Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Panda]

You think, no matter what, what we think, what we believe, exists. That we cause everything just by thinking about it.

There is actually some physics to suggest things exist because we see them, I have explained the double slit experiment before. It does suggest the observer has an effect on their surroundings, the why and the how are totally lost on me however.

 

[doppelganger]

I understand your point well.

No, you don't understand it. You insist on rephrasing it in a way that incorrect. Like this:

You think, no matter what, what we think, what we believe, exists. That we cause everything just by thinking about it.

It's not about "cause" or "create." It's that all form and things are in thought (they are owned by our thoughts as WIllamena so nicely put it). We have our senses and we have our memory and we have a process we think of as "I am" that integrates sensations with memory. We don't experience the "existence" of things. We experience our sensations and categorize them according to forms stored in memory. When these sensations are matched to forms, they become the things, i.e. they then "exist." If the sensations change or the forms change, the things change, because thingliness only "exists" in the experiencing.

We create the laws and then think they were there before we fashioned them. This results in all sorts of ideas about the universe that seem perfectly rational to one person and completely nonsense to another.

For example:

We are in a complex movie made of energy. This movie has certain laws and these laws change depending on the level of our DNA.

Try having a discussion with a geneticist about what you consider "levels of DNA." :sarcastic

 

[Super Universe]

If so, then our reality would only be that which we sense, whether we understand it or not.

How do we all sense the same things then? Sure are a lot of coincidences.

How does an infant experience reality since it has only senses and no memory?

You said "When the senses or the forms change, the things change" but how would something change if we are completely dependant on our perception? It can't change unless we expect it to change in a certain way and then we perceive it's change. If so, it's quite an impossible coincidence that something would change (a friend's hair color perhaps) and everyone perceives this change in exactly the same way.

 

[doppelganger]

If so, then our reality would only be that which we sense, whether we understand it or not.

Our reality is our interpretation of that which we sense. We don't know what we don't understand (triple meaning intended).

How do we all sense the same things then? Sure are a lot of coincidences.

Who says we do. We compare notes about contemporaneous sensations and if we have the same forms we can communicate about it. But even if our notes seem to indicate that you and I are looking at the "same" apple, the context that gives that apple its form and meaning is to some degree going to be different, and so too is the apple we each experience.

How does an infant experience reality since it has only senses and no memory?

An infant accumulates memories, gradually learns to associate forms with sensations, concretizes his experience of sensations of pain and pleasure as his "self," and then begins to creatively use language and thought to impute form and meaning to things he experiences in his universe.

"When the senses or the forms change, the things change" but how would something change if we are completely dependant on our perception? It can't change unless we expect it to change in a certain way and then we perceive it's change. If so, it's quite an impossible coincidence that something would change (a friend's hair color perhaps) and everyone perceives this change in exactly the same way.

Who says they perceive the change in exactly the same way? There are bound to be similarities because there's a lot of shared form content that we learn from our culture and agree to for purposes of communication.

 

[logician]

I know why I don't believe most mainstream religions because to me they are obvious fiction - illogical and impossible tales of the supernatural that we see no parallel to or evidence supporting it today. Other pantheistic religions seem to be more philosophical in nature, but are not my particular cup of tea. I think being a skeptic is the best way to approach life, don't take anything at face value.

 

[Super Universe]

I guess I wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean "Why don't you believe in religions". I meant "Why don't you believe in God".

As for religions, I'm with you on that one.

 

[UnTheist]

I guess I wasn't specific enough, I didn't mean "Why don't you believe in religions". I meant "Why don't you believe in God".

Wasn't this already answered by a gazillion people in this thread?

 

[methylatedghosts]

Oh dear... seems this thread has gone way off track!


S-U - we do not all necessarily experience the same thing. My reality is not your reality. I can paint you a picture of a sunset in attempt to describe it. I can tell you about the sea breeze and the feel of the sand between my toes and the washing of the waves.

You can paint a picture of a sunset where you are and describe to me all of your associated experiences.

The sunset I experienced symbolises my reality. The sunset you experienced symbolises your reality.

We both experienced different realities - although they may be similar and all we have is the ability to convey these to each other using words and other symbols with associated meanings. What we share is the symbols and the meanings of those and those symbols represent different parts of our respective realities. We do not have the same reality, only the same symbols.

 

[Tiberius]

The bible was written by ignorant tribal holy men who didn't know what caused the ground to shake, lightning bolts, the wind. They thought meteors were fireballs from heaven, so when these things happened the people looked to their holy men and asked "Why is God angry with us?"

