Do You Know Why You Don't Believe?

[Kcnorwood]

I got one when those who call themselves Christians fight among themselves over what docterine is right & what this or that word means why should anyone else believe them?

 

[UnTheist]

Wow, this is still going on?

And since when was a person required to "provide evidence supporting their disbelief", when evidence to the contrary hasn't been provided in the first place?

 

[Super Universe]

Wow, this is still going on?

And since when was a person required to "provide evidence supporting their disbelief", when evidence to the contrary hasn't been provided in the first place?

You're not required to do anything.

Whatever a person believes, they do so for a reason. Things begin to add up and faith builds. There is nothing that is absolute, we just have lesser degrees of doubt.

 

[UnTheist]

But it isn't a belief system.

 

[Runt]

We as humans use our senses to create a useful construct of what is actually there. God however can not be sensed by any of the 5 senses. It is purely memetic and a story or idea passed down from one aeon to the next.

...

People may justify why they cant or wont do those things but that will never change that god can not be percieved by any means humans currently have of perceiving. His story, works, a preachers words and tales are what people derive this belief from.

And yet there have been many mystics and religious individuals who claim to have had experiences---both sensory and supersensory---of God. Some of the more interesting examples include textual accounts such as the hierophanies and theophanies of Moses and Ezekiel in the Bible (burning bush and God upon the throne-chariot) and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Christian and Muslim love mysticism---particularly with certain forms of Sufism---and the "consolations" experienced by Teresa de Avila and many Catholic women, both in Teresa's time as well as today. who read her treatise on prayer. Most simply, the sense that the Holy Ghost, God or Christ is speaking to one during prayer or even everyday tasks is a common example of the kinds of sensory and supersensory experiences people claim to have today.

It is only when we try to repeat these experiences, to subject the idea of God to scientific testing---that people fail to produce tangible evidence for the existence of a divine reality. While I'm certainly not about to argue that the experiences religious individuals claim to have had are genuine---I'll be honest and say that while I believe they have indeed had experiences, I'm an atheist and don't believe those experiences were actually of the divine---I do recognize that claims have been made, and some people truly believe that they had the experience they claim to have had.

Some claim to sense god, or that he answers their prayers, or that they actually hear god. I perceive that in the same fashion as some people can taste shapes, have split personalites or believe in vampires.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with you. On the other, if mystical experiences are delusions, they're pretty impressive and widespread ones, since so many people claim, at the very least, to have had their prayers answered.

I'm not being derogatory its just how I reason their claims. If god is talking to them perhaps they should ask him to reveal himself and if he is answering their prayers perhaps they should pray everyone be enlightened with his purpose or for world peace.

Come now, you and I both know how religious individuals respond to this very criticism. Some feel God HAS revealed himself---to everyone---and that people who disagree are just in denial. Others argue that God is helping everyone become enlightened but some just aren't ready yet or aren't listening. Yet others argue that God cannot or will not force world peace upon the humanity because that either interferes with our free will or because even conflict and suffering are a part of God's great, mysterious plan.

My main criticism to the above is:
1) If God has a plan, to enact that plan either necessitates manipulating humanity into playing our parts in that plan, or it's possible that God's plan can fail, which suggests God is not perfect or even omnipotent.
2) If God is helping everyone become enlightened, but some people die before they have reached that point, then God has failed to enlighten a person and therefore, again, is not perfect, omnipotent, or quite possibly even beneficent.
3)If God has revealed himself, but it is possible to be in denial about his existence, then he hasn't revealed himself thoroughly enough. We should be compelled to accept his existence; denial should not even be possible, although defiance may be.

Now to each their own, people can believe whatever they want to believe within the confines of their own personal freedoms. You can be catholic, baptist, hindu, UU or whatever... I can accept that. I do ponder though, like Dawkins argues in the "God Delusion" whether religion is more harmful to a person and society then it is helpful.

This is a question I've always been curious about, as well. I wish someone would figure out a way to measure the amount of demonstrable benefit and harm religion has done to individuals and society over history and compare the two to determine which is more significant. I'd also be interested in comparing the above figures to those of various secular ideologies, to see how religion compares to capitalism, to communism, to democracy, to fascism, to humanism, and so on and so forth. It would be quite a task, however, to untangle religious from political or motivations in any of the above categories.

 

[yossarian22]

Whatever a person believes, they do so for a reason. Things begin to add up and faith builds. There is nothing that is absolute, we just have lesser degrees of doubt.

And I suppose that this is absolutely true?

 

[s2a]

Hiya SuperUniverse,

You said:

What's left to settle? What do you still want to debate? You don't have to believe. Get over it.

What's left?

I KNOW I don't have to believe. Do you KNOW that you don't "have to" too?

I "instigated" this thread? Hehe... So that is an instigation now?

Ummm...yes.

instigate, verb:
[to] set in motion, get underway, get off the ground, start, commence, begin, initiate, launch, institute, set up, inaugurate, establish, organize; actuate, generate, bring about; start the ball rolling on, kick off."

Is this definition somehow unclear, or otherwise incomprehensible to you?

From what I remember, no one answered the question sufficiently. All I got was "I see no reason to believe" as if you need absolute proof for everything when there are so many things that you trust (cars, homes, bridges, airplanes, gravity, food, people...) without knowing the full background of.

What?

You specifically asked, "Do you know why you don't believe?"

In the manner that the question is specifically put, a simple "yes" or "no" reply satisfactorily fulfills the demands of an expectant response.

Perhaps you would like to ask (instead), "Would you care to explain or justify why you don't believe [that particular faith-based claims are either true, or are "unbelievable")?

Certainly, any respondent is welcomed to present any "proofs" of any kind to either preface or legitimize their replies in whatever manner or tendered argument they choose.

I would be a sorry sort if I felt that I had to validate myself to you.

Which, of course, was not an expressed expectation of mine to be fulfilled by you, or anyone else.

In the grand scheme of things, who are you? In the ungrand scheme of things, who are you? Zero is still zero regardless of the changing weather.

Deflect much?

Again...this ain't about me, or whatever "scheme" you perceive myself to either supposedly support or defend.

I note that the question itself remains valid (and perhaps interesting to others), regardless of whom may put it forward for invited reply.

 

[gnostic]

I know this is an old topic, but this is the 1st time I have come across it. But since someone has bump up this topic, I would like to address the earlier posts, between Super Universe and Buttercup.

You need reasonable proof? Sure, that's it. But you set your standard of what you consider reasonable proof. Your standard may be very different from another's standard, certainly, your statement of requiring God to come over and introduce Himself is quite strict.

Buttercup is more than reasonable in wanting evidence. Heck, I would like to see some evidences for myself. I don't see anything wrong with her "standard", as you've put it, as being reasonable proof. And I don't believe her ego have anything to do with it.

Your way thinking that she shouldn't have proof is far more egotistic and unreasonable.

 

[Wandered Off]

And I don't believe her ego have anything to do with it.

Right. In post 950, SU said that those who don't believe "are supposed to be what they are," and he agreed that they haven't had the kind of experiences that would be sufficient to alter belief. I don't see how either of these reasons necessarily has to be related to ego.

If indeed "they are supposed to be what they are", then even if it were ego, he says that is how it's "supposed" to be, so I don't see the point of bringing it up as if it's a bad thing.

 

[Super Universe]

Hiya SuperUniverse,

You said:
What's left?

I KNOW I don't have to believe. Do you KNOW that you don't "have to" too?

Ummm...yes.

instigate, verb:
[to] set in motion, get underway, get off the ground, start, commence, begin, initiate, launch, institute, set up, inaugurate, establish, organize; actuate, generate, bring about; start the ball rolling on, kick off."

Is this definition somehow unclear, or otherwise incomprehensible to you?

What?

You specifically asked, "Do you know why you don't believe?"

In the manner that the question is specifically put, a simple "yes" or "no" reply satisfactorily fulfills the demands of an expectant response.

Perhaps you would like to ask (instead), "Would you care to explain or justify why you don't believe [that particular faith-based claims are either true, or are "unbelievable")?

Certainly, any respondent is welcomed to present any "proofs" of any kind to either preface or legitimize their replies in whatever manner or tendered argument they choose.

Which, of course, was not an expressed expectation of mine to be fulfilled by you, or anyone else.

Deflect much?

Again...this ain't about me, or whatever "scheme" you perceive myself to either supposedly support or defend.

I note that the question itself remains valid (and perhaps interesting to others), regardless of whom may put it forward for invited reply.

You absolutely don't have to believe in God. This universe is a free will place, it's your gift from God, I certainly can't change that nor do I really care to. It's like a stinging ant, I could crush it easily but why, it's only doing what ants are supposed to be doing.

Do I know that I don't have to believe? Hmm, not sure. My belief is absolute. I cannot deny what I have experienced. It would be a greater wrong than even Judas committed, he was just another ant.

Yes, you are so smart. I did not understand the word instigation. Please limit your responses to words that I can comprehend like childish anger, bitterness, and insistant negativity towards anything and everything good.

In the manner in which the OP is specifically put a simple yes or no would suffice. Still, you refuse to give even that. What are you afraid of?

 

[Super Universe]

I know this is an old topic, but this is the 1st time I have come across it. But since someone has bump up this topic, I would like to address the earlier posts, between Super Universe and Buttercup.


Buttercup is more than reasonable in wanting evidence. Heck, I would like to see some evidences for myself. I don't see anything wrong with her "standard", as you've put it, as being reasonable proof. And I don't believe her ego have anything to do with it.

Your way thinking that she shouldn't have proof is far more egotistic and unreasonable.

But she does have evidence, a universe full of nothing but evidence. Do you trust a bridge that you know virtually nothing about? Do you trust a policeman who you've never met? Do you trust a building that you did not see every stone set in place? Do you trust gravity even though you don't know where it comes from? Do you believe the sun will shine tomorrow? How about the next day, and the next? You believe that the Eiffel Tower exists yet you've never stood on it?

You trust so many things that you barely know anything about yet you refuse to trust that this incredibly beautiful planet earth was intended.

You refuse because...

 

[gnostic]

My evidence of God is this. Close your eyes. Step outside at night, then open them. "Taddah!"

And all you will see are stars.......maybe the moon....maybe some clouds.....nothing more/nothing less....

Unless, of course, you see something more.

I see what Dirty Penguin see.

On occasion I may see a bird or two flying around at night. Perhaps, some insects. Perhaps, even a plane. Sometimes, the tree branches block my view of the sky. On stormy night, I would see some lightnings.

But still no fellow whom you call God.

 

[Magic Man]

But she does have evidence, a universe full of nothing but evidence. Do you trust a bridge that you know virtually nothing about? Do you trust a policeman who you've never met? Do you trust a building that you did not see every stone set in place? Do you trust gravity even though you don't know where it comes from? Do you believe the sun will shine tomorrow? How about the next day, and the next? You believe that the Eiffel Tower exists yet you've never stood on it?

You trust so many things that you barely know anything about yet you refuse to trust that this incredibly beautiful planet earth was intended.

You refuse because...

You misunderstand what is evidence and what is not. The universe is not evidence of God because it could just as easily prove the non-existence of God. Evidence leads to a certain conclusion.

your argument here is a non sequitur. I believe those things because there is good reason to believe, and in some of the cases, it doesn't matter. I trust a building because I have to, and I've never had one collapse on me. I trust that the sun will come up because it has every day of my life. I believe the Eiffel Tower exists because I've stood next to it, and even if I hadn't, I could deny it exists, but who cares? the idea that there is a God has a whole lot of implications on my life. The existence of the Eiffel Tower does not.

I don't refuse to trust that this universe was created by a God. I just don't believe it. Why do you refuse to trust that it wasn't?

 

[gnostic]

Do you trust a bridge that you know virtually nothing about?

No. I actually don't give much thought about the bridge. And I don't give much thought to trust either. So?

Do you trust a policeman who you've never met?

No, I don't. And?

Do you trust a building that you did not see every stone set in place?

Again, I don't understand this "trust" that you harping about. It is the furthest thing from my mind.

Do you trust gravity even though you don't know where it comes from?

I know about gravity, but there's that dumb word again - "trust".

Do you believe the sun will shine tomorrow? How about the next day, and the next?

I will not be surprise if it did or didn't, and again I don't give much thought of it.

You believe that the Eiffel Tower exists yet you've never stood on it?

I have seen photos, drawings of it. My sister have been there, so I pretty sure I know it exist. The Eiffel Tower have substance. You can't say the same about this "god" of yours.

First of all you are comparing what exist and what don't exist. What can be experience and what can't be experienced. They are two different things. One has substance, and the others like God.

I know of the sun burning off gas, even though I have never been on the sun...which would be silly anyway. But have seen solar flare through the telescope with filters, so I know there is fire involved, even though I could not see it with my naked eye, without the use of the telescope. And the same time, I know that the sun give heat, because I can feel it on my skin on the cloudless sunny day.

All this have substance, which is more than I can say about god. Your points are pointless. You need a more substance with your argument.

 

[Super Universe]

I see what Dirty Penguin see.

On occasion I may see a bird or two flying around at night. Perhaps, some insects. Perhaps, even a plane. Sometimes, the tree branches block my view of the sky. On stormy night, I would see some lightnings.

But still no fellow whom you call God.

Why would you be looking for a "fellow"? Open your mind. God is not a humanoid being. He is a "being" unlike any other.

 

[Magic Man]

Why would you be looking for a "fellow"? Open your mind. God is not a humanoid being. He is a "being" unlike any other.

Sure, but then I could call anything "God". Then where does that get me?

 

[Super Universe]

You misunderstand what is evidence and what is not. The universe is not evidence of God because it could just as easily prove the non-existence of God. Evidence leads to a certain conclusion.

your argument here is a non sequitur. I believe those things because there is good reason to believe, and in some of the cases, it doesn't matter. I trust a building because I have to, and I've never had one collapse on me. I trust that the sun will come up because it has every day of my life. I believe the Eiffel Tower exists because I've stood next to it, and even if I hadn't, I could deny it exists, but who cares? the idea that there is a God has a whole lot of implications on my life. The existence of the Eiffel Tower does not.

I don't refuse to trust that this universe was created by a God. I just don't believe it. Why do you refuse to trust that it wasn't?

How exactly could the universe prove the non-existence of God? If you could actually answer this you would have a Nobel Prize awaiting...

You don't have to trust a building, you can refuse to enter it. You've never had one collapse on you? I think some people in China might have thought the same thing. You trust the sun will come up everyday in the future because it has everyday before? The past does not make the future. You are a very trusting sort, too trusting.

God's existence has exactly ZERO implications on your life because you already have a life. It's a gift, free from God. You already have a universe, earth, and body built to host you and you can do whatever you want with it. God doesn't prove Himself to you because that would violate your free will.

I see no good reason to believe in the existence of the Eiffel Tower. None. And there is nothing you can do to change my mind.

 

[Super Universe]

Sure, but then I could call anything "God". Then where does that get me?

Ah, so what's in it for you, huh? What do you get out of it other than a beautiful earth and a body, a life? That's not enough for you though, you wanted to be rich and famous as well.

Sigh...

 

[gnostic]

Why would you be looking for a "fellow"? Open your mind. God is not a humanoid being. He is a "being" unlike any other.

None of your questions are relevant to the existence of god, and doesn't provide proof of ones.

So far, you haven't proven that this god is this universe. Or you have done is babble about "trust" in this and that.

 

[Super Universe]

None of your questions are relevant to the existence of god, and doesn't provide proof of ones.

So far, you haven't proven that this god is this universe. Or you have done is babble about "trust" in this and that.

Uh, how exactly could I or anyone prove the existence of God? I also notice that you have provided no evidence disproving God.

I'm sorry you don't understand, but then, how could you?