Faith in no God

[Bird123]

Yes God is spirit. That gives Him a huge image problem. It's hard to see, hear, smell, taste, or touch a spirit, so, as you said, it is quite impossible to grasp God with our senses knowledge.

Enter Jesus Christ; he was very much understandable and since he claimed to be an exact image of God, we can know God through Jesus. In short, the scriptures make known Jesus and Jesus makes known God.

I think you may be misunderstanding my posts. I'm playing the part of the unbeliever, trying to see the logic behind their choices.

We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. We are all like God. WE are placed in our physical bodies after birth when long term memories become possible.

Trapped in a physical body confines us to the physical laws of this universe. The time based-causal nature of this universe is Perfect for learning.

I would be very careful accepting, believing, and blindly following that holy book. Though pieces of God are within it, I find more of mankind than anything else. Since it was written by mankind, that is who it really reflects. If you blindly follow it, you will be blindly following mankind. God places Truth around us all. There has never been a need for a holy book.

I find nothing wrong with your post. Bringing views into the open creates interaction which, given enough time, can lead to resolution.

You have the believer and the unbeliever, however the best course is the Discoverer.When one Discovers, believing is no longer important.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why does it requires faith to not believe in something? Would you say that you have faith in there not being any unicorns? Not really sure I get that reasoning, but then again I might have misunderstood what you meant?

As I write this, there are 13 pages, but I will start here.

Simple logic: There is X OR non-X for the same time, space and property/sense.

Me: I believe in X.
You: I don't believe in X.
Me: Okay, so what is non-X, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-X is Y. Either way I would live evidence of nothing or Y.

That is it. You either believe in really actual nothing or you believe in Y, what ever Y is. If you don't believe as with faith, you know. Then I would like evidence. If you can't use evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth for Y or nothing, you use faith, because you have a belief without evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth.

So in practice you don't believe in X. But you do believe in Y. That is a positive, for which I can demand evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth or indeed knowledge. If you can't do that, you use faith.

 

[lukethethird]

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.

I don't believe you and whatever your so called god might consist of.

 

[blü 2]

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.

That's quite an offer to someone who doesn't know what a real god is!

 

[Jim]

That's quite an offer to someone who doesn't know what a real god is!

Would it be hard to convince you that your keyboard is not @PopeADope or @Revoltingest ? Or are you wondering if there are any strings attached to being one my forum gods? I don’t call on them very often, and they only come if they want to. For example, PopeADope doesn’t always come when I call, and I have no problem with that. You can always resign if I call on you too often.

I need a new forum god to replace the one that resigned, so I can have a triad.

I’ve never seen anyone denying or even questioning the reality or existence of my forum gods. There’s a very simple algorithm for deciding if someone or something is one of my forum gods or not. Ask me, and I’ll tell you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Really? I suspect many atheists look at the bigger picture rather better than many of the religious, who might accept their beliefs because it was handed down from their parents or is part of their culture. They also might look at various other fields of knowledge that might explain why so many believe and why there is so much disagreement between the various religious beliefs.

No spirituality coming over the hill in my life, and I suspect you don't mix with atheists that much.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Really? I suspect many atheists look at the bigger picture rather better than many of the religious, who might accept their beliefs because it was handed down from their parents or is part of their culture. They also might look at various other fields of knowledge that might explain why so many believe and why there is so much disagreement between the various religious beliefs.

No spirituality coming over the hill in my life, and I suspect you don't mix with atheists that much.

It is funny, I am not spiritual in that I don't believe in spirits, souls, heaven, hell, prayer, miracles, a revealed God, Objective Authority and so on. Further I don't believe in woo, CTs or what not. Yet I am religious.
Some atheists converted me and convinced me, that I am religious.

As a child I was effectively a none, neither religious nor an atheists. I grew up in Denmark and neither position is relevant in practice.
I then started learning more and became an atheist and a scientific skeptic. But I didn't stop and in the end as a general skeptic I realized after reflecting and deliberating that I had beliefs without reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge.
So I learned this, not from you, but from some atheists: Faith is a deliberate belief lacking evidence, reason, logic, proof, truth and/or knowledge.
And since only religious have this kind of faith, I am religious. I am still an atheist and skeptic in practice as far as theism goes and the idea of an revealed God.
At best I fit with Unitarian Universalism, but that is a religion, so that just confirms, that I am religious.

BTW Here is some knowledge about religion and I do fit in there:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

Regards Mikkel

 

[QuestioningMind]

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

People have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods.

 

[Aupmanyav]

People have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods.

True,
"Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?"
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

I need a new forum god to replace the one that resigned, so I can have a triad.

You are a Bahai. Why do you need three?

 

[McBell]

As I write this, there are 13 pages, but I will start here.

Simple logic: There is X OR non-X for the same time, space and property/sense.

Me: I believe in X.
You: I don't believe in X.
Me: Okay, so what is non-X, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-X is Y. Either way I would live evidence of nothing or Y.

That is it. You either believe in really actual nothing or you believe in Y, what ever Y is. If you don't believe as with faith, you know. Then I would like evidence. If you can't use evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth for Y or nothing, you use faith, because you have a belief without evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth.

So in practice you don't believe in X. But you do believe in Y. That is a positive, for which I can demand evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth or indeed knowledge. If you can't do that, you use faith.

Huh?

Let us try it a bit differently:

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is Y. Either way I would live evidence of nothing or Y.​

What is Y to be replaced with?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods.

True, but that is in effect a functional tautology. It is not a strict tautology, but it ends there.
Because what comes next???
Well, in the end you will either say nothing or claim a positive about the world and for the latter you then need reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge. But then you are it! In the end there is no unified, universal and what not reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge for all of humanity and our place in the world.
Nobody have ever been able to do that and that is not limited to religious people.
In practice knowledge has advanced to the point that those of us, who study that, know this:

...
Cognitive relativism consists of two claims:

(1) The truth-value of any statement is always relative to some particular standpoint;

(2) No standpoint is metaphysically privileged over all others.
...

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So stay silent or learn that religion or not is just a particular example of cognitive relativism.
Then moment we play useful, good, better, what works and all that, cognitive relativism kicks in.
You haven't in effect solved anything by pointing out this fact. Because nothing follows from that.
So people have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods, therefore ...
Then the fun starts, because people lacking a belief in gods can't in effect to agree about what to do next.
Just as people believing in gods can't agree.
Both are explained by cognitive relativism, not just religion.

 

[Jim]

Why do you need three?

No reason. I might have been thinking of the Christian Trinity, but I decided not to call it that, to avoid confusion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh?

Let us try it a bit differently:

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is Y. Either way I would love evidence of nothing or Y.​

What is Y to be replaced with?

All the rest of the world. No non-believer in god in effect only live as a non-believer in god.
Non-god is all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god.
Strict atheism is in effect meaningless for the rest of the world, that we are apparently all a part of.

 

[McBell]

All the rest of the world. No non-believer in god in effect only live as a non-believer in god.
Non-god is all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god.
Strict atheism is in effect meaningless for the rest of the world, that we are apparently all a part of.

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is all the rest of the world. Either way I would love evidence of nothing or all the rest of the world.
​

Well, that didn't help.
How about:

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god. Either way I would love evidence of nothing or all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god​

Nope, still don't work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is all the rest of the world. Either way I would love evidence of nothing or all the rest of the world.
​

Well, that didn't help.
How about:

Me: I believe in god.
You: I don't believe in god.
Me: Okay, so what is non-god, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-god is all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god. Either way I would love evidence of nothing or all the rest of all human behavior as not a non-belief in god​

Nope, still don't work.

Yes, it does. Because you are doing something else than just a non-belief in god.
You are using reason, logic and what not including the Internet and so on. So there is more that just a belief in god or a non-belief in god.
"Nope, still don't work." is the more in effect.

 

[McBell]

Yes, it does. Because you are doing something else that a non-belief in god.

What, specifically, am I doing other than a non-belief in god.

Actually, what does "doing a non-belief in god" mean?

You are using reason, logic and what not including the Internet and so on. So there is more that just a belief in god or a non-belief in god.
"Nope, still don't work." is the more in effect.

If you believe in god, then you are also doing more than belief in god...
Thus in either case, where is the "nothing"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What, specifically, am I doing other than a non-belief in god.

Actually, what does "doing a non-belief in god" mean?



If you believe in god, then you are also doing more than belief in god...
Thus in either case, where is the "nothing"?

Okay, all the way down the "rabbit hole" we go.
I am doing a lot a thing besides believing a god. So are you. You are reading this and so on.
So forget god or no-god.
What about the rest, the rest of human behavior and the rest of the world.
I do more that just a belief in god and you do more that just no belief in a god.
All this "I do more that just a belief in god and you do more that just no belief in a god." only tells us that there is more for both of us, when we look at the world as such.
So say I believe in a god tells us nothing more, just as that you don't believe in a god, tells us nothing more in practice.
You know nothing of me other than my belief and I know nothing of you other than your lack of a belief in a god.

What is next???
Is that it??? Nothing more. Somehow I don't believe that is all there is.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is funny, I am not spiritual in that I don't believe in spirits, souls, heaven, hell, prayer, miracles, a revealed God, Objective Authority and so on. Further I don't believe in woo, CTs or what not. Yet I am religious.
Some atheists converted me and convinced me, that I am religious.

As a child I was effectively a none, neither religious nor an atheists. I grew up in Denmark and neither position is relevant in practice.
I then started learning more and became an atheist and a scientific skeptic. But I didn't stop and in the end as a general skeptic I realized after reflecting and deliberating that I had beliefs without reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge.
So I learned this, not from you, but from some atheists: Faith is a deliberate belief lacking evidence, reason, logic, proof, truth and/or knowledge.
And since only religious have this kind of faith, I am religious. I am still an atheist and skeptic in practice as far as theism goes and the idea of an revealed God.
At best I fit with Unitarian Universalism, but that is a religion, so that just confirms, that I am religious.

BTW Here is some knowledge about religion and I do fit in there:
religion | Definition & List of Religions

Regards Mikkel

I understand the variations, and often do use the common shortcut for religious beliefs when I should be more explicit. Many beliefs I have no issues with, and it is mainly the effects of some religious beliefs that get me worked up. I'll try to be more controlled in the future. Regards.

 

[QuestioningMind]

True, but that is in effect a functional tautology. It is not a strict tautology, but it ends there.
Because what comes next???
Well, in the end you will either say nothing or claim a positive about the world and for the latter you then need reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge. But then you are it! In the end there is no unified, universal and what not reason, logic, proof, truth, evidence and/or knowledge for all of humanity and our place in the world.
Nobody have ever been able to do that and that is not limited to religious people.
In practice knowledge has advanced to the point that those of us, who study that, know this:

Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

So stay silent or learn that religion or not is just a particular example of cognitive relativism.
Then moment we play useful, good, better, what works and all that, cognitive relativism kicks in.
You haven't in effect solved anything by pointing out this fact. Because nothing follows from that.
So people have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods, therefore ...
Then the fun starts, because people lacking a belief in gods can't in effect to agree about what to do next.
Just as people believing in gods can't agree.
Both are explained by cognitive relativism, not just religion.

So people have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods. You haven't in effect solved anything by pointing out this fact. Because nothing follows from that.

What I've solved by pointing out that fact is to get you to admit that your claim that atheism is somehow younger than theism is absolutely ridiculous, which is precisely what I was hoping to do. What SHOULD have followed is that you say: Yeah, it WAS pretty silly of me to try and claim that atheism is somehow younger than theism. Instead you go into a rant about cognitive relativism.

Then the fun starts, because people lacking a belief in gods can't in effect to agree about what to do next.

That's because there isn't anything to do next. If you and someone else share a lack of belief that Elvis Presley is still alive, is there something that you need to agree on about what to do 'next'? Until there's some new evidence to suggest that Elvis actually is still alive, all you need to do is continue lacking a belief that he's still alive.

Atheism isn't a belief system. It's not about solving anything or determining humanities place in the world. It is nothing more than a lack of belief in any gods. Whereas theist turn to their holy books to solve problems and determine humanities place in the world, each individual atheist develops their own systems for making such decisions. Some atheists may develop similar systems and others may not. The only thing for certain that we agree on is that we lack a belief in any gods.

 

[Nimos]

As I write this, there are 13 pages, but I will start here.

Simple logic: There is X OR non-X for the same time, space and property/sense.

Me: I believe in X.
You: I don't believe in X.
Me: Okay, so what is non-X, if not nothing. Either you believe there is really nothing or you believe in something else. I.e. non-X is Y. Either way I would live evidence of nothing or Y.

That is it. You either believe in really actual nothing or you believe in Y, what ever Y is. If you don't believe as with faith, you know. Then I would like evidence. If you can't use evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth for Y or nothing, you use faith, because you have a belief without evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth.

So in practice you don't believe in X. But you do believe in Y. That is a positive, for which I can demand evidence, reason, logic, proof and/or truth or indeed knowledge. If you can't do that, you use faith.

I assume you are Danish?

Så goddav med dig

The premise that you are using is not correct. And basically what you do, is trying to switch the burden of proof.

If you say to me, "God exist" then you have made a claim. For me to say that I don't, is just to say, that I do not think you are providing any evidence to why I should accept your claim.

But that doesn't put a burden on me to proof why your claim doesn't hold up. If I on the other side had made my own claim that "God doesn't exists", then sure you would be able to demand me to provide proof for that as well, and the burden of proof would be on me.

Do you think its up to you, to proof those wrong that claim ghosts or Big foot etc are real?

The default position you ought to take in regards to any claim for which you have no idea. Is that it is not true, based on the lack of evidence presented for the claim. This is basically just what it means to sceptic.