Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Wildswanderer]

No, you are forgetting that scientific claims can be tested and confirmed or refuted.

Whoosh!
We use our senses (what we perceive) to do the tests and confirmations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whoosh!
We use our senses (what we perceive) to do the tests and confirmations.

The senses are all that we appear to have. Like it or not, if your beliefs were true they could be tested and confirmed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everyone needs a substitute, it's silly to pretend you have lived a perfect life...

Where have I pretended to live a perfect life?

I'm talking about taking responsibility for my actions instead of putting them onto someone else.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No there's also love... which is who God is and why he's worthy of obedience.

A God that commands that you love him, while simultaneously fearing him and doing what he says, or else.
That's not love, imo.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's biblical to pray over the sick.
What you think about it is irrelevant.
When it comes to individuals who claim to be able to heal that is a different question.
And not all Pentecostal churches emphasize faith healings or prosperity.

I say if there is anyone out there who "claims to be able to heal," they should get themselves to the nearest children's hospital and get healing.

 

[PureX]

Not true at all. It all depends upon what Bob claims that he did. "I walked to the store to buy some.milk". Okay Bob,sounds reasonable. " I flapped my arms real hard and flew around the room.". Sorry Bob, I am going to need a lot stronger evidence than that.

Bob gave a beggar some money and says he did it because he trusts that is what his God would want him to do. And you say his own reasoning is not "evidence" for his own actions. And now that it's right in front of you, you still can't say, "yeah, well, I guess that would be considered pretty good evidence". Ya just can't do it. Because that would mean that Bob's faith in God caused him to do something good. And that there are billions of Bobs out there in the world doing exactly that, and for exactly that reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bob gave a beggar some money and says he did it because he trusts that is what his God would want him to do. And you say his own reasoning is not "evidence" for his own actions. And now that it's right in front of you, you still can't say, "yeah, well, I guess that would be considered pretty good evidence". Ya just can't do it. Because that would mean that Bob's faith in God caused him to do something good. And that there are billions of Bobs out there in the world doing exactly that, and for exactly that reason.

No, why do you keep coming up with such poor and false scenarios. Your claim was that just a person's testimony was "evidence". Obviously it is not reliable evidence for many things. Now you are trying to say that because Bob did a certain action and claims to have done it because his god wants him to what was that supposed to prove? I will accept that people do things for all sorts of reasons. That is not evidence for their personal belief.

Okay, two can play this game, I give a homeless man some money because I believe that when I die if I am good that I will get endless free hookers. Is that evidence for my personal beliefs?

 

[Aupmanyav]

And billions of Bobs who are doing just the opposite, robbing even the poor.

 

[PureX]

And billions of Bobs who are doing just the opposite, robbing even the poor.

Billions? I hardly think so. And "robbