TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why would that resonate to skeptics?
Are you under the impression that that is an accurate representation about what they believe?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?
- Thread starter Daniel Nicholson
- Start date
Why would that resonate to skeptics?
Are you under the impression that that is an accurate representation about what they believe?
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
To believe in existence of God or that he sends messages is absolutely irrational since there is no evidence for that.
Audie
Veteran Member
Such a wet blanket
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In their experience. Are you sure these results / effects were also considered just as "positive" by others?
Someone who is against homosexuality based on biblical inspiration, will also consider that a "positive result".
The gay people who end up discriminated because of that, won't be considering that very positive.
Islamic terrorists who blow themselves up for their religious beliefs also consider themselves to be on the side of "good". They also consider their religious beliefs and "holy struggle" the best thing since sliced bread. Do others?
The point that you seem to be missing, is that those who engage in such, don't see the harm in it. Instead, they think it is GOOD.
But a god creating a univers from "void" by magic is perfectly fine.
No one says the universe created itself, what they do say is "we don't know so we don't guess, we hypothesise and should that hypothesis pan out we will be a little closer to how the universe formed and a little more knowledgeable
So a hod creating a univers for no apparent reason on a rainy Wednesday afternoon is not absurd. Ok, i think i understand.
PureX
Veteran Member
Since there is no evidence to the contrary, either, it becomes rational to trust in the existence of God if doing so achieves a positive result. In fact, it would be irrational to deny oneself or others such a positive result based on no evidence to the contrary.
Last edited:
Thank you for your wonderful approach to the subject. May I start off with saying that I don't get frustrated if someone doesn't believe like I do?
I find no logic in letting what others believe affect my state of being.There are probably multiple levels of why I believe.
On the base level, which may be subjective at some point, I find the fine-tuning of what I see to be too complex and intricate to think that it just evolved without a higher conscience being involved.
Even if I look at the human body, of which scientists are still discovering its amazing capacity, it doesn't seem logical that it just evolved in and of itself.
On a more personal experiential level, the things that have happened in my life defy the standard of "coincidental".
Since I started my journey with the statement of "The Bible is either true or false. I will start with the position that it is true and test the sucker. I will find out if it is false soon enough!" and approached it with a true and sincere heart - I still have no reason to believe there is no God.
I have found life, peace and joy unspeakable.
Anyway, that is my approach that may not be someone else's approach.
Last edited:
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
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?
Perhaps you really want someone to convince you that he is real?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Blatant shift of the burden of proof fallacy.
Not any more then it becomes rational to believe in alien abduction "because there is no evidence to the contrary".
"no evidence to the contrary" is an epic fail as a motivation to believe something.
Positive to whom and in what context according to which standards?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's not what he said at all.
You should read with a bit more attention.
Because beliefs inform actions.
I very much care what my fellow citizens believe as those beliefs will inform their actions which in turn might have impact on society and myself.
Where is he trying to prove a negative?
Or perhaps you should read his post with a bit more attention instead of engaging in yet another strawman.
When you ask why somebody believes in God - a question I never ask - are you looking to learn from them or about them? If you're an experienced critical thinker, you require justification before belief, and you will never get it from a believer, because there is no valid argument that ends with a sound conclusion that gods exist. I suspect you know that.
One can only come to that belief by some other means, which will be by faith, by which I mean unjustified belief. Perhaps you understand that neither of you can convince the other of anything, because you use fundamentally different means of deciding what's true. The theist will always ask you to relax your criteria, which you know better than to do, and all you can do is offer evidence and argument. If they didn't come to their theistic position using those, they won't be budged from it by them, either.
This is what I mean about not being able to learn from the theist, just as he can't learn from you. But you can learn about theists. One has already offered that he had an experience that he was sure was gods, another knows gods exist because he sees their effect on the lives of others, and another has answered that theism makes them better people and enhances their lives. Isn't that what you would expect? Others will tell you that it gives them a sense of identity and community. Whatever, it will never be a sound argument for the existence of a deity or gods, and it will never be enough for you.
False consensus is one of the cognitive biases we all suffer from, wherein we believe that other people think the way we do in the main, the difference being that some do it better and some worse, but in the end, the other guy will see reason when you present it clearly enough. If only you find the right words, surely they will see the merit to whatever it is you're arguing, because brains are more alike than different, right? If you just present it with crystal clarity in the simplest of terms, surely that will have an impact. But it doesn't.
I suspect that you know this already, but if you want your frustration level to be reduced, recognize that you will likely never succeed for the reasons I gave, and consider adjusting your goals. The discussions are still worth having, because there are people who will benefit from your words and arguments, maybe even you for putting them into words, which I always find helps me clarify my thoughts, but as long as your purpose is to break through, I predict repeated frustration.
And as usual, you are misunderstanding what you read from those people, who are telling you why THEY don't believe in gods, not what others should believe. If you think back on our many discussions, neither of us has ever told the other what he or she ought to believe. You always use the language that such-and-such is what you believe and why, and so do I and most other skeptics. I also get the impression that you consider that bad manners for them to do that - look at your words "certain atheists have to show up" - but don't hold yourself to that standard. You don't see yourself as doing what you complain of in others. You showed up and gave your reasons to believe in a God (messengers), and probably consider that constructive, but you see the skeptics otherwise, even though they no doubt see themselves as being constructive as well. I know I do. There's frequently an asymmetry to these discussions - theist good, atheist bad and immoral - even though we are doing the same thing: stating what we believe and why.
You seem to disapprove here as well.
Critical thinkers reject unjustified belief, and consider all such paths to belief irrational. It's pretty much the definition of irrational - in violation of valid reasoning. Any conclusion arrived at by fallacious reasoning is irrational, as I said, by definition. The fallacy is always the same - non sequitur - the conclusion does not follow from what preceded it. There may be other fallacies along the way - ignorantium, incredulity, etc. - but an unsound conclusion is always a non sequitur and therefore irrational.
Here's the first definition of arrogant I encountered: "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." This is what you accuse the critical thinkers of, but it's also part of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, as in not knowing what you don't know and what others do know and can know they know, and considering them equivalent. Some might call that "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."
You've been told repeatedly that your interpretation of evidence is incorrect and that your reasoning is flawed, but you don't believe it. In fact you call people arrogant for pointing it out, That's odd to me. You probably know when somebody is a better (or worse) runner than you, or a better cook, or a better painter. You probably know when somebody has a better vocabulary or is a better speller. You probably know when their mathematical skills exceed (or the opposite) yours. You probably know that teachers know than their students, so you don't call the teacher arrogant for telling the student he is wrong and a poor grade.
But in this area, it's different.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Trying to prove that God is not real is trying to prove a negative.
First of all, it's impossible, second, why should he care what people believe?
By and large religious people are happier and more giving. How is this a bad thing?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Like atheists trying to take everything joyful out of life? Bashing nativity scenes and religious displays because it offends thier delicate sensibilities?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Do you believe it's possible the consciousness and reality, between mathematics and reality, and between "God" and logic?
Might there be a direct relationship that's invisible from where we sit?
syo
Well-Known Member
The eternal something.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
I know.
That's not what I asked. Instead I asked Where is he trying to prove a negative?
Because beliefs inform actions.
And actions have impact on others.
Societal indexes show that countries with low religiosity score higher across the board then countries with higher religiosity, though.
I don't put too much importance on "individual happiness".
ISIS people living the "caliphate" are also happier then they were when living in secular democracies. Does it matter? No.
Ever heard the phrase "blissful ignorance"?
And last but not least, focusing on the few goods things while ignoring all the horrible things is called cherry picking.
cladking
Well-Known Member
All fine and dandy but it ignores the existence of paradigm shifts.
Nothing at all evolves. Even human knowledge is not linear and never has been. Just like biological niches progress is a kind of punctuated equilibrium and practitioners in science must periodically change their beliefs like donning the clothing of a new species. Of course individual scientists can't do this and must die off (suddenly) just like in real life so scientific beliefs only change one funeral at a time.
While humans are amazing in their ability to identify patterns they are virtually incapable of seeing things through another's eyes or from other perspectives. You can't see Newton's perspective so you believe it is just about the same as yours.