition of science to which I agree 100 percent.

In the absence of a credible scientific theory explaining natural phenomena, people tend to attribute them to supernatural forces.

Blanket statement.

Science has since eliminated the need for appealing to supernatural explanations

Science does not deal in the supernatural. If what was once thought to be supernatural, is proven beyond a doubt natural, it is natural. I agree. I don't believe that people who believe in God do so because they can't explain something natural. There used to be gods for most natural events hundreds of years ago, but they seemingly vanished almost completely when science explained it. However, there still seems to be something science has not dealt with that 87 percent of the world seems to find important. Maybe if science comes up with a solution to it, your dream will come true.

Nearly all cultures have their own creation myths and gods, and there is no apparent reason to believe that a certain god has a special status above gods otherwise not believed to be real, or that one culture's god is more correct than another's. In the same way, all cultures have different, and often incompatible, religious beliefs, none any more likely to be true than another, making the selection of a single specific religion seemingly arbitrary.

So there isn't a God because there seems to be so many people who have believed in them over thousands of years?

I don't believe religions are incompatible because of the faith so much as mans baser instincts.

Would I be correct is summarizing this paragraph of yours with "There are so many different beliefs and gods, there seems to be no reason to pick one at all" ?

Apparently, there is a reason to believe that a certain god has special status over others. 87 percent of the world apparently finds a reason. There is apparently no reason not to believe in God. He cannot be proven to exist or not, and I find that when people try, they use circular logic.

 

[xexon]

Believers believe that they believe.

But in what, that point becomes a bit "nebulous".

Most have some vague understanding of the outline according to their path, but in my experience with people, they spend too much time gazing at the pond surface and never explore the depths behind it.

Thats where the action is.


x

 

[LogDog]

Even if they're fully aware that their own beliefs may be without reason?

If they choose to deny, that's their prerogative.

 

[LogDog]

What is the evidence you speak of? You say it is overwhelmingly there, but I have not seen you give any.

It's a lack of evidence.

I can't prove a negative, at least not with 100% certainty. I can most definitely show that it is highly unlikely that something is true, but I'll never be able to show with 100% certainty that is isn't true. Of course, that can mean that we are 99.999% sure something isn't true, which means we have very little evidence to think it is true.

Plus, it goes without saying that the burden of proof does not lie on my shoulders. If you're claiming that God exists, then it's up to you to prove it, not me. If we have no evidence for something, then the only rational conclusion we can make is that it doesn't exist. We don't have to prove it doesn't exist in the process. There simply being no evidence to support a belief is a perfectly adequate reason not to believe it. Again, if we are 99.999% sure something doesn't exist, then we have every reason to assume that it doesn't exist at all.

1. If there were an elephant walking around in my room at this moment, there would be a lot of evidence that there was one.
2. There is no evidence that there is an elephant walking around in my room at this moment.

Therefore, 3. There is no elephant walking around in my room at this moment.

It's why no one seriously believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the only reason for believing in something is that someone has just brought it forward as a possibility, does it make sense to believe in it?

There used to be gods for most natural events hundreds of years ago, but they seemingly vanished almost completely when science explained it. However, there still seems to be something science has not dealt with that 87 percent of the world seems to find important. Maybe if science comes up with a solution to it, your dream will come true.

What makes current day religions and gods any different than the religions and gods of our ancestors?

Would I be correct is summarizing this paragraph of yours with "There are so many different beliefs and gods, there seems to be no reason to pick one at all" ?

Pick a god. Any god.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

So you would not be content with us simply believing what we believe? We should believe as you do in order to hope that we might gain your respect?

 

[LogDog]

So you would not be content with us simply believing what we believe? We should believe as you do in order to hope that we might gain your respect?

Come on Feathers.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You are under the influence of a persistent false belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

A belief is not false if that person believes it. What is the contradictory evidence against belief?

Any belief, including that of a scientifically verifiable idea, is subjectively biased. All I know for sure is that I am a mind being bombarded with objective stimuli. Scientific or not, the stimuli is subject to interpretation by my mental self, which has been shaped by my life's experiences.

Does someone have a gun to your head?

Nope. Rather, I am a human animal doing my best to make sense of an existence that is complex in its design.

 

[Ðanisty]

But how many out there represent a belief in order to conform to and appease the wishes of peers, parents, voters, or hot christian neighbors? People lie all the time as a matter of self preservation and to get what they want. They lie when speaking the truth would only upset their path of least resistance.

There are most certainly a lot of people like that. It isn't representative of this forum though, so don't hold your breath on converting anyone.

You are under the influence of a persistent false belief in the face of strong contradictory evidence.

In my opinion, yes. To persist in a belief of the supernatural in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence leads me to question judgment.

But there isn't any contradictory evidence. There is some evidence to explain some things, but there is no evidence that the supernatural does not exist. Even if there was, this is quite pointless.

What you are trying to do here is flawed. In your mind, theists hold the burden of proof, but the theists don't have to prove anything to you. Empirical evidence is absolutely useless in matters of faith. In fact, that is the whole point of faith...believing without evidence. I think you're wasting your time asking for proof from theists, but I think fellow theists waste even more time when they bother catering to demands of evidence. Theists should have the guts to stand up and say "I believe in something illogical." Come on guys, don't let all this scientific talk confuse you. It's irrelevent.

And for the record, I believe with my entire heart and soul and I don't need your evidence or anyone else's to prove me either wrong or right.

 

[LogDog]

Come on guys, don't let all this scientific talk confuse you. It's irrelevent.

Yeah guys. Don't let rational thinking cloud your mind.

And here, have yourselves another sip of the Kool-Aid.

 

[ayani]

Yeah guys. Don't let rational thinking cloud your mind.

And here, have yourselves another sip of the Kool-Aid.

oh, for heaven's sake! Kool-Aid?

do you not agree that one can turn the idea of rationality itself into an idol?

 

[Ðanisty]

Yeah guys. Don't let rational thinking cloud your mind.

And here, have yourselves another sip of the Kool-Aid.

Don't worry LogDog, I never said it expecting you to understand it in the first place. The fact of the matter is that science and faith do not function the same way. To test science by means of faith would be wrong and vice versa.

 

[Gentoo]

I don't understand why people force others to defend either what they do believe or what they don't believe. I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend the phrase "Live and let live."

To believe is to believe, to not believe is to not believe. It's as simple as that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Is my faith really something you feel compelled to prove? Why on earth would it even matter to you?

I'm not sure what reponse you want him to give here. All faiths should be called into question.

Should we follow a group of people bent on killing themselves because a comet is approaching? Should we all be drinking that poison kool-aid or stockpiling guns because the lordr's rapture is at hand and we need to take up armes against satan and his forces of darkness?

Most religions are told that they should preach the gospel. In the christian community we know this to be true. Why should he "prove your way of life?" Well sometimes when people belive they are lost and are trying to make sense of things they lean toward religion to help them understand things. Here's where LDS, Jehovah's Witness, Catholicism and the MANY, MANY, MANY different flavors of christianity come into play. You begin to layout your way of life to the person....but they can't help it if it just doesn't make sense.


So don't. Who's asking you to?[/quote]

Now he said it was difficult but not impossible. Why the sarcasim? Is this going to help him to understand your way of life or anyone elses'?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

None of what I believe is delusional to me or in the slightest a fantasy. Like you've chosen to ignore -- truth is subjective to the individual. You cannot tell me that my truth is wrong and unbelievable because you do not know what I know.

So is it like those children that seem to be talking to some one whom we can't see? They truly believe their invisible friend pooky is standing right next to them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What a bore: what makes you think you have the right to have theists justify their beliefs to you?

The same right that you have when you tell us what you believe to be truth. When in debate here some are using their beliefs to justify statements made. Some quote the bible, some the quran etc....

If you are called to prove your position you have the right to or not.

It sounds to me like you've bought the whole Atheist joke

What's the joke? That Athiest say their is a reason for everything and it has nothing to do with gods?

Why waste your energy trying to evangelise for atheism and science when you can just have the pleasure of letting others be HAPPY?

I agree with you on this.

It is not our goal to persuade anyone to be an Athiest. Unlike like most we don't need to preach a gospel.

 

[Ðanisty]

I'm not sure what reponse you want him to give here. All faiths should be called into question.

I disagree. The only one who needs to question a faith is the person following it. It's frankly nobody else's business.

Should we follow a group of people bent on killing themselves because a comet is approaching? Should we all be drinking that poison kool-aid or stockpiling guns because the lordr's rapture is at hand and we need to take up armes against satan and his forces of darkness?

Then don't follow them. What you're talking about here isn't faith though. You're talking about behaviors and practices.

I'll tell you one thing though. This kool-aid crap is ticking me off. This thread isn't about cults. It's about belief...it's about religions and apparently also about people who can't handle the fact that others have them. If you don't agree with something, then don't follow it. Going around and pushing atheism doesn't make someone any better than theists going around and pushing their religion. If you can't believe something (even if that something is nothing) on your own without a support group, then you haven't got any business believing it. Who are you trying to convince anyway? Is it us or is it really yourselves? :sarcastic

It is not our goal to persuade anyone to be an Athiest. Unlike like most we don't need to preach a gospel.

Who are you speaking for when you say "we"? If you read LogDog's posts, he's made it clear he hopes to persuade people. Don't pretend that some atheists don't preach their own kind of "gospel."

 

[gnomon]

Pretty much skipping most of the posts to throw in 2 cents.

Any statement made about the nature of the universe is open for anyone to debate. However, my observation is that more people are moving away from a faith based cosmology towards a personalized faith which doesn't necessarily attempt to define any universal model. In the case of the latter, I usually do not see the purpose in debating except when an individual tries to project their faith onto me. Then hopefully a lively discussion will ensue.

There are certain beliefs which I feel are fully open to question and those who believe them must be able to justify their beliefs. Those beliefs revolve around faith based healing and children. Or more importantly, one individual being responsible for another person's well being. However, this line of argument extends to more than just someone's belief. It extends to the well being of another human.

There's 2 cents. That's about all it's worth.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I disagree. The only one who needs to question a faith is the person following it. It's frankly nobody else's business.

I agree with you to a certain degree. I remeber somtime ago a Jehovah's Witness came knocking professing his way of life so I questioned him. I don't believe that all religions do this. I don't believe that all are set out to profess or to persuade others to join their way of life.

Then don't follow them. What you're talking about here isn't faith though. You're talking about behaviors and practices.

Well, I don't follw any of it. How do you determine faith over behaviors and pratices? All religions that I have seen are deep rooted in behaviors and practices.

I'll tell you one thing though. This kool-aid crap is ticking me off. This thread isn't about cults. It's about belief...it's about religions and apparently also about people who can't handle the fact that others have them.

Just cause it's mainstream doens't mean it's not a cult. Just cause it's a considered a cult doesn't mean it's not a religion.

If you don't agree with something, then don't follow it. Going around and pushing atheism doesn't make someone any better than theists going around and pushing their religion. If you can't believe something (even if that something is nothing) on your own without a support group, then you haven't got any business believing it. Who are you trying to convince anyway? Is it us or is it really yourselves? :sarcastic

hmmm... i tend to agree with you on this. i don't follow any of it.

Who are you speaking for when you say "we"?
If you read LogDog's posts, he's made it clear he hopes to persuade people.

I don't necessarily agree with all of what he was saying. If he wants to persuade people (Outside) of this forum then that is his business. I hope that he wasn't thinking that he would be able to come here to covert people. That's not what this forum is all about.

Don't pretend that some atheists don't preach their own kind of "gospel."

I don't pretend anything. Maybe I should have said (majority). the US is primarily a monotheistic/polytheistic society so atheist aren't setting up tents town to town to convert people. that would be futile.

 

[matthew.william]

It's a lack of evidence.

Oh, okay, so we started off with the lack of empirical evidence of God. (post #75) Then in the same post, science disproves the supernatural ( I assume you mean God, and his actions) on a continual basis as we find out more about our world...through empirical evidence...and now it's back to a lack of evidence( post # 85). I wish you would make up your mind whether it's science or not. Science does not deal in lack of evidence to prove anything. Ever. It's not science. Done and done.

I can't prove a negative, at least not with 100% certainty. I can most definitely show that it is highly unlikely that something is true, but I'll never be able to show with 100% certainty that is isn't true. Of course, that can mean that we are 99.999% sure something isn't true, which means we have very little evidence to think it is true.

Not scientifically. Subjectively, of course.

Plus, it goes without saying that the burden of proof does not lie on my shoulders. If you're claiming that God exists, then it's up to you to prove it, not me.

I believe the burden does lie on you when you claim to have evidence for the non-existence of something. I don't have the burden of proving anything to you. You, If I recall, brought up the subject.

If we have no evidence for something, then the only rational conclusion we can make is that it doesn't exist.

If there is no evidence, there can be no rationality in the conclusion. If one is not given evidence, what is the reason for the conclusion? Did you just guess? Magic 8 Ball?

We don't have to prove it doesn't exist in the process. There simply being no evidence to support a belief is a perfectly adequate reason not to believe it.

As well as a perfectly adequate reason to believe in it. If no evidence is given in either direction, either conclusion is just as rational.

Again, if we are 99.999% sure something doesn't exist, then we have every reason to assume that it doesn't exist at all.

Subjective. With no evidence, a percentage of sureness is impossible.

1. If there were an elephant walking around in my room at this moment, there would be a lot of evidence that there was one.
2. There is no evidence that there is an elephant walking around in my room at this moment.

Therefore, 3. There is no elephant walking around in my room at this moment.

Yaayyy, science! You know through evidence that elephants exist. You know that your room exists. You know the size/destructive ability of an elephant .You can inspect the area of your room and conclude, there is no elephant in my room. Don't see your point.

It's why no one seriously believes in the Invisible Pink Unicorn or Flying Spaghetti Monster. If the only reason for believing in something is that someone has just brought it forward as a possibility, does it make sense to believe in it?

I will repeat, if there is no evidence for something, it is just as rational to believe or disbelieve in it. Nobody believes in the pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster, because nobody really cares, and if they do, they are just as rational to believe in it as you are to disbelieve it. Sense is subjective.

What makes current day religions and gods any different than the religions and gods of our ancestors?

Which gods? Which ancestors? What culture?

That's a huge long piece of writing, so I suggest you investigate it yourself. And not the cliff notes version . Of course, I suggest that based on if you really care to know the differences or not.

Pick a god. Any god.

Ah, okay, I guess my summarization was correct.

~matthew.william~