Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Windwalker]

One way to influence others is to first be influenced by them. In other words, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Maybe I would be less frustrated if I actually knew the reasons why you believe in God. Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for the conversation

There is a lot of ways in which someone understands what God is, so it's better to first ask them what God means to them, and then to ask them to explain why they believe in that. I've found all too many atheists have a very narrow understanding of what God means and assume all those who say they believe in God believe in something that looks like the god of fundamentalists. Why else assume they, "do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts"?

So the question should be rather, how can belief in God be compatible with those, or better still, why is it that for some belief in God can cause a conflict with reason, logic, evidence and facts? There are answers for that. It's really not about God, but the ways in which one approaches their beliefs in general about anything at all.

 

[Heyo]

telling him that believers believe for non-rational reasons,

Which is, in a way, an answer to the question.

and how atheists are above belief because they are critical thinkers. It is the epitome of arrogance.

It is only arrogance if you think that critical thinking is more valuable than belief.
Scepticism and faith both have utility. Unfortunately you can't have both.
Strive only emerges when believers are greedy and want to have both. You can't. Believing is the decision to value faith over rationality, at least in one question. Just stand to that decision.

 

[Truthseeker]

Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

That implies you've already made up your mind before you've heard our reasons for believing in God. It's good you want to hear why we believe, but you've got to open to what we say. It's better to respectfully listen then respectfully respond.

 

[Truthseeker]

I am also under the impression that the Gods aren't communicating with everyone, only those that are willing to stop, be silent and listen, (listening like you are in your OP even).

I've had that experience, too, though perhaps interpreted differently. A spiritual experience is common to all religions, it's a matter of how it's understood by our relatively limited minds.

 

[sun rise]

I think to understand theists you need to ask of the God concept they believe in.

That's very true. I have an advaita framework as a theist. Another member of RF, @Aupmanyav , has an advaita framework as an atheist.

 

[Truthseeker]

Having more patience will help, but the
real solution is to accept the differences.

Yes, unity in diversity.

 

[Truthseeker]

I believe that God/Brahman is Consciousness which is fundamental and cannot be understood as composed of anything. And the material universe is then a play of God/Brahman/Consciousness.

These teachings come from those rishis/mystics that have stilled their mind and experienced source consciousness.

I believe that God is not composed of anything like you. Experiencing source conscious is understood by different people in different ways, because our finite mind cannot contain the infinite. At bottom, we are all one in our experience of this source.

 

[Truthseeker]

Scepticism and faith both have utility. Unfortunately you can't have both.

Why do you believe that?

 

[rational experiences]

If you use thesis...I am just a human. I can think.

Claim my first two parents human. As my two parents now human created me by sex. A human adult was a human baby.

Correct theist.

Now the same human says let me tell you a story. Thinking.

How I believe a human came to be a human.

You are consciousness human.

Human memory.

Ours begins as sperm ovary.

Adult theist knows our parents memories are first.

In memory they died.

In human adult memory we state only a spirit imaged memory is left.

How is that not using correct human mind thinking? Today where we live?

Memory image voice recorded.

Now if you theory data in biology a living human says I observe an ape living. It's kind of like me.

I own human consciousness by bio body brain chemistry feelings. I observe the body cell chemistry ape.

I make all higher commentaries from my owned position. Human knowing I'm greater than.

My higher than concept says yes that exact advice ape by my owned human body support type.

You make all claims. The human.

You aren't a God. You are only comparing as a human and a scientist. Title of a thinking status.

That advice the status is one hundred percent correct.

Yet you don't accept natural observation.

You personally own all science claims I will understand how the ape body changed.

Why?

Real answer. A human owns a human ego. It wants by expressed human purpose to know everything.

So if a human says I can discover why it changed in the body ape... are they going to clone apes into human life themselves to quote...why I am a God?

If I am spiritual. Science asks my term of human reference why do you believe the eternal caused created creation. And why did humans believe they crossed over from it and became the first two humans.

I tell my belief. I am only thinking as a human about it. Hence I'm not wrong...I am just a human the whole time.

Two responses....
You are relating incorrect human status as I know more than you or ...I want it for a machine thesis as it has to be machine first number one scientists position.

You are the human who is an incorrect thinker. As I am allowed to believe that when I die I still exist. Science however isn't allowed to believe.

A moot point argument.

Now if science says human behaviours in religious idealism produces cult destructive behaviours then it is observed by and as those terms.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe that God is not composed of anything like you. Experiencing source conscious is understood by different people in different ways, because our finite mind cannot contain the infinite. At bottom, we are all one in our experience of this source.

In our atmosphere consciousness living is with water...oxygen...microbiology.

Beginning observed status biology end highest human. In the same place in the same moment.

A theist human says. Lots of microbes hence as a God term...a mass must own my body type.

Therefore honour water. I give it title holy.

No infinite space as gases are a muti accumulative mass dense that is about physical without being physical.

As the space it uses as a gas is expanded so a human thinks. If I compressed earths heavens I could probably form a solid.

As we live inside of a huge space stretched actually.

Infinite space became finite defined by us as conscious wisdom.

Why we know space is factually empty.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have found that I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts. You may have noticed this frustration seeping into the conversations I have on RF. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just angry at you for not seeing what I see, which is not really fair. I'll will try to have more patience and explain things more clearly in the future.

You are an atheist. You have abandoned belief in existence of God. I also am an atheist. I have also abandoned belief in existence of Gods and Goddesses (Abrahamics believe in one God. Hindus believe in thousands of Gods and Goddesses).

There will be all kinds of people across all religions.
1. Some who understand the weakness of their arguments about existence of God, but due to their indoctrination, family, society and culture, would not give up the thought.
2. Some would not have the intelligence to inquire into this and will blindly believe in existence of God.
But I do not see any reason that an atheist should be frustrated by this?
Let them believe whatever they believe. After all we have to live with them.
You may try to change their thought (which is not going to be easy), but to have patience is good idea.
Finally, with advance of science and reach of education, people are going to be atheists. You may rest assured of that.
**mod edit**

 

[The Hammer]

Yes, unity in diversity.

I prefer to say Unity through Plurality.

 

[Heyo]

Why do you believe that?

I don't just believe that, it simply follows from the definition of the words. And even if you tweak the definitions, it is observable in the believers' actions and answers.
Btw: every system of thought needs some beliefs, though we usually call them "axioms". When you do science there are axioms, when you do maths, there are axioms. When you do religion there are axioms.
Religion stands out a bit because their axioms aren't parsimonious and often the systems aren't consistent. While in maths and science the number of rationally derived knowledge far outweighs the number of axioms, religion is a system of beliefs which far outweigh rationally derived knowledge.

 

[rational experiences]

I believe in a logical man's teaching that said God as life support protector was rock.

Because he did.

He also said as a metal body is deep in earth seams melted cooled pressured. No metal transmitter should have been built on ice.

As it gives false data earth seam metal origins have no signals.

When you falsify God he taught you will be destroyed for falsifying what human science said God was.

The rock.
The holy dust.
The holy light.
The holy space womb.
The holy water.
The holy CH gases.

Was a man's science teaching that said. Hence you are not allowed to give those bodies any other terms.

As science did not claim anti Christ. Satanists had. Scientists. As a scientist is just a human in their own group order.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't just believe that, it simply follows from the definition of the words. And even if you tweak the definitions, it is observable in the believers' actions and answers.
Btw: every system of thought needs some beliefs, though we usually call them "axioms". When you do science there are axioms, when you do maths, there are axioms. When you do religion there are axioms.
Religion stands out a bit because their axioms aren't parsimonious and often the systems aren't consistent. While in maths and science the number of rationally derived knowledge far outweighs the number of axioms, religion is a system of beliefs which far outweigh rationally derived knowledge.

All stated by words only. Conscious speaker is discussing what he inferred not as words. Words are however first...conscious.

 

[Aupmanyav]

At bottom, we are all one in our experience of this source.

Certainly not. You believe in God of Abraham who uselessly sends prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis who do not make any difference in what is happening in the world other than to create more strife by establishing new religions. You are agents of strife. I believe in oneness of humans, animals, vegetation and all non-living substances. I do not think your oneness goes that far, my non-duality has no space for a God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Summary: Why do you believe in God? What do you find to be the most compelling evidence that God exists?

Long Version:
I have found that I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts. You may have noticed this frustration seeping into the conversations I have on RF. I'm not trying to be rude, I'm just angry at you for not seeing what I see, which is not really fair. I'll will try to have more patience and explain things more clearly in the future.

One way to influence others is to first be influenced by them. In other words, seek first to understand, then to be understood. Maybe I would be less frustrated if I actually knew the reasons why you believe in God. Help me understand, and in turn I will respectfully respond, and if you care to hear I will respond with the reasons why I don't believe in God.

Thank you in advance for the conversation

You are looking for a rational answer to that question. But there is none.
And that's, most likely, what bothers you.

It bothers me too.
I have a tough time "accepting" irrational answers as "reasons" for anything.
It bothers me even more when people then tell me that I'm supposed to "respect" such irrational reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

believe that the only real evidence that God exists are the Messengers of God sent by God.

Some believers claim that Creation is evidence but I do not hold that position since there are other explanations for how the universe could have come into existence.

And there are no "other explanations" then "they are actually god's messengers" for people who claim so?

That strikes me as very bizar, seeing as how it's pretty much guaranteed that there are plenty of people who claim to be so and who you don't believe either - because their claims are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

If you believe that the "only real evidence" is the fact that there are people who claim to be messengers, then you are effectively saying that the "only real evidence" are people making bare unevidenced claims.

Ask yourself if there is any other topic for which you would consider such to be "enough" evidence.

Putin and his comrades are currently claiming that Ukraine government is infested with neo-nazi's and that they are committing genocide against russian speaking ukrainian citizens. So, do you consider that "enough" and therefor support Putin's war? After all, can you prove that he's wrong?

Why are bare claims considered "good enough" when it comes to your religion, but not nearly enough when it comes to any other subject?

I am getting frustrated at the thought of people who do not listen to reason, logic, and evidence,

You have JUST acknowledged that you do NOT HAVE "reason, logic and evidence". What you have are BARE CLAIMS from people that you just believe.

You have acknowledged that by saying that "the ONLY real evidence are the messengers". Meaning, the claims they make. You think these claims are evidence, as per your own words.

That is not reasonable, logical nor proper rational evidence. Instead, that's "just believing" bare claims.

Rather. they discount my beliefs out of hand with no logical reason for doing so.

The reason is that you have no rational, reasonable, logical, valid evidence.
What you have, per your own acknowledgement, are claims that are just being believed.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@Daniel Nicholson, a frustrated atheist, wants to know why believers believe in God.
"Why do you believe in God? What do you find to be the most compelling evidence that God exists?"

A sincere atheist wants to know why believers believe in God, but as usual, certain atheists have to show up and give him all the reasons why he should not believe in God, telling him that believers believe for non-rational reasons, and how atheists are above belief because they are critical thinkers. It is the epitome of arrogance.

To quote Dr Sheldon Cooper:

It's not arrogance, if you are correct

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why do you believe that?

scepticism and faith are inherently incompatible.