And the holy man said "I will meditate on this" and walked away. Well, the holy man didn't know what caused the storm but he had to come up with an answer or he wasn't going to be the holy man for much longer.

So, he would come back and say "We must make a sacrifice" and later on the priests would choose those most people were already against "It is the homosexuals God is against". And this was all passed down and written in their books.

God did none of it.

You don't see what your ego has to do with it? Did you know any of the above? Why didn't you? Maybe because you are not looking to find a way to believe. You don't want to believe. You have more freedom by not believing, you think finding God would mean church every Sunday and giving money and time and getting preached to.

Ah, wonderful. I need to find God, but the only evidences for God are religious texts written by ignorant tribal holy men who didn't know what caused the ground to shake, lightning bolts, the wind.

And then you say that it's bad for me not to believe? It's bad for me to not believe this book written by ignorant tribal holy men who didn't know what caused the ground to shake, lightning bolts, the wind?

Yes, let's believe in a God presented in a book based on ignorance, what a good idea.

 

[rasor]

How else would you know God exists? Well, your standard of proof. Is it easier to believe that atoms formed themselves and formed time and organized planetary systems that followed physical laws and then those atoms, somehow, formed life?

Here we go with the God Gap again

 

[rasor]

Why assume that God does not become angry and does not sadden?

Because He created the universe. A being that creates the universe is quite evolved. .

Use logic.

"quite evolved" eh ? Evolved from what ? Surely as a GOD he couldn't evolve ?

 

[rasor]

They recycle back to the earth, again, and again, and again, and...

That will do for me :yes:

 

[rasor]

No one answers the question. None of you are willing to admit that you don't know why you don't believe. You say "Show me the evidence" when the evidence is the universe, the evidence is the earth and life.

The reason you don't believe in God is because He can't fit in with your ego. You are much too important to yourself.

I don't believe in Bertrand Russels Celestial Teapot either,even though no one can prove it doesn't exist.
The burden of proves lies upon the person making the claim.ie the believer

 

[rasor]

I wonder why there's no life on Mercury, Venus, Mars, or the moon?

.

How do you know this ? The real answer is "No life has been detected on Mercury,Venus , Mars or the moon" .Again you are using the God of the gap to explain things we don't know.:thud:

 

[rasor]

Life is completely natural? Then why isn't it in space? Why isn't it on the moon? On asteroids? On Mars and Venus?

Do you know this for certain ? If so,how ?:bow:

 

[rasor]

No supernatural thing exists. Everything abides by the physical laws. Even God will not/can not violate them. If He did, the universe would cease to exist.

So your God isn't omnicient then ?

 

[Super Universe]

Ah, wonderful. I need to find God, but the only evidences for God are religious texts written by ignorant tribal holy men who didn't know what caused the ground to shake, lightning bolts, the wind.

And then you say that it's bad for me not to believe? It's bad for me to not believe this book written by ignorant tribal holy men who didn't know what caused the ground to shake, lightning bolts, the wind?

Yes, let's believe in a God presented in a book based on ignorance, what a good idea.

You need to find God? I didn't say that.

I said it's bad for you not to believe? No, I did not say that either. Read slower.

The only evidence for God are religious texts? No, the universe is evidence. The earth is, and most of all, life.

 

[Super Universe]

So your God isn't omnicient then ?

God can't evolve? Wrong.

The burden of proof does not lie on the believer. What a convenient view for you to take? The burden of proof lie's on anyone who makes a claim, believer or not.

And you have avoided answering the OP as well. Maybe you don't have any evidence that God does not exist? Then why don't you believe? You don't even know, do you?

God is not omniscient? What does having infinite knowledge have to do with Him choosing to abide by the physical laws that He set in place?

I guess you meant to say "He is not omnipotent". You constantly spin things. As I said, God can violate the physical laws but He does not do so. Why would He create a law and then violate it? You are trying to put Him into a very small, human like, box.

 

[turk179]

What is the reason you don't believe in God? Or the reason you're not absolutely positively sure God exists?

I'd guess the number one reason is because people see bad things happening all around them and can't understand why God would allow it to happen.

How would you rate the other reasons not to believe?

Now the key question, where would you rate your own ego as a reason and do you realize it's the main reason?

I do not believe in G_d because G_d came to me and told me he does not exist.

 

[Random]

I do not believe in G_d because G_d came to me and told me he does not exist.

That is actually something akin to what I believe GOD would do, you know...:yes: