Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[PureX]

All of that is based on the idea that humans have souls but not other animals, and that humans aren't animals because of that. Also, it implies that this preferential treatment is offered to avoid consequences. And it seems to give permission to treat animals worse. Perhaps you see this as treating humans exceptionally well. I see it as treating animals less than well. Those aren't my values, and I find no virtue there. I treat my pets as well as I can. Why wouldn't I? There is no rational reason to treat animals as less worthy of your compassion. If you rely on the application of reason to empathy over religious values, you come to different conclusions about right and wrong.

Last night, in fact, we had guests over for dinner. We had grilled salmon, and there was some left over, including uneaten skin, which we informed our guests that the dogs would love, and how good it was for their coats. When the guest found out that we weren't planning to eat the salmon, she wondered why we didn't offer it to her. Maybe you don't see a moral issue there, but I do. Or maybe you see my choice to give the leftovers to the dogs immoral when a human being wanted them as well. Like I said, not my values.

That was very well stated.

I guess my question would be; is there any reason why your (and Wildswanderer) differing values should be made to align? Expected to align? Or one subjugated by the other?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then this "critically thoughtful" response you're referring to won't be very critically thoughtful at all. As it will have failed entirely to address the proposition it's presuming to counter. Applying objective reasoning to an individual's subjective ideology is, well, a complete 'miss'.

Critical thinking won't be critical if it's applied to irrational thinking? That's incorrect.

His comment that you answered was, "My point is that when theists decide to debate they will be exposed to critical thinking that does not support their reasons and purposes for belief." You didn't rebut it or even disagree, so presumably you agree. But your comment suggests that you think that the critical thinker is trying to reason to the faith-based thinker. Maybe you think he is trying to change the mind of somebody willing to hold unjustified beliefs. Not if he's familiar with such discussions. The critical thinker has only evidence and reason to offer, and those are not the currency of thought of many people. That is not what faith-based thinkers use to reach their belief set.

Applying critical thinking to faith-based thinking is not a complete miss, except for the faith-based thinker. He won't benefit. But those who do respond to sound arguments will respond when the argument has something new in it - a new insight, or perhaps a new turn of phrase that is descriptive.

You've probably noticed how frequently I emphasize that religious-type faith is synonymous with unjustified belief, and that justified belief only results from empiricism, that is, reason properly applied to evidence to arrive at sound conclusions. I realize that that is not how you see it. I can't paraphrase just how you disagree, because you have never articulated clearly what faith is to you, just in poetry, but I know you reject my formulation. So why do I keep introducing it into our discussions? Not to change your mind. That would be a complete miss. I do it for other critical thinkers who might not have considered that it's that simple - faith is unjustified belief, whatever the source - holy books, believing lying politicians, believing anti-climate or anti-vax claims, and any other idea not arrived at critically. These people are also refractory to critical thinking, but are still evaluated by that method.

when these completely irrelevant demands are not met (as they could not possibly be), the supposed "critical thinker" declares himself the 'oh-so-critically-thoughtful' victor, and the other guy a default idiot. It's so stupid it's embarrassing.

This straw man again? Whose declaring themselves the victor or others idiots? That's you. The critical thinker has no demands of the faith-based thinker. he is telling you why he rejects such thought. When you hear, "What's your evidence?" after a God claim, you need to understand that the question is rhetorical, that the asker knows that there will be no evidence forthcoming. Personally, I have stopped asking that question for just this reason - "you're always making unreasonable demands." Now, I just say, "You have no evidence."

Yes, you should be embarrassed for making that comment. And yes, it's stupid. Your word.

People exploit each other all the time. It has nothing particularly to do with religion.

It has much to do with faith-based thinking. Faith teaches one to believe without sufficient evidence. That makes you an easy mark. If you're a child, that's understandable. If you're an adult being swindled by somebody with a Jesus fish on his card or who always says, "God bless you," because you took that as evidence of moral rectitude, well, you made a mistake.

Religion is probably where most people first learn that belief by faith is a virtue. This predisposes them to all kinds of uncritical thought to come outside of church, such as listening to conservative indoctrination media, or the rejection of science and higher learning.

Have you ever looked at the recent biographies that are being posted on sites that document the beliefs and then the fates of antivaxxers that ended up in ICU's or morgues? Most of them are filled with anti-Fauci and the like memes believed by faith, then the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin protocols believed in by faith and demanded but not given to hospitalized patients, then the disinformation about vaccines being a Big Pharma conspiracy or containing implantable chips or rearranging one's DNA, then the stuff about the hospitals being paid more to call it COVID, but always with a very liberal serving of pray for me or pray for him, followed by the announcement that he's gone to meet the Lord.

This is how I view faith and its relationship to exploitation. It's not confined to religion, but religion predisposes one to this path. Faith is why people stormed the Capitol, sometimes religious faith (we saw a lot of Christian nationalism banners January 6th), sometimes just faith in a political leader. Raise these people to be secular humanists and critical thinkers rather than praising faith to them as a virtue, and you'll see a lot less of that kind of manipulability in people.

I rejected reason in the sense that we cannot reason why we exist. We can only imagine the possibilities, and then choose to accept or reject them.

You rejected reason because it cannot give you final answers to all questions? I'd call that unreasonable. Of course we can reason why we exist. We just can't narrow it down to one possibility without guessing, which is unreasonable. And I don't consider unjustified guesses (guesses lacking sufficient evidence to justify belief in them) to be answers. They explain and predict nothing. Learn to accept "We don't know" if you don't and can't. It's really a better answer than guessing that "God did it."

This is why we never reject reason. It's the most direct path to false belief.

That was very well stated.

Thanks. We can find common ground in areas like this, and politics and political philosophy, but not here.

I guess my question would be; is there any reason why your (and Wildswanderer) differing values should be made to align? Expected to align? Or one subjugated by the other?

I don't know how to reach common ground with him. He has a belief that animals are soulless but man is not. I don't know how that affects his treatment of animals. Maybe he's still kind to and respectful of them.

 

[PureX]

I liked what a Jesuit priest told me when i asked him about the ten commandments.

He said, " God gave us brains on the understanding that we are to use them".

Our literalists, and moral absolutists seek to
avoid that responsibility.
As im sure you have noticed.

Yes, I have. And I have often wondered why a person would choose to do that, as it is completely antithetical to my own nature. I abhor organized religion for it's constant intention to try and stop me from thinking for myself.

But over the years, I have come to meet a lot of very different kinds of people, with very different ways of moving through the world. Different from me. And it occurs to me that many of them are just doing what they must to try and maintain themselves. They don't possess the luxury of my own able and imaginative mind. Or my obnoxiously determined sense of intuitive autonomy. Many of them are fragile, and frightened to death of being "wrong", and so find life very difficult without someone telling them what to believe, and how to behave; so as to not "mess up". I could not live that way. I'd kill anyone that tried to make me. But I am not the yardstick by which all my fellow humans should be measured. In reality, they come in all sizes and shapes and natures. And they have suffered all manner of neglect and abuse. And they are just doing what they can, to maintain and sustain themselves. And if that means they they need some 'holy man' to tell them how to think and behave, then so be it. I only wish them the best, sincerely. And I have no wish to undercut them in any way. I, personally, could never accept that kind of religious or ideological oppression. But I am not them, and they are not me. So I am not going to condemn them for their need of it.

 

[PureX]

Critical thinking won't be critical if it's applied to irrational thinking? That's incorrect.

All I can do, here, is chuckle.

His comment that you answered was, "My point is that when theists decide to debate they will be exposed to critical thinking that does not support their reasons and purposes for belief." You didn't rebut it or even disagree, so presumably you agree. But your comment suggests that you think that the critical thinker is trying to reason to the faith-based thinker. Maybe you think he is trying to change the mind of somebody willing to hold unjustified beliefs. Not if he's familiar with such discussions. The critical thinker has only evidence and reason to offer, and those are not the currency of thought of many people. That is not what faith-based thinkers use to reach their belief set.

So, if his thinking were really that 'critical', he should be able to recognize that he has nothing to debate with. That, in fact, there is nothing to debate. Faith is a personal, subjective choice based on the personal subjective results that one derives from having made that choice and lived with it a while. What is there to debate? What is there to rebut? Especially when the 'critic' has no similar experience of his own from which to enter what is an essentially subjective dialogue?

And the amazing thing, to me, is that these "critical thinkers" never see this most obvious fault. And instead, they just bulldoze onward, insisting on evidence and facts and objective reasons and so on. Oblivious that they are not even within the realm of subject that they think they are rebutting.

 

[cladking]

You've probably noticed how frequently I emphasize that religious-type faith is synonymous with unjustified belief, and that justified belief only results from empiricism, that is, reason properly applied to evidence to arrive at sound conclusions.

The problem with your notion here is that "empiricism" is necessarily based largely on belief because each observer must interpret experiment and data. And this to mention that while experiment is bedrock that experiment invention is determined in part by beliefs and completely from metaphysics founded in definitions and axioms. While experiment is bedrock each observer still colors in between these; we extrapolate and interpolate and include these in our models built from beliefs.

You can not observe what doesn't exist but that we don't observe something hardly means it doesn't exist. You can not construct a model without the mortar of beliefs and every construct, every model, is different for every observer.

 

[cladking]

Have you ever looked at the recent biographies that are being posted on sites that document the beliefs and then the fates of antivaxxers that ended up in ICU's or morgues?

When the next wave wipes out almost everyone who has been vaccinated do you believe the survivors will be laughing and cheering?

 

[Truthseeker]

What about talking about taking the scientific method to religion? (Which the author seems to advocate for but then doesn't - or seriously messes it up.)

The article is too long and involved with other parts, also technical. It was also just a preliminary attempt to apply scientific method to religion. I can't do better than that. I only have a Bachelors degree in Mathematics, William Hatcher had a doctorate in Mathematics. He's smarter than me. He's inaccessible now. He died in 2005.

I don't think a conversation about this will bear any useful fruit.

 

[cladking]

Then you take back your contention that its "status quo" ( society's fault )

We are each responsible for our own actions and the outcomes of those actions. Our leaders are responsible only for what they say and this is the status quo to which I refer.

We have many bad people with a lust for greed and power or whom are hedonistic and destroying what exists for profit. We have dubious morals underlying many of the laws (most laws today are passed by bureaucrats rather than legislators) which are enacted to benefit a few. When people aren't responsible for what they do or the outcomes we get incompetent and stupid people in charge of more and more. Schools have failed and they've failed not only to teach but they've failed to teach people how to think. We lock up innocent people and let the guilty go. We idolize the criminals who are victims of a strange justice system. It's hardly surprising there are numerous felonious and other types of horrid behavior that result from this jumping of the shark. You can bet it will get much worse before it gets any better.

Who is responsible for the irresponsible? Most crime isn't even pursued and when criminals are caught accidently they aren't prosecuted. India calls me 10 times a day trying to scam me and our leaders simply don't care because they're all making money.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You've probably noticed how frequently I emphasize that religious-type faith is synonymous with unjustified belief, and that justified belief only results from empiricism, that is, reason properly applied to evidence to arrive at sound conclusions.

The problem with your notion here is that "empiricism" is necessarily based largely on belief because each observer must interpret experiment and data.

Belief isn't a problem - unjustified belief is. Empiricism produces justified belief.

You use the phrase, "The problem," but I don't see a problem. The method works, so it is correct. That's the sine qua non of correct ideas - they can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The philosophical underpinnings of empiricism - skepticism, observation, reason - have been confirmed to be valid assumptions by the fruits of their application. The success of the manned moon landings, for example, is evidence that the scientific and engineering assumptions were correct. We know that because they worked.

And this to mention that while experiment is bedrock that experiment invention is determined in part by beliefs and completely from metaphysics founded in definitions and axioms. While experiment is bedrock each observer still colors in between these; we extrapolate and interpolate and include these in our models built from beliefs. You can not observe what doesn't exist but that we don't observe something hardly means it doesn't exist. You can not construct a model without the mortar of beliefs and every construct, every model, is different for every observer.

I still don't see a problem. And no, every construct and model is not different for every observer. That's true for unjustified beliefs, which are not grounded in empiricism, not tethered to observation and generalizations extracted (induced) from it. That is why there are thousands of denominations of Christianity alone. There is no tethering to anything objective. No idea is more justified than any other, and none can be used to predict or explain the observable.

Contrast that with the periodic table of elements, which is rooted in observation, was derived empirically, and can be used to explain and predict reality. Like I said, these are the sine qua non of a correct and an incorrect idea.

Why do we say that astrology and alchemy are incorrect, and astronomy and chemistry are correct? Because one makes accurate and valuable predictions, and the other does not. We know that the foundational assumptions for astrology are incorrect because of their sterility - horoscopes can't predict futures or personality traits - just as we know that the assumptions that underlie astronomy are correct, because they allow us accurately to predict astronomical events, such as just when and where Pluto will be after an earth-launched probe has had enough time to cross space and meet it there.

When the next wave [of coronavirus] wipes out almost everyone who has been vaccinated do you believe the survivors will be laughing and cheering?

If that happens, probably not. Did you have a point? Are you making an argument against science or empiricism?

 

[Truthseeker]

Faith in God is not that dissimilar to any other powerful form of medicine. Properly used, it can be very healing and life-affirming. While when misused or abused, it can become toxic and deadly.

Yes, very logical and true.

 

[sun rise]

emphasize that religious-type faith is synonymous with unjustified belief, and that justified belief only results from empiricism,

Do you really mean empiricism knowing the difference between that and science?

science is (countable) a particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability or science can be (scion) while empiricism is a pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation. Science vs Empiricism - What's the difference?

 

[Audie]

We are each responsible for our own actions and the outcomes of those actions. Our leaders are responsible only for what they say and this is the status quo to which I refer.

We have many bad people with a lust for greed and power or whom are hedonistic and destroying what exists for profit. We have dubious morals underlying many of the laws (most laws today are passed by bureaucrats rather than legislators) which are enacted to benefit a few. When people aren't responsible for what they do or the outcomes we get incompetent and stupid people in charge of more and more. Schools have failed and they've failed not only to teach but they've failed to teach people how to think. We lock up innocent people and let the guilty go. We idolize the criminals who are victims of a strange justice system. It's hardly surprising there are numerous felonious and other types of horrid behavior that result from this jumping of the shark. You can bet it will get much worse before it gets any better.

Who is responsible for the irresponsible? Most crime isn't even pursued and when criminals are caught accidently they aren't prosecuted. India calls me 10 times a day trying to scam me and our leaders simply don't care because they're all making money.

So you didnt mean what you said

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Do you really mean empiricism knowing the difference between that and science?

science is (countable) a particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability or science can be (scion) while empiricism is a pursuit of knowledge purely through experience, especially by means of observation and sometimes by experimentation. Science vs Empiricism - What's the difference?

Yes. Formal science (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) is one form of empiricism, but not the commonest or the oldest one

The application of reason to the evidence of the senses in order to induce generalizations usable to inform actions that lead to desired outcomes is empiricism whenever it happens.

Normal learning through experience is empiricism. Children do this. Animals do this. It appears to be the adaptive advantage that reasoning confers on a sentient creature that can reason.

When a person has lived in a community for a while and tried several of its restaurants, he develops a sense of what a return trip to that restaurant would be like. If he wants something fast and convenient, he knows what's close, fast, and acceptable to him. If he wants fine Italian cuisine, he knows that he has to go further and spend more, but he knows how to get his desired outcome. All of this comes from experience (evidence of the senses) and successful generalizations that allow one to recreate the desirable ones and avoid the undesirable ones.

That's the same process as formal; science, just not done in a laboratory or in an observatory. And so I call it informal science. Together, formal and informal science are empiricism, and they share the requirement that one consult reality in a particular way in order to navigate it more successfully. Isn't that what we mean by becoming older and wiser - collecting useful generalizations that we call knowledge or experience?

And my position is that this process, formal or otherwise, is the only path to useful knowledge about the world. It is the only path to justified belief (sound conclusions). Beliefs arrived at by any other method are unjustified, and I group them all together and call them faith. Not all questions can be answered empirically, but those that cannot be answered in that manner cannot be answered in any manner, just guessed at.

And this is why I don't use the word science the way many others do, as in science versus religion. I prefer to think in terms of empiricism versus faith. One doesn't need to know science at all to be a competent empiricist. He just needs to get and test his information empirically. Maybe he's a gifted airplane mechanic that can identify and fix any problem. Somebody showed him some things, some others he learned on the job himself, and all of these ideas were put to the test of facilitating desired outcomes, in this case, getting airplanes operational. It's science, albeit informal.

Do you disagree with any of the above?

 

[rational experiences]

My spiritual.belief. Non religious yet without religious text I would own no basis believe or not believe. To make just a self human choice.

Science the same.

So I experienced what I personally choose...
Science had done the same.

Sciences proof was by machines first a built machine by alchemies change.

I live as a human first... I biologically change which is nothing to do with sciences human proof.

So science used machine conditions twice. My life biology changes because they changed fusion twice.

I survive I think it miraculous after the evil visionary causes. How am I wrong?

I'm not.

Can I practically experience science ...no.

So I can only infer the experience by my biology to my best natural capability which is not science.

Then the scientist just another human who wanted to know all things derided me as I don't give him the answers he decided he both wanted and needed to anti presence.

As his theme I only anti caused CH gases and not self.

As created creation cannot not exist first as its body is evolution that is his scientists direct lie.

Is our human position in reality.

Someone who Mock's our sacrificed life mind and body experience as they first contend I am Mr know it all.

Was explained by a teacher human using dot point data references once.

Channelled heard changed mind advice as the scientist thought first before change was chosen by just humans. So thinking minds changed tried to relate why.

When it never should have occurred. Hence its not reasonable by teaching. Known by human consciousness.

So anyone who says the pre advice was incorrect was in fact never incorrect themselves.

Was never wrong.

Only the reader interpreter of the documents is incorrect for no longer owning the capability of teaching by dot point analysis today. References only. Not fact.

As a humans experience is never fact if you applied logical references to self in a phenomena experience.

Only a scientist tried to force phenomena to be fact. Why they ridiculed the human experience.

Mockery hence was taught to a fact of scientific snideness.

 

[sun rise]

That's the same process as formal; science, just not done in a laboratory or in an observatory. And so I call it informal science. Together, formal and informal science are empiricism, and they share the requirement that one consult reality in a particular way in order to navigate it more successfully. Isn't that what we mean by becoming older and wiser - collecting useful generalizations that we call knowledge or experience?

And my position is that this process, formal or otherwise, is the only path to useful knowledge about the world. It is the only path to justified belief (sound conclusions). Beliefs arrived at by any other method are unjustified, and I group them all together and call them faith. Not all questions can be answered empirically, but those that cannot be answered in that manner cannot be answered in any manner, just guessed at.
...
I prefer to think in terms of empiricism versus faith
...
Do you disagree with any of the above?

I agree. To me it's the difference between religion and the spiritual path. The spiritual path is about "consulting reality" through various means.

Kabir:

Is Ram in idols and holy ground?
Have you looked and found him there?
Hari in the East, Allah in the West -
So you like to dream.
Search in the heart, in the heart alone:
There live Ram and Karim.​

Abu Said:

To those who seek truth in conventionalized religion:
Until college and minaret have crumbled
This holy work of ours will not be done.
Until faith becomes rejection
And rejection becomes belief
There will be no true (justified) believer.​

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

That implies you've already made up your mind before you've heard our reasons for believing in God.

I didn't think I had to explicitly say I am open to hear your reasons, since I was the one who asked the question.

Let them believe whatever they believe.

real solution is to accept the differences.

It's just a matter of accepting that people are different, each person is unique.

Lol, let me get this straight, you are frustrated because of somebody else's belief?
Why would you even care if everybody believes in God?
If you don't believe in him why are you wasting your time here trying to prove a negative?

Maybe I should explain why I care what others believe. I think some religious practices are immoral, destructive, wicked.. etc. I think we should use knowledge from the 21st century to create a better world, not rely on ancient nonsense. My only objective is to make the world a better place, and I try to do that by presenting facts, evidence, rational and logical reasoning. A quick example from Islam (I know Muslims are not engaging in this chat currently, but there are more than 2 billion of them world-wide): Muslims believe homosexuality is an abomination. My brother happens to be gay, and he has contributed more to society than anyone I know (he is a neuroscientist working on treatments for post traumatic stress disorder, among other things). My issue is not that people believe in God, its that God "apparently" endorses slavery, murder, child abuse, etc. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam)

I DON'T BELIEVE IN MAGIC, AND A UNIVERSE CREATING ITSELF, BEFORE IT EVEN EXISTED, IS JUST MAGIC.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN ABSURDITY, AND A UNIVERSE CREATING ITSELF, FOR NO REASON WHATSOEVER, IS ABSURD.

This is so ironic it almost does a 360 and becomes not ironic.

 

[Wildswanderer]

My issue is not that people believe in God, its that God "apparently" endorses slavery, murder, child abuse, etc

Then you are just plain wrong. God doesn't endorse any of those.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Its not absurd at all.
If someone puts "god" in charge of conscience he is just a soldier following orders.

That the orders dont really come from god just makes it worse.

No, he's following his God given conscience. Otherwise you can just make up your own morality, which can be anything or nothing.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How many Christians truly live up to that ideal? I've seen those who claim to be Christians who ignore the message of the Christ and commit all kinds of acts which Christians call grievous sins up to and including cannibalism.

And from my time as an atheist, I know that I never thought of people as animals or more accurately I thought of all animals and especially people as worthy creatures who my conscious told me to respect and to uphold their right to happiness.

All people are sinners. I'm sure you can find anyone of any religion that doesn't do what they should...not the point. The point is that atheists have no reason to be moral... just what ever benefits them. I don't care if they actually act like monks, thier beliefs have no basis for objective morality.

 

[F1fan]

ISIS is not a religion. Religion does not define or determine faith in God for humanity, and yet the only argument you can manage to come up with depend on ISIS.

ISIS is like many other conservative groups in that they will assert their authority comes through God. This is how they, and other extremists, and even more moderate religious/political groups, can justify their inhumane and corrupt acts against people. The Republican Party has used God as a basis to get voters, but also use a "moral" approach to set policies that are against women, minorities, and the poor. These policies are seldom moral and would not mirror the attitudes of Jesus.

That's a very weak argument, indeed. It's like claiming the klu klux klan as an argument against theism.

This example has nothing to do with what I said.

My point is that theists have whatever beliefs they have, whether very liberal like yours, or extremist. Liberal theists pose less a threat to the world and societies because of the mind of these people. Extremists will seek out more extremist religion because that is who they are as people. If any believer comes into an online forum and decides to debate their beliefs with the community, they will be exposed to questions they haven't asked themselves. The questions non-believers ask theists may or may not have been asked, but theists will for some reason (that isn't reason) remain loyal to their beliefs. It's notable that theists don't offer facts and a coherent explanation for why they believe. They may offer a reason, but these are never objective and factual. It is typically about their feelings. And they typically have a framework they picked up from other people, Christianity, Baha'i, Islam, Hindu, etc. Religious people aren't describing their own mystical experience from some meditation in the woods. So, we non-believers have questions, some very hard questions.

It's absurdly myopic, and yet this is where your mind is focused every time you discuss the idea of faith in God. As if political extremism in the name of a God is all that can ever come from faith in God.

You have a bad habit of not listening to atheists when they explain their thinking. As I have explained religious behavior in the majority of humans is an evolutionary phenomenon. It's an innate impulse in most humans and they have this itch they want to scratch, and that is readily available with religion. It's not the same for everyone, there is a broad range of religions, and within religions there are options for liberals, moderate, and extremists. And this is all from God?