Faith in no God

[QuestioningMind]

You are talking about blind faith which, if my idea is correct, is an oxymoron. I only have faith in what I know to be reliable. There is little, if any, difference between faith and trust. At least that's how I see it.

Then I suggest you start using the word trust, because faith is most often associated with belief without evidence.

 

[rrobs]

You are overthinking the word “faith”, rrobs.

With belief in the supernatural, like spiritual supreme being, like god, then are talking about accepting belief, despite no evidence that such a being is possible, hence faith.

You don’t require belief to not accept god.

Believing in divine or spiritual beings, is like believing in superstition. People used to worship gods as if they were the embodiment or personification of nature, like thinking the sky, sun, moon, stars, mountains, trees, rivers, seas, rain, thunders/lightnings, fertility of plants, animals or women , and so on.

It doesn’t take faith to reject such superstition, just as required faith to reject belief in gods.

In Job 38 to 41, it is filled with superstitions that god was responsible for every natural events. It doesn’t take faith to reject God’s powers over nature, especially with our current knowledge of astronomy, Earth, hydrology, meteorology, soil, agriculture, etc.

Quite frankly, rrobs, you still seemed to be living in the Dark Ages.

Well, If I am living in the dark ages, at least I have hope for an eternal future. I remember when I did not have such a hope and I was not nearly as happy as I am now. I can't imagine going through this life without hope. I spent too many years in that boat.

Do you read Job from the perspective of an ancient Middle Easterner or your own modern Western perspective? I'm not suggesting you don't understand their culture. I don't know, so I'm just asking. There is a difference.

 

[ratiocinator]

It is not at all unreasonable that someone looking at the material universe with all it's wonders should come to the conclusion that there is a God. True, it in itself is no proof of God, but at least it could be a somewhat appropriate conclusion.

Why? I think it's just as fanciful as last Thursdayism or fairies. You look at the "wonderful" and unexplained universe and imagine that a good "explanation" would be something even more wonderful and just as unexplained. It's an irrational step in the wrong direction.

 

[rrobs]

Then I suggest you start using the word trust, because faith is most often associated with belief without evidence.

You're right about that. It's funny that so many talk about faith, Christian and non-Christian alike, while having the wrong idea of what faith actually is.

The first definition of "faith" at dictionary.com:

confidence or trust in a person or thing: Definition of faith | Dictionary.com
​

You have to wonder what other fundamental principles in the scriptures are equally misunderstood, thus leading many folks to inappropriate conclusions.

 

[rrobs]

Why? I think it's just as fanciful as last Thursdayism or fairies. You look at the "wonderful" and unexplained universe and imagine that a good "explanation" would be something even more wonderful and just as unexplained. It's an irrational step in the wrong direction.

Too bad you can't ask Galileo, DeVinci, Newton, Faraday, et. al. that question. They all believed in God as the author of the marvels they studied. All irrational men? I think not!

 

[rrobs]

As you said, the existence of your god cannot be proven, the non-existence of your god cannot be proven. So, we should look at evidence.

The ancient Egyptians believed Ra, Osiris, and Set were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Egyptians.

The ancient Greeks believed Zeus and Apollo were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Greeks.

The ancient Romans believed Janus and Vulcan were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Romans.

The ancient Norse believed Odin and Loki were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Norse.

The early Lakota believed Inyan and Hununpa were gods. We know these "gods" were nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the early Lakota.

The Yoruba believe Nana-buluku and Obatala are gods. We know these "gods" are nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the Yoruba.

The Hindus believe Shiva and Baruna are gods. We know these "gods" are nothing more than the creations of the imaginings of the minds of the ancient Indians.

Yet, somehow, you believe your god is really a real god. The evidence says otherwise.

The scriptures address all the other gods you mentioned. Belief in what it concludes is optional of course, but it does speak of them.

 

[ratiocinator]

Too bad you can't ask Galileo, DeVinci, Newton, Faraday, et. al. that question. They all believed in God as the author of the marvels they studied. All irrational men? I think not!

Nobody is completely rational about everything. Making the mistake of thinking there is a pattern or intentional action where there is none is as old as humanity (hence the thousands of different gods and countless other unseen beings) - and it's also very easy to get sucked into an irrational point of view if it's also very prevalent (or next to universal) in one's society.

I have set out why the belief is irrational - just quoting people who disagree is not actually a counterargument, no matter what their achievements in other areas.

 

[rrobs]

Nobody is completely rational about everything. Making the mistake of thinking there is a pattern or intentional action where there is none is as old as humanity (hence the thousands of different gods and countless other unseen beings) - and it's also very easy to get sucked into an irrational point of view if it's also very prevalent (or next to universal) in one's society.

I have set out why the belief is irrational - just quoting people who disagree is not actually a counterargument, no matter what their achievements in other areas.

You are right, quoting others is not a counterargument. It wasn't meant to be such. I was just saying they are certainly not irrational men, which is an over used label given to those who believe in God.

 

[Audie]

Too bad you can't ask Galileo, DeVinci, Newton, Faraday, et. al. that question. They all believed in God as the author of the marvels they studied. All irrational men? I think not!

Funny how you have to back to
the days of alchemy to find your
examples.

If Newton lived today he would not
be an alchemist.

Our fundys of today are comparably
out of date, but lack his genius-
or his excuse for not knowing any better.

 

[blü 2]

A bit presumptuous. Besides, it's not true. There is a book out there that says over and over that God can be known. I, and many others, have found that to be true. Of course there are many others who do believe, as yourself, that God is unknowable.

An imaginary god can be anything the imaginer wants it to be, and in that case there's a sense in which the imaginer "knows" the god being imagined. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the books you speak of are about imaginary gods.

Instead I'm pointing to the problem with real gods, gods that have objective existence.

And my point should be easy to refute ─ what is the definition of a real god, such that I can demonstrate that my keyboard is not god?

I was not talking about the difficulty or not of believing in God or not. I was simply pointing out that in both cases, one's conclusion is based on faith.

In my case faith can't come into it until after I've solved the problem of my ignorance ─ I don't know what a real god is, and so far no one will tell me.

 

[gnostic]

Do you read Job from the perspective of an ancient Middle Easterner or your own modern Western perspective? I'm not suggesting you don't understand their culture. I don't know, so I'm just asking. There is a difference.

When I was younger, mid to late teen, I used to read it and took it at face value, and when I did have questions with the narratives, I was given Christian or church interpretations, so often I read it from the churches’ perspectives, and never questions the churches’ views.

But since 2000 (I was 34 then), where I became increasingly agnostic, I tried to read from the perspective of the author, the Old Testament from Jewish perspective and the New Testament from Christian perspective. At that time, I was working on Timeless Myths website (from 1999 to 2019), where I gained experiences from cross-checking and verifying what I read from multiple sources and multiple translations.

From my other website Dark Mirrors Of Heaven (2016-2019, Dark Mirrors Of The Heavens), I did research on multiple sources (eg Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Torah, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha (eg Book of Jubilees, the Enochian books), Nag Hammadi codices (Gnosticism), rabbinic literature (eg Midrash, Aggadah, etc), with their multiple translations (eg KJV, NRSV, NJPS, NETS, etc).

Btw. Note that I have been having money trouble of late, couldn’t afford to pay for web hosting, so I was forced to sell both website plus my domain name (www.timelessmyths.com), to an Italian buyer. I am still listed as the original creator and they have the contents intact, but they did a facelift on how it look.

Anyway, since becoming agnostic, I have to read the Old Testament, I have to read from Jewish perspective instead of Christian perspective.

One of the reasons why I became agnostic, was due to my disagreement with Matthew 1:23 when I compared against Isaiah 7:14. I no longer believe Isaiah 7:14 to be Messianic prophecy, and viewed Matthew 1:23 as Christian propaganda.

When I first read both passages independently from the KJV, I was 15, so I was young and inexperienced, and didn’t do any researching and cross-referencing, didn’t compare the 2 passages together. I had believed that Matthew 1:23 was about Mary and Jesus.

But because of my time with working on Timeless Myths, I have learned to cross-reference different passages, verify the sources. I see it now, that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with the messianic prophecy, and nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

I have also learned that the KJV, normally used and translated the Old Testament with the Masoretic Text as primary source, but in the cases where OT passages delved with Christian version of the messianic signs, the KJV translations often switched to Greek sources, eg the Septuagint or whatever Greek translations that the gospel author had used back then.

So the Hebrew almah or more precisely hā·‘al·māh “the young woman”, became Greek parthenos παρθένος “virgin”.

If you read the whole chapter, especially 7:14-17, as well as the next chapter (Isaiah 8:1-4), you will see that the sign had to do with the war Ahaz had against Pekah of Israel and the Aram Rezin of Damascus, and the sign had to do with the Assyrian intervention.

According to Jews, Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with the messiah, nothing to do with the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

From I see at Isaiah 8, the sign is very similar in tone, which means, we know the identity of Immanuel, to be Isaiah’s son Maher-shalal-hash-baz...therefore the unnamed pregnant “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 is most likely Isaiah’s own wife.

This is the complete sign, here from KJV translation:

14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. 17 The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria.

Now compared with New Jewish Society Publication (NJPS), 1985:

14 Assuredly, my Lord will give you a sign of His own accord! Look, the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son. Let her name him Immanuel. 15 (By the time he learns to reject the bad and choose the good, people will be feeding on curds and honey.) 16 For before the lad knows to reject the bad and choose the good, the ground whose two kings you dread shall be abandoned. 17 The LORD will cause to come upon you and your people and your ancestral house such days as never have come since Ephraim turned away from Judah—that selfsame king of Assyria!

NJPS used only the Masoretic Text as it’s source, while the KJV jump to Greek LXX source only for verse 14, but back to the Hebrew Masoretic Text for verses 15, 16 & 17. Why would KJV translators to do that.

Below, is the translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls:

14 Therefore the Lord himsel will give y[ou a sign. Loo]k, the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son, and his name will be Immanuel. 15 He will eat cur[ds and honey] by the time he knows to refuse evil and choose good. 16 For before the child knows to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be deserted. 17 And the Lord will bring on you, your people, and your father’s house days that have not come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah—the king of Assyria.”

(Sources:
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, 1985, Jewish Society Publication.

Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 2002, Harper.)

Given that who ever wrote the Gospel of Matthew (1:22-23), quoting and interpreting Isaiah’s passage, BUT omitting 3 original verses that are vital in understanding the sign, I don’t trust any NT author citing from the OT.

Both the newer translations provide more accurate contexts to the original, translating the young woman already being pregnant, so it cannot be Mary:

“...the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.“ (NJPS)

“the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son” (DSSB)​

As I read other New Testament signs, I came to see that gospels are cherry picking supposed Messianic signs, that weren’t Messianic in Jewish sources.

There huge differences between Jewish and Christian perspectives.

 

[Jim]

Yes. Faith is not a bad thing. I just sat down in my chair with complete faith it would not fall apart.

I see people using the word “faith” in two very different ways. Sometimes “faith” means people telling themselves and others that they believe something, just because they think that it’s part of their religion, no matter if they have any other reason to believe it or not. Sometimes “faith” means trust and confidence that something will happen, like the chair holding you up when you sit on it. Faith in no God is the second kind. Even if people see nothing wrong with that kind of faith, it would not be a reason to stop denouncing the first kind. In fact, personally I denounce the first kind myself, but not the second.

 

[Jim]

If the non-believer is simply claiming he has not sufficient evidence to believe God, that is an honest and logical mindset. However, it falls apart when the same individual states unequivocally that there is in fact no God. It becomes even worse when casting aspersions on those who do believe in God. Just because one person has no evidence doesn't negate someone else having evidence.

I see a lot to agree with in what you’re saying. I see people denouncing blind faith in “what God says” when they have exactly the same blind faith in “what science says.” I denounce both. I agree with trusting some scriptures in some ways. I think that campaigning against all belief in God and all trust in scriptures, indiscriminately, is reckless and irresponsible.

 

[Jim]

You're right about that. It's funny that so many talk about faith, Christian and non-Christian alike, while having the wrong idea of what faith actually is.

The first definition of "faith" at dictionary.com:

confidence or trust in a person or thing: Definition of faith | Dictionary.com
​

You have to wonder what other fundamental principles in the scriptures are equally misunderstood, thus leading many folks to inappropriate conclusions.

Seriously? To understand what a word means in the scriptures, you always use only the first definition at dictionary.com?

 

[Jim]

An imaginary god can be anything the imaginer wants it to be, and in that case there's a sense in which the imaginer "knows" the god being imagined. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the books you speak of are about imaginary gods.

Instead I'm pointing to the problem with real gods, gods that have objective existence.

And my point should be easy to refute ─ what is the definition of a real god, such that I can demonstrate that my keyboard is not god?
In my case faith can't come into it until after I've solved the problem of my ignorance ─ I don't know what a real god is, and so far no one will tell me.

I like the way you think. One of my forum gods has forsaken me. I’d like to make you one of my forum gods, if it’s okay with you.

 

[gnostic]

@rrobs

If faith means the “acceptance” of belief, eg “religious belief”, then a person who “don’t accept” that belief, then that person “has no faith”.

It is that simple.

Your examples of having faith that the chair will hold you up when you are sitting down, or the other one about having faith that cars won’t run you down when you cross the road at the pedestrian light - these are both irrelevant and pointless examples about faith.

This is a religious forum with topic relating to religion, and therefore relating to a god or two, it is not about chair or crossing the road...not unless you have a habit of crossing yourself before sitting or walking.

 

[questfortruth]

So why exactly it is 'too bold' to criticize the bible for making extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence?

Please answer the question that I asked. Writing Theism: and some dates and then Atheism: with some dates and absolutely NO explanation of what they're supposed to mean is NOT an answer.

