There's only belief no knowledge. That's what I believe now.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Double Minded Atheist
- Thread starter g2perk
- Start date
And you are making supposedly factual statements without any facts to support them. Not only that, what you wrote, with respect to the two statements in question, will be interpreted one way by some, the other way by others (and a third way -- both are simply wrong -- by me and those like me). Which demonstrates my point very graphically.
Look, the whole point of epistemology is to try to figure out how we can "know" what we think we know. And yes, what must qualify as mere belief.There's only belief no knowledge. That's what I believe now.
To be very clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief, either, so long as it's reasonable. I believe my partner loves me, and that belief is enough to sustain me. On the other hand, if I believe that my horoscope saying, "You'll come into a lot of money very soon" means I'm guaranteed to win the lottery -- and that convinces me to spend my mortgage money on tickets -- I'm a fool. This is not a good belief, for the simple reason that the odds are so fantastically against it -- and bad odds constitutes a strong kind of evidence, if not proof.
And to be honest, I really don't think people always really believe what they say they believe. Take the Christian who claims to love and live by every word that Jesus said. If that Christian then goes out and works very hard to make lots and lots of lovely money (as so many American mega-church pastors do), how can I accept their belief as real, when Jesus said "give away all you have" and "it is harder for a rich man to gain the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." Clearly, there's a very real cognitive dissonance there!
I"ll go further with that last point, and state that all earthly rewards put together remain yet finite, and short-term, while for the truly-believing Christian, the torments of hell for sin (as well as the rewards for "being good") are infinite. I put it to you plainly -- I believe that when my stove burner is red, it will burn badly if a rest my hand on it. And therefore I never, ever, ever do so. And yet every "believing" Christian I've ever met sins all the time, and ignores a very great deal of what Christ appears to demand. Do you think I really think they believe what they think they believe? No, I don't.
Christ's Prophet
Member
For an atheist to say that God does not exist, is an impossibility. Can any fallible man satisfactorily search this whole universe for the existence of God? You would literally have to be God to know that there is no God. You may search your whole life for the existence of God and because you are not looking in the right place, you may miss Him completely. But actually all you have to do is go to the Bible and He is there on every page as He has interacted with millions of people through history. If someone can’t find God, you’re not trying. Psalm 14:1 (KJV) The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity
For a Christian to say that other gods do not exist, is an impossibility. Have you searched the whole universe for the existence of Zeus or Thor or all the other thousands of gods?
If he has interacted with millions of people through history surely some of them must have produced books telling us more about God than the Bible does. Can you list some of these books? Just for variation so we don't have to refer to just one book all the time?
Believe it or not I believe I got your point. We only believe we have a partner and we only believe there's a lottery for all we know we live in the Matrix or something equivalent and everything we regard as evidence for something is also an illusion. So we literally know nothing.
It is not only possible, but very easy to do. i do it all the time, without any effort.
Look, I can also say: the speed of light in vacuum is constant, even though I did not searched the whole Universe for possible violations.
Ergo, it is possible to make claims of knowledge without being certain. Knowledge and certainty are not the same thing. After all, the two words "scientific knowledge" make sense even though science is not in the business of certainty, almost by definition.
My Muslim friend told me the same about Allah. Do you think his advise merits any consideration?
I must first believe the Bible, don't you think so? If nice stories in a book would suffice as evidence, I could probably believe in Zeus and Poseidon by reading the Odyssey.
Viole 16:34: And the wise hath said it to the whole world.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Similarly, it appears that nobody can ever prove that any god(s) exist at all.
It would take an unbelievably complex set of excessively unlikely assumptions to suppose that everything is an illusion. In the very first place, WHOSE ILLUSION? And how does your illusion manage to communicate successfully with my illusion, and hundreds of others. How does your illusion impact upon the illusions of the million people that see you on video at the baseball game? In fact, how do you imagine the same the same events at the same games as all the people in the stands -- as well as all the people watching on television? And how do you manage to force your imagined images onto video recordings that anybody else can "imagine" later? It is to laugh!
This truly silly supposition of "all is illusion" not only violate's Occam's Razor (all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the best), it completely and irretrievably destroys it. But I suppose it's actually easier than trying to understand what you actually experience. That'd be hard work.
And do you find God in the killing of David and Bathsheba's son for David's sin? What did the baby do that it had to suffer for 7 days before dying by God's own wish? You find God in the Psalms, so how about 157.9, "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." Very godly, indeed. Did Pharaoh die, or just the first born of Egypt, from the first born of Pharaoh himself to the first born of the lowliest slave in the land? And wasn't it God hardening Pharaoh's heart, anyway -- setting him up for punishment? How about the flood -- every person on earth except 8, and every land animal except 2 (or some other number) of each condemned to destruction. Were they all full grown adults? No innocent children among them? It certainly seems harsh to me to condemn a child born an hour ago to death for being so evil!
It's odd about Jephthah's daughter, too. God (as we see in many passages) is perfectly capable of making his will known to humans. He managed it with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, and on and on and on. But Jephthah makes a rash promise and has to kill his daughter -- and god, in doubt in a momentary lapse, forgets that he could easily let Jephthah know that it won't be necessary.
Okay, maybe you find God there. I don't -- and I certainly don't find "love" in the passages I've cited. Belief as expressed by all the Christianity I've ever heard of takes way too much suppression of good sense and moral reasoning for my taste.
Sorry for late answer I haven't had much time to spend on forums lately but here is an interesting article and video on the subject. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/09/06/492779594/what-if-evolution-bred-reality-out-of-us
Christ's Prophet
Member
It seems to me that you hold this passing world too highly. You are not doing your homework. You have quoted Psalm 157.9 which does not exist. It is Psalm 137.9 which says "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. “The background is that the Psalmist is cursing the enemies of the Lord. He wants God to be glorified with the defeat of His enemies. It is generally held that the death of babies, who are not of an age of accountability, will be judged accordingly, and go to be with the Lord. That covers most of your objections which seems to be about children.
Now you talk about God hardening Pharaoh’s heart. Have you not read that before that, that Pharaoh hardened his own heart against the Israelites by putting the Israelites into hard labor in Egypt? God was merely using the decision that Pharaoh had already made for His glory.
You say that YHWH God is not a God of love. God gives you food and shelter and work. He gives you the ability to make your own decision as to where you want to spend eternity and Christ has made that available for us through His death. The fact is that the LORD God is a holy God and hates sin which afflicts you and me and this sick world where there is hate, murder and destruction. But God is merciful that He does not pour out His judgment and wrath on this present world. You must also understand this, you cannot refuse to believe in God, because He does not measure up to your imperfect standard. That is eternally dangerous. Compared to God, we know nothing at all.
The real problem for many people is that this is the God with whom we have to do. You cannot wish Him away. It is like standing on the railway tracks and wishing that the train wasn’t coming. You had better have another look at Jesus Christ our Lord.
Christ’s prophet. Certainty for eternity.
Yes, you are correct, I made a typo. That is -- of course -- exactly the same thing as not doing my homework. That criticism might, however, come to bite you on the bum before long. Remember to never make an error, or you will be accused of not doing your homework. I love that "Christian" part of you, by the way.
So you are in agreement with your God -- killing babies is pretty much all right because they go to heaven straight away! On that argument, I might suggest it would be wise to kill them all, and avoid the possibility of their growing old enough to miss commit sin and miss the opportunity. You good with that?
No, I do not. The Bible does. The phrase "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" is used multiple times. As I am not the author, please don't accuse me of having said it. I merely quote the book you love.
I'd like you to notice that you have now pretended to have access to God's own way of thinking. I would consider that to be just slightly hubristic.
I love it! Your mother and father didn't give you food or shelter, your company didn't give you work, nobody but God did anything at all for you! Then why not tell all those slackers to **** off and leave you alone? They've done nothing at all for you --- God did the whole lot. You owe nothing to anyone. That's gotta be a huge load of your mind (which could probably use the respite).
If there were an eternity for me to spend, that might make some sense. Tell me something, since you have such a strong belief in eternity -- what were you doing during the French Revolution? Remember it at all? How did it feel? What was it like when you left that part of eternity and moved on to the next?
GOD IS LOVE. LOVE IS THE EXTREME OPPOSITE OF HATE. LOVE CANNOT HATE. IF GOD IS LOVE, GOD CANNOT HATE. So when you say "God hates sin," are you denying that God is love? It would be good if you could get that off your chest, at least.
I can see the train, and I can easily step out of the way. When you can point to God (or Jesus) -- when you can make them do your bidding and off me to hell -- I might give you some credence. Until then, I'll just assume, like the train on the empty track before me, that they are not there.
Oh, yeah. Another "prophet!" Should have known. The lack of any real knowledge should have been a dead giveaway.
For an atheist to say that God does not exist is a statement of belief, hardly an impossibility. Atheism is about belief.
Try thinking. Do you believe that schlagoras exist? Why or why not? Is it a statement of belief for you to say "yes" or "no?" Or would you not first ask, "what the heck are Schlagoras before I even try to answer?" I do the same. I do not state that "God does not exist." I state, rather, that nobody has ever -- NOT EVER -- produced a definition of God that I can say "the evidence says yes." And in the meantime, I'm confronted with an entire universe full of evidence of everything BUT God.
So, tell me what you think God is, and tell me what evidence you see for God, and I'll consider it.
By the way, I guarantee you this -- you have never, ever, had real evidence of God. What you had was training from the moment you were born. If you had been born somewhere else, you would believe something else. Of course, you'll never see that.
I can have no belief about gibberish one way or the other, but that's not the same as disbelieving in gods. It would be dishonest to say there is no such-and-such that I've never heard of, but I can only be honest when I say there is no god, as it's my belief.
And that is your belief.
truthseeker1111
New Member
Carlita, I noticed another response from you on another thread as well, and I liked your responses.
In this case, I'm wondering - why would the fact that attributes of G-d are given in human terms make you think that G-d doesn't exist. If the Bible is right that G-d created man in his image, then it stands very much to reason that His characteristics would be describable in human terms, no? Or is it just the fact that the descriptions are in human terms doesn't give you a strong reason to believe that G-d is anything more than a man-made concept? Either way, I guess I'm trying to say that this fact seems equally consistent with both Bible and atheism, and if so, then can't be used to support the Biblical G-d or atheism.
Best,
truth
meghanwaterlillies
Well-Known Member
what good did contribute?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Thank you. Since I have school and work, I won't be commenting on future posts. So, any posts in Religious Debates and General Religious Debates that come through, it would be my last. I'll be on interfaith and DIRs though but not often.
However, your thoughts and mindset can change (or characteristics you have) about god and make god into a different image (hence the different definitions of god around the world). I don't see that as wrong. It's a coping technique.
Maybe in interfaith we can explore this coping technique and how it's useful for human survival? It's a nice topic I posed a couple of times but either was debating or ignored.
I don't see a difference in human terms and man-made concepts. I see god as a man-made concept and he can be described (or is described in all god-sacred text) in human terms (wants/needs/characteristics of humanity).
I believe in god and I define god as life. It's a convenient word to describe all parts of life whether it's concepts that help us cope with the unknown, spirits we define as our ancestral connections even though they exist by our experiences and within our traditions and, for me, heritage. God is the wants of humanity. That's part of life, the things we want and have motivations to overcome. Some of us want eternal life. Others dream of a life of peace and happiness. I haven't heard of anyone who has a goal when believing in god of something that has nothing to do with the psychological and physiological need for peace regardless of how it's described.
God can be defined as an entity or person. Given entity and person are nouns (persons) they do mirror us because we are people too. It helps us identify with the entity or person because that person is like us rather than the other way around. It makes, for some people not all, god more personal. This is not only in Christianity but in cultural traditions like Lukumi where god can manifest (for lack of better words) in the Orishas and, they, in turn, are actual people who existed and governed different parts of the natural world. There are many examples.
I honestly don't know how Muslims and Jews who do not see god as an person (regardless how its define) and I've asked but don't think I got an answer other than "he's peace. he's love. he's all merciful" but I never had anyone tell me god is anything else but a creator (noun rather than adjective). So, it leaves me thinking, if god is all the things humans wants or have (eternal peace or love) and the only think that makes them different than god is that god is the creator, who really is god?
I ask questions like that. They sound like debate questions, but they are more pondering. I was told by one person they find no reason to think hypothetically. I guess it's the writer and poet in me. Shrugs.
Edit: I'd actually like to discuss and compare a lot of these questions, especially that last couple, in interfaith and get different god(s)-believers opinions on it.
My final thought is I actually believe it's the other way around. God is made in man's image. I say that because if not, we'd have some knowledge of god in an objective view. We would not need to depend on people's experiences, individual cultures, and terms of "it's a mystery" because god's existence would be a fact just as you and I here. No different. I don't see god more different in the laws of reality than the our existence. I don't feel it's bad to say that god is made in human's image. It's saying that man develop ways of coping with the unknown and finding purpose. It actually helps to realize this then one can address how they relate to god (their image) better rather than, in my opinion, depending on a god that many have lost belief in. If it's a fact, how can you loose belief in someone's existence?
However, your thoughts and mindset can change (or characteristics you have) about god and make god into a different image (hence the different definitions of god around the world). I don't see that as wrong. It's a coping technique.
Maybe in interfaith we can explore this coping technique and how it's useful for human survival? It's a nice topic I posed a couple of times but either was debating or ignored.
I don't see a difference in human terms and man-made concepts. I see god as a man-made concept and he can be described (or is described in all god-sacred text) in human terms (wants/needs/characteristics of humanity).
I believe in god and I define god as life. It's a convenient word to describe all parts of life whether it's concepts that help us cope with the unknown, spirits we define as our ancestral connections even though they exist by our experiences and within our traditions and, for me, heritage. God is the wants of humanity. That's part of life, the things we want and have motivations to overcome. Some of us want eternal life. Others dream of a life of peace and happiness. I haven't heard of anyone who has a goal when believing in god of something that has nothing to do with the psychological and physiological need for peace regardless of how it's described.
God can be defined as an entity or person. Given entity and person are nouns (persons) they do mirror us because we are people too. It helps us identify with the entity or person because that person is like us rather than the other way around. It makes, for some people not all, god more personal. This is not only in Christianity but in cultural traditions like Lukumi where god can manifest (for lack of better words) in the Orishas and, they, in turn, are actual people who existed and governed different parts of the natural world. There are many examples.
I honestly don't know how Muslims and Jews who do not see god as an person (regardless how its define) and I've asked but don't think I got an answer other than "he's peace. he's love. he's all merciful" but I never had anyone tell me god is anything else but a creator (noun rather than adjective). So, it leaves me thinking, if god is all the things humans wants or have (eternal peace or love) and the only think that makes them different than god is that god is the creator, who really is god?
Is being a creator enough to make him god or is there some more things that define him separate from humanity? Edit: I finally got the question in one sentence!
I ask questions like that. They sound like debate questions, but they are more pondering. I was told by one person they find no reason to think hypothetically. I guess it's the writer and poet in me. Shrugs.
Edit: I'd actually like to discuss and compare a lot of these questions, especially that last couple, in interfaith and get different god(s)-believers opinions on it.
Last edited: