Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[cladking]

Intuition will not lead you to counter-intuitive ideas.

You have no intuitive bone in your body, do you?

Intuition gets you on the exact same path as any other mode of thought but gets you to a destination much more quickly. It might not be where you wanted to go and it might be nowhere but you get there almost immediately.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is a good example. DIS belief - is still a "BELIEF"

No. Not believing something, is not a belief.
Just like not playing football, is not a sport.

that there is not a God

Not believing the claim "god exists", is not the equivalent of believing the claim "god does not exist".
I'm sorry if you don't comprehend the difference.

Having said that, a negative belief like "X doesn't exist", doesn't really inform actions either.
Positive beliefs inform actions.

A nice play on words

That's what you do: playing with words to say that "not believing" is somehow believing.

and, IMO, it is used to wiggle out of defending a position. Whether a believe or if you disbelieve something... both carry actions or both can display inaction. That why it sounded so full of fancy words but left someone wondering... "just what did they say?"

Let's just cut this short: give me an example of an action that is informed by not believing the claim "god exist" and explain the logical/causal link between that disbelief and the action.

Be sure not to use the word "not".
So saying "not praying", is not an action. That's rather doing nothing.

Yes... it is inherent. But the question would be, "Is it just chemicals that make us think it is moral or was it hardwired by another being" (In my case, God).

Neither.
Morals are derived from understanding reality and reason.
A moral sense is the result of traits like empathy, which are the result of evolution which has molded us into a social species.

All moral species have a sense of morals. In the sense of what is deemed acceptable behavior and what isn't within the context of having a functioning social group capable of survival.

What those rules are, is subject to change as the context and nature of the social group changes.

It may not have to be "given" but it does need to be "written" because people have the capacity to become numb to morality and ethics. This is provable.

It makes no difference if they are written down or not.
Moral values being written down doesn't stop humans from engaging in immoral behavior.

Some people find no problem with human trafficking (having had their conscious seared over time)... yet others would say it is a violation of morality.

Regardless of whether or not the morality underpinning that is written down or not.

The fact that there are so many people that have differing views of "this is good" vs the same item "this is bad" also is a provable fact.

And a fact that underpins my argument: that morals are the result of reason and social context. Not the result of some third party handing it to us.

Of course, as you said, it would be necessary to go to some other source on occasion.

Not on occasion. Always.
And that "other source", are your own inherent traits dealing with the issue. Like empathy and knowledge / understanding of the world. Morality isn't a black and white thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have no intuitive bone in your body, do you?

Intuition gets you on the exact same path as any other mode of thought but gets you to a destination much more quickly.

No amount of "intuition" would get you to the "destination" of the reality of quantum weirdness, black holes, relativity, micro-organisms causing disease, evolution, etc.

Instead, "intuition" leads you in the opposite direction. Which ends up in incorrect answers.

Objective evidence is what lead us to the correct answers. And those answers were counter intuitive.

Einstein himself thought his theories were wrong, because he couldn't stomach quantum weirdness and black holes. He considered them to be "counter-intuitive" and "absurd" assumed for that reason that he had to be mistaken somehow.

It might not be where you wanted to go and it might be nowhere but you get there almost immediately.

Which doesn't help if "there" is incorrect.

 

[cladking]

On the contrary it is usually a combination of very hard work and considering all possibilities.

And how does one consider all possibilities without such things as knowing everything it is not, an ability to think outside the box, perfect models of current theory, intuition, and imagination?

Most human progress (new hypothesis borne out by experiment) originates in the consideration of anomalies in light of imagination and/ or intuition.

Obviously cold hard logic, experience, induction, deduction, knowledge, and many other factors can and often do exist. One doesn't need any imagination to put together a puzzle when every piece is available. Typically hypothesis is arrived at when most of the pieces are still missing so this requires imagination and intuition.

Science is much more than hard work or a weapon to be wielded against non-believers. It is a tool and it often requires unusual use of a tool to perform a new job such as hypothesis formation or experiment design.

 

[cladking]

micro-organisms causing disease,

Ancient people observed disease micro organisms.

Objective evidence is what lead us to the correct answers.

There are many types of "objective evidence". Just because you don't see something or believe something doesn't mean it doesn't exist and conversely no amount of believing in something or overwhelming support by Peers can cause anything to come into existence. You have belief in the omnipotence of science and you believe you can color in between experiment. This doesn't make it true and it doesn't make every other science false.

Objective evidence is what lead us to the correct answers.

"Evidence" is irrelevant and misleading. Science is experiment.

Which doesn't help if "there" is incorrect.

Most people go a lifetime without ever contributing anything substantial to human knowledge. The thinking of even the greatest scientists often results in dead ends.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Obviously cold hard logic, experience, induction, deduction, knowledge, and many other factors can and often do exist.

This is a strange sentence. You think it's going somewhere with the comma-delimited list of laudable things... but then... what? "can and often do exist?" Can exist? Often do exist? Is this in reference to something specific (i.e. experience of something specific; knowledge of something specific)? As in sometimes, for some item we may question we can have "cold hard logic" on our side? Or "knowledge" to lean on? And that "often" we have those things in response to various quandaries? I mean... all you said was that they "can exist" or "often do exist." It's just a strange thing to say. We may obtain those things (obtaining experience, obtaining knowledge) or use those things (use knowledge, or us induction/deduction), and from that we could infer that they exhibit some form of "existence." But to just say "sometimes these things exist", as if that means anything - I don't know... it's weird.

 

[cladking]

This is a strange sentence. You think it's going somewhere with the comma-delimited list of laudable things... but then... what? "can and often do exist?" Can exist? Often do exist? Is this in reference to something specific (i.e. experience of something specific; knowledge of something specific)? As in sometimes, for some item we may question we can have "cold hard logic" on our side? Or "knowledge" to lean on? And that "often" we have those things in response to various quandaries? I mean... all you said was that they "can exist" or "often do exist." It's just a strange thing to say. We may obtain those things (obtaining experience, obtaining knowledge) or use those things (use knowledge, or us induction/deduction), and from that we could infer that they exhibit some form of "existence." But to just say "sometimes these things exist", as if that means anything - I don't know... it's weird.

I'm sorry, I thought the context was apparent; these things can exist as constituent parts of hypothesis that is borne out by experiment leading to human progress.

There is no simple motivation nor means of thought for human beings and this also applies to the way humans perform every part of science from evidence gathering to interpretation of experiment.

Most believers in science have no concept of such things and no understanding of metaphysics or how science or language works.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's idiotic, and yet it never stops.

It's ego and it never stops.

 

[Trailblazer]

On the contrary it is usually a combination of very hard work and considering all possibilities.

For crying out loud! Look who showed up to dinner. I have been worried about you since you have been gone for so long.
Welcome back!

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What you don't understand is that YOU are one of those people, too. And because you don't understand this, you keep insisting on judging everyone else's illusions by he criteria of your own. Oranges by the criteria of bananas. It's idiotic, and yet it never stops.

There is a reality we are presented with and can demonstrate to one another. Full stop. You wanting to call that reality "illusion" is fine... as long as you (and @Trailblazer) understand that it is COMPLETLEY UNLIKE the reality any theist wants to present to ANYONE. The illusion we are all under does NOT include the items that each of us would simply like it to contain. The specific and special illusions of theists are NOT SHAREABLE, NOT DEMONSTRABLE, NOT PRESENT in the same way that other reality you would like to call "illusion" is. It isn't. DON'T LIE TO YOURSELF.

 

[Kenny]

So you BELIEVE there is no Santa?

Let's go beyond irrelevant questions.

 

[Kenny]

You have just exemplified how this gets so deep that on doesn't understand just what you are saying/

No. Not believing something, is not a belief.
Just like not playing football, is not a sport.

This makes not sense at

Not believing the claim "god exists", is not the equivalent of believing the claim "god does not exist".
I'm sorry if you don't comprehend the difference.

Having said that, a negative belief like "X doesn't exist", doesn't really inform actions either.
Positive beliefs inform actions.

Not believing the claim "god exists", for you, is the equivalent of saying "I don't believe that God exists".

Nice play on words though.

That's what you do: playing with words to say that "not believing" is somehow believing.

Let's just cut this short: give me an example of an action that is informed by not believing the claim "god exist" and explain the logical/causal link between that disbelief and the action.

Be sure not to use the word "not".
So saying "not praying", is not an action. That's rather doing nothing.

If you disbelieve a bridge will hold you, you won't cross a bridge and you will take the long way around.
If you disbelieve the doctor when he says, "You need to go to the hospital NOW", you will go home instead.

You disbelief has a corresponding action.

If you disbelieve that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, you will find a different way.

Neither.
Morals are derived from understanding reality and reason.
A moral sense is the result of traits like empathy, which are the result of evolution which has molded us into a social species.

All moral species have a sense of morals. In the sense of what is deemed acceptable behavior and what isn't within the context of having a functioning social group capable of survival.

What those rules are, is subject to change as the context and nature of the social group changes.

That is you position and yet you really can't prove that it was just understanding reality and reason. God may have hardwired that into the psyche of man.

It makes no difference if they are written down or not.
Moral values being written down doesn't stop humans from engaging in immoral behavior.

Yet, if you don't post the speed limit, what is then defined as immoral? 70? 80? 90? or to the race car driver who can handle a car, 140?

Posting, or writing it down on a sign, is quite helpful. Contracts are all about what will be determined as moral or immoral.

And a fact that underpins my argument: that morals are the result of reason and social context. Not the result of some third party handing it to us.

Ummmm... maybe or maybe not. Reason varies from person to person. Can you imagine a court system which didn't had something sent down to us for rules and regulations?

Not on occasion. Always.
And that "other source", are your own inherent traits dealing with the issue. Like empathy and knowledge / understanding of the world. Morality isn't a black and white thing.

Morality, in SOME instances, may not be black and white. Murder is black and white.

 

[F1fan]

Let's go beyond irrelevant questions.

Well your assertion isn't accurate. It's absurd to "believe in God not existing", as it is awkward language and not how atheists respond to religious claims. Let's look at the language and what you say with such assertions.

To believe a concept is true the concept has to be stated. Children hear about Santa as children and told it brings them gifts. So the concept is "Santa is a jolly old man who will deliver you and other children on December 25 every year". Children accept this concept and believe it is true. At some point in childhood the gig is up and parents admit that Santa doesn't actually exist, so how do children relate to this? They stop believing. What they don't do is 'believe in Santa doesn't exist". In this case the concept is "Santa doesn't exist" and children decide this is true and believe it. But this isn't the concept they work with, the concept they work with is "Santa exists". It's the same with God. We all learn the concept "God exists". It's everywhere. Except for alternative arguments that assert God doesn't exist, the concept "God doesn't;t exist" isn't used in general language, nor how most atheists think about this concept.

We atheists are exposed to the claim "God exists" and we just don't believe it. We don't "believe in God doesn't exist" which would an active judgment about the concept "God doesn't exist". So when theists assert that atheists "believe God doesn't exist" (or some form of this belief in a negative) it doesn't reflect language nor an actual judgment atheists are making.

 

[F1fan]

You have no intuitive bone in your body, do you?

Intuition gets you on the exact same path as any other mode of thought but gets you to a destination much more quickly. It might not be where you wanted to go and it might be nowhere but you get there almost immediately.

False. Intuition is little more than a feeling or guess. Reasoning is vastly better as an option.

If you disagree, by all means give us hard examples of intuition being superior to reason as a means to make decisions.

 

[cladking]

If you disagree, by all means give us hard examples of intuition being superior to reason as a means to make decisions.

As I said, I don't believe reason and intuition are different in the sense I'm using the word. Neither is superior.

Frequently in real life there is not nearly enough information to make a rational decision or there is not enough time. In such cases intuition is clearly superior.

Which door do you want? The lady or the lion?

If you're being chased by a lion do you turn right or turn left.

And as I've said many times all of the truly important questions in life can not be answered by science and might never be. This is why I chose rational intuition.

 

[rational experiences]

If science by human thinkers give human descriptions to substance presence they lie.

Like claiming rocks pressure owned created cooled metal seams. As if rock created metal.

Is his human words man conned itself as words were used to describe numbers also.

The dictionary of ary diction said a sophist is a cunning contrivance.

Theists who said holiness was a mother and maths.

Now you could say my human mother is holy....no maths or I believe maths is holy by zero space.

As you were told don't misquote the word a mother.

Meaning nothing womb.

His brother said nothing only holds mass the God body. Term why science taught the God status.

No scientist to argue as it's science terms and not religious iconography.

Ceremonies words prayers teachings you claim are inappropriate use of human information.

Religious status is only religious hence humanity claim by choice ceremony....mind your own business it's not science.

Science however imposes it's position above and beyond human behaviour.

Are as evil a thinker as your ego responses allows.

You claim give me the definition the substance of God as I want it in scientific notice thesis and resources.

You are the only liar. You bully religious iconography Claiming you must advise me give me proof.

Iconography is not applying science research humans as scientists are.

A separate branch always was.

So science says cult God satanic scientists are lying about knowing God I must prove to the public they lie.

Yet a scientist is first just a natural human.

The position natural human mind body says you scientist are an evil theist looking to take the rock claimed by law to be gods form only....into another substance not Rock and kill us all.

Is the real topic as coercing not about human intent and exact topic is the contrivance.

As a human I know when another Humans behaviour by family is wrong.

The behaviour is first expressed singularly. A human first.

If a cult order says let's all exhibit bad here man behaviour then it is unlawful and needs opposition by family demand to not be allowed.

As we use human law to keep society and family safe. That is direct organisation only status. If humans believe in taught bad behaviour they already believe in the behaviour.

If organisations by religious practice save sanity give purpose then they were qualified a healer organisation. If a human heals by the practice then they needed it.

If a human says if you teach about God then teach it as a scientific review. Then change your preaching method and learn correctness of teaching.

By interpreted relay.

Don't be afraid to admit your healing self was wrong. You could only learn and know what your hurt mind could interpret.

Versus a scientist who wants to alter by time past cosmic terms what earths God rock substance is first.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This makes not sense at

It makes very good sense. Is not playing football a sport? If you just sit on your couch all day Sunday, or whatever day that you prefer, maybe watching TV, maybe not, is that activity a sport?

Not believing the claim "god exists", for you, is the equivalent of saying "I don't believe that God exists".

Nice play on words though.

No, it is clearly not. It is a sign of rational thought. One should not believe in something until sufficient evidence to justify a belief is given. That is not the case with religion. For almost everyone in a religion they are in it because their parents brought them up in that religion. When I say that I do not believe in God that is not the same as saying I believe that God does not exist. The first is a neutral statement. It tells you that I do not have an old belief to cling to and my mind can be changed by evidence. When a person says "I believe that God does not exist" that person already has decided (hopefully based upon evidence, but for such a subject that does not appear to be the case). This is why atheists are always asking for evidence.

If once cannot find evidence for something that should have left clear evidence that is a very good sign that thing does not exist. So if a person's "God" is the God if the Adam and Eve myth or the Noah's Ark myth I have no problem saying that God does not exist. The evidence that both of those myths would have left behind is quite substantial and it is not to be found. But that does not refute all versions of God. It does not even refute all versions of the Christian God.

 

[paarsurrey]

I think that Daniel's frustration in the OP was with believers in God that he took to be "people who do not listen to reason, logic, evidence, and facts." He admitted (correctly) that the dismissal in that sentence might not be fair, so he started this thread to give believers in God an opportunity to say what they think, rather than what atheists imagine that they think.

So I don't think that Daniel was expressing any frustration with his own atheism. He was just acknowledging the possibility that it might be reducing theists to caricatures.

I applaud that. Sadly the good intentions predictably didn't survive the first page of the thread.

I am glad to learn one's friendly admission that perhaps since one has some relationship with Buddha so at least one is satisfied, please. Right?
I still like that the OP expresses his friendly satisfaction with his ism though, if he opts for it on his own free will. Right?

Regards

 

[Subduction Zone]

And how does one consider all possibilities without such things as knowing everything it is not, an ability to think outside the box, perfect models of current theory, intuition, and imagination?

Most human progress (new hypothesis borne out by experiment) originates in the consideration of anomalies in light of imagination and/ or intuition.

Obviously cold hard logic, experience, induction, deduction, knowledge, and many other factors can and often do exist. One doesn't need any imagination to put together a puzzle when every piece is available. Typically hypothesis is arrived at when most of the pieces are still missing so this requires imagination and intuition.

Science is much more than hard work or a weapon to be wielded against non-believers. It is a tool and it often requires unusual use of a tool to perform a new job such as hypothesis formation or experiment design.

You appear to be trying to misread that. A person obviously can only test an idea for all possibilities that he or she can think of. What evidence do you have for your claim? How do you know that it was intuition and not hard work?

By the way, who uses science as a weapon against non-believers? I only use it when non-believers have clearly false beliefs. One should not over generalize and assume that applies to all religious beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

As I said, I don't believe reason and intuition are different in the sense I'm using the word. Neither is superior.

Well then, enjoy your own definitions of those words that no one else uses.

For the rest of us these words mean vastly different things.

Frequently in real life there is not nearly enough information to make a rational decision or there is not enough time. In such cases intuition is clearly superior.

Above you said it isn't superior. But in this case it's not that it is superior, it's just an option. You might have intuition to turn left instead of going straight, but then what? You run into a closed road. Damn. Or maybe you don't. Is there any way to know if intuition worked or not? It's just a guess. Not based on information.

Which door do you want? The lady or the lion?

If you're being chased by a lion do you turn right or turn left.

Both are arbitrary. Good luck or bad luck? No way of knowing. It's all a guess.

And as I've said many times all of the truly important questions in life can not be answered by science and might never be. This is why I chose rational intuition.

I have no idea what rational intuition is, but it's an oxymoron. It sounds like you made it up. Intuition is notable for NOT being rational.