The atheism is way too young metaphysics to be accepted instead of many more respected theism.

 

[dfnj]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.
Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.
If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Faith in no God doesn't make any sense. Atheists do not believe there is no gods or God. Atheists just have no belief in gods or Gods. I don't know if there is any group or person who claims they have a dogma where the central belief is "there is no God."

I think people who worry about or talk about the idea "there is no God" are theists who have doubts about their own beliefs or have a very weak faith in God. If you have a strong faith in God then there is nothing anyone is going to do or say that will shake or change your faith. I love atheists. I think they are great! Many of them have very strong intellects. I think they are all wrong about God but I respect their point of view.

I find most atheists to be a little myopic and juvenile in their thinking about the big picture. Usually they don't even want to think about God because of the implications or it might make them look bad in front of their other intellectual friends. Or, many times, atheists will have a mother or father (mother for boys, father for girls) who is a devout believer and the atheist is rejecting God as a way of rebelling against their parents in some way. But as people mature and experience the World in a little more depth most people begin to realize how weak and hollow human language is in representing reality. Most people eventually begin to experience some kind of spirituality as they get closer to death or as many of their friends and love ones die off. At least this as been my experience.

 

[dfnj]

So not being provable, it does in fact require faith to believe there is not God.

It requires no faith at all. Here's how the line of reasoning goes. For the past 200 years science has been wildly successfully in showing hundreds of silly superstitions to be false. We now understand where wind comes from so we no longer have any wind god. We understand what a solar eclipse is so we are not duped by a priest telling us we have to slit people's throats in order to appease God.

So if there is no wind god and the priest of full of BS then it doesn't take much to interpolate maybe everything about religion is false superstition including God.

Most theist claim ALL of existence is proof of God's existence. Or a theist will claim some personal experience they alone had is evidence for the existence of God. You have to admit you and I cannot share an experience of God the same way we share the experience of an apple I am holding in my hand. I can hold it and while we both look at it I say, "apple". And we just accept the apple exists. We cannot do the same with God. As far as we know there is not a single shred of evidence most people will accept or agree upon without controversy proving the existence of God.

But again, you keep showing how weak your faith in God is by your responses. People have faith in God precisely because there is not a shred of evidence other than the two I referenced. Most people just accept God is a kind of hope, feeling, and presence in their lives. It's not something that can be shared with others as objective evidence. But why would any theist care what the non-theists are thinking anyway?

People invent religion or create some kind of dogma to deal with reality. Who am I? Why am I here? What does it all mean? What is going to happen to me when I die? There just are some people who go through life without making any strong attempt to answer any of these questions. So what? It doesn't mean anything. Each of us faces the question of God on our own anyway.

 

[Bird123]

You sound like a young fox on thin ice.

You make a lot of assumptions about me that are very wrong. I haven’t bothered correcting you. Let’s just say I’m well educated in ways that are relevant to this discussion.

You say God speaks to you, that you have seen God, that God drops by to give you spiritual information. I can see perfectly clearly what you mean. The ‘God-spot’ in your brain is very active. I’ve seen it hundreds of times. I’ve even been there myself. You are interpreting your intuitions as Divine communication. God is the ultimate Imaginary Friend.

You think you have a very special insight. You are probably narcissistic.
You are as yet too undeveloped in your understanding to realise that your particular experience of the G-spot is just that - your particular experience.

That doesn’t make all of your understanding wrong.

But you need to identify and deal with those narcissistic tendencies, especially the notion that you have a very special understanding that most people lack. Because it blinds you. It has certainly blinded you to the possibility that I (and others) have understanding which may well exceed yours. In other words, narcissism destroys humility.

You are having a relationship with creative intelligence, which is not unique to ‘spiritual’ people. The ‘spiritual person’ thing is really just a social style, not a sign of revelation.

You know, it's perfectly alright you have no desire to find God. That's not what this world is all about.

You and I are the same. WE are children of God. Sure I am Special just like you are Special in your own way. The homeless person along with the richest person are the same as us as well.

I have spent lots of years Discovering Truth. Sometimes people who search find what they are searching for.

If you have understanding that exceeds mine, Speak it. I am not restricting you in any way. Teach me.

Being a Spiritual being has nothing to do with anything social. It's a fact. It's also perfectly alright you have no desire to Discover who you really are. You choose for your life, not I. Your journey has never depended on me. In time, you will Discover these things anyway.

Finally, I merely copy God. God places Truth all around us. It waits for those ready to Discover it. I placed Truth in this world. What people decide to do with Truth is entirely up to them. That is what God's system is all about. It has never been about me.

That's what I am seeing. It's very clear to me!!