Faith in no God

[QuestioningMind]

Well, is a lack of belief a belief itself? I don't know, just wondering.

All in all, I just think we live our lives way more by faith than many wish to acknowledge. Faith is held to be the antithesis of knowledge. Actually, when you think about it, we have faith in that which we know. Knowledge and faith go hand in hand. Whether that knowledge is reflective of reality (assuming there is a reality) is another question, but faith is based upon familiarity. I'd lend $100 bucks to a long time friend who I know to be reliable, where I probably wouldn't lend it to a stranger. The stranger might in fact be way more reliable than my friend, but without knowing them for some time, I'd have little faith in them.

Knowledge and faith do not go hand in hand, according to my definition of faith. Faith is belief in something without without verifiable evidence. I do my very best not to believe in anything of significance without verifiable evidence... thus I never take any significant claim on faith. As far as your friend paying you back... you don't have to take that on faith. You have verifiable evidence that your friend is reliable, thus your trust that he will pay you back is based on experience, not on faith. However, if you were to trust the stranger who you know nothing about to pay you back, THAT trust would be based on faith, since you have no verifiable evidence that the stranger is reliable.

 

[Jim]

It looks to me like different people have different reasons for saying that they believe in God. Sometimes it looks to me like it’s just words that people are saying to themselves, and associating that with some thoughts and feelings that they have about the world around us. I don’t see why anyone would have any objection to that. What I think makes it a problem is when people use their God belief as an excuse for thinking that their views about social and political issues can’t be wrong. I think that sometimes when people are denouncing God beliefs, they’re doing the same thing, using their science beliefs as excuses for thinking that their views about social and political issues can’t be wrong. I don’t think that people using science beliefs that way makes it okay ro use God beliefs that way.

 

[questfortruth]

The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

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

Theism: infinite past - 1917 AC (Russian Revolution Terror year),
Atheism: 1917 AC - 2020 AC.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Theism: infinite past - 1917 AC (Russian Revolution Terror year),
Atheism: 1917 AC - 2020 AC.

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.

 

[blü 2]

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.

Well, it starts with the idea that if you want to believe in something, it helps to know what you're talking about.

And no one knows what a real god is, which is why there's no test that will tell me whether eg this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. I can demonstrate that my keyboard is not a unicorn, not a railway line, not a glass container full of argon, not Beethoven's seventh, but I can't demonstrate that it's not a god.

So it's no more difficult not to believe in God than it is not to believe in zptkkafrogh, even though 'God' is easier to spell. The problem is the same in both cases ─ if the word denotes something real, no one knows what it is.

 

[Valjean]

It can be proven there is a GOD real simple history proves it take Christ on the cross written 1000years before hand in psalms 22 Christ taught that psalms on the cross my god my god why have you forsaken me Christ was telling you go to psalms 22 them were davids words vrs 18 cast lots for his clothing vrs 31 that he has done this same as john 19vrs30 it is finished man cant do that only GOD david foretold the cross 1000yrs before Christ word for word taught by Christ vrs 8 is the same as matthew 27vrs43

I don't follow this "proof" at all. All this biblical lore is apocryphal, after all.
What else ya got?

 

[Valjean]

Not sure why you would say that.

Not sure which statement you're referring to. Clarification:

"Written long before the scientific method became established."
I Cor. 3:19 was written long before the scientific method was developed. The "wisdom of the world," back then, was folklore and speculation, not science. Folklore and speculation is not wise, and can be called foolishness. This does not apply to today's investigative methods.
"Apparently god prefers the emotional, illogical and irrational, and disparages the intelligence he gave us." Presumably, God gave us reason and intelligence, but condemns us if we use it critcally, analytically or logically.

 

[Valjean]

I would say that someone who hasn't sufficient evidence to believe God is the same as saying, "I don't know if God exists?" I allowed for that possibility in the OP and it is a very honest attitude. As in the marbles (good analogy) the possibility that God exists should always be an option. Or I better say "could." Wouldn't want to be telling people what they should do, especially in a religious forum.

This is exactly the atheist position, save the minority of "strong" atheists.

It looks to mr like you’re saying that when people denounce people for believing in God without evidence, they’re doing the same thing that they say the believers are doing. They’re believing without evidence that there is no God.

I see your point, but, logically, there's no burden of proof for the non-believer. The non-believer is making no claim, just saying he lacks belief in something with insufficient supporting evidence. Lack of belief, as I said before, is the epistemic default position. It's not belief without evidence. It's a blank slate. No 'belief' is written on it.

 

[Valjean]

I see people on side E of a volleyball court endlessly repeating the same arguments, denouncing the beliefs of people on side F, and people on side F endlessly repeating the same arguments, trying to ... trying to ... what are they trying to do anyway?

Maybe, trying to prove to themselves that they aren’t wtong?

Most atheists know they hold reasonable positions. It's the theistic arguments that appear logically challenged. We just try to point out the problems

It looks to me like different people have different reasons for saying that they believe in God. Sometimes it looks to me like it’s just words that people are saying to themselves, and associating that with some thoughts and feelings that they have about the world around us. I don’t see why anyone would have any objection to that. What I think makes it a problem is when people use their God belief as an excuse for thinking that their views about social and political issues can’t be wrong. I think that sometimes when people are denouncing God beliefs, they’re doing the same thing, using their science beliefs as excuses for thinking that their views about social and political issues can’t be wrong. I don’t think that people using science beliefs that way makes it okay ro use God beliefs that way.

Not quite -- but I do see your point. But our lack of belief is not science based. Science is not necessary to our argument.

 

[gnostic]

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.

You are overthinking the word “faith”, rrobs.

With belief in the supernatural, like spiritual supreme being, like god, then we 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.

 

[exchemist]

And yet you engage. Wouldn't it be better to avoid what makes you sick?

I am adding my vote to those of others, regarding this thread, to let you know how it is being seen. That's all.

 

[Karolina]

What is the evidence from your perspective? Evidence that when clearly stated is overwhelming and undersood by everyone.

I refer you back to my previous post. To repeat: the complexity and order of nature and the cosmos, and the existence of natural law/first principles. Feel free to Google

 

[Karolina]

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.

I think when people say it takes faith to not believe in God, what they mean is that it takes faith to believe in the spontaneous, seemingly "magical" way the universe just happened to come together in the perfect set of circumstances that just happened to create optimal conditions for life. Belief in such happenstance takes faith. Because usually when we come across something complex and well organized, we assume (correctly) that something caused it to come into being. To overlook this is to have faith, because there's no evidence in our daily lives of things just magically coalescing themselves into existence without being promoted by something outside of themselves first.

Btw, faith is not a dirty word I have faith other drivers on the road will stop at a red light when it's my turn to go. Usually I'm right, sometimes I'm not. I assume atheists have similar expectations about the rules of the road. It's ok to have faith. It doesn't make you less intelligent or more gullible It's what you have faith in that makes a difference.

 

[ecco]

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.
<snip>
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.

Can you prove that the universe, and everything in it, including all of everyone's memories, was not created LastThursday?

No?

Please apply your faith equation and admit that your concept of God is just as unlikely as the universe being only a few days old.

 

[ecco]

It can be proven there is a GOD real simple history proves it take Christ on the cross written 1000years before hand in psalms 22 Christ taught that psalms on the cross my god my god why have you forsaken me Christ was telling you go to psalms 22 them were davids words vrs 18 cast lots for his clothing vrs 31 that he has done this same as john 19vrs30 it is finished man cant do that only GOD david foretold the cross 1000yrs before Christ word for word taught by Christ vrs 8 is the same as matthew 27vrs43

The writings in the bible contain punctuation to make it a little easier to read and understand.

Yes, that was a polite hint.

 

[Karolina]

OK, what I would need for evidence is something that distinguishes a world with a God and natural laws from a world without God, but which still has natural laws.

What is it about the world around you that implies the existence of God? What evidence is different than would be present in a world that simply works through natural laws and does NOT have a God?

You see, as I understand it, evidence is something that distinguishes between possibilities. It isn't just that the evidence is consistent with one viewpoint, it has to actually eliminate (or at least decrease the likelihood) of the opposite viewpoint. if it doesn't do that, it simply isn't evidence at all, one way or the other.

So, we know the universe works by natural laws. Both of us agree to that, I think. What distinguishes universe with natural laws *with* God from those with natural laws *without* God?

Where do the natural laws come from? Why do all people seem to agree that it's better to behave a certain way even when it's difficult and inconvenient? Why wouldn't we all naturally desire to look out for number one? Why do people, without religious obligations pressing on them, choose to do good for others? Even when it's not in the best interest of themselves? Why do people sacrifice for their families? Why do people join social movements to help the oppressed even when their own group will lose some of its power and control in the process? Why do we not simply act on instinct, like animals? What exactly "programmed" us to value selflessness, even if we don't always live up to it?
I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator. I don't think this Creator is an old man in the sky. I don't think we can know many details about this Source, but that it's there seems undeniable to me. I can only base my beliefs on my experience of the world, which tells me all things have a Cause.

A world without God would be a world without natural law. No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think when people say it takes faith to not believe in God, what they mean is that it takes faith to believe in the spontaneous, seemingly "magical" way the universe just happened to come together in the perfect set of circumstances that just happened to create optimal conditions for life. Belief in such happenstance takes faith. Because usually when we come across something complex and well organized, we assume (correctly) that something caused it to come into being. To overlook this is to have faith, because there's no evidence in our daily lives of things just magically coalescing themselves into existence without being promoted by something outside of themselves first.

Whatever it took for existence to form, and perhaps it has always been so, it is still a projection to assume some divine nature to have caused such. This I believe is the step too far, and which seemingly has caused so many different religious beliefs. I still have some doubt about such but little doubt that religions are the creations of humans - and which seem to cause so much trouble.

Btw, faith is not a dirty word I have faith other drivers on the road will stop at a red light when it's my turn to go. Usually I'm right, sometimes I'm not. I assume atheists have similar expectations about the rules of the road. It's ok to have faith. It doesn't make you less intelligent or more gullible It's what you have faith in that makes a difference.

It's not faith but more trust that others behave as we would expect - so more a misuse of the word - especially when trying to equate it to religious faith.

 

[Jim]

Well, it starts with the idea that if you want to believe in something, it helps to know what you're talking about.

And no one knows what a real god is, which is why there's no test that will tell me whether eg this keyboard I'm typing on is God or not. I can demonstrate that my keyboard is not a unicorn, not a railway line, not a glass container full of argon, not Beethoven's seventh, but I can't demonstrate that it's not a god.

So it's no more difficult not to believe in God than it is not to believe in zptkkafrogh, even though 'God' is easier to spell. The problem is the same in both cases ─ if the word denotes something real, no one knows what it is.

I like the way you think.

 

[Mock Turtle]

A world without God would be a world without natural law. No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

You really don't think our apparent natural inclination for morality could not have evolved along with all the rest that accompanied our evolution?

 

[Karolina]

Whatever it took for existence to form, and perhaps it has always been so, it is still a projection to assume some divine nature to have caused such. This I believe is the step too far, and which seemingly has caused so many different religious beliefs. I still have some doubt about such but little doubt that religions are the creations of humans - and which seem to cause so much trouble.

It's not faith but more trust that others behave as we would expect - so more a misuse of the word - especially when trying to equate it to religious faith.

I agree with you about religions. Sad but true. As for faith vs trust, it's a little like splitting hairs, no? We're used to using the word faith in religious contexts, but what about when we tell someone "I have faith in you"? I'm ok with either one. The point is, there is no definitive proof per se, but there's at least a tiny bit of evidence in the direction of the statement that would allow me to say, "I have faith in you." If I thought, "I've seen your work and you're kidding yourself if you think you can do this", then I wouldn't say "I have faith in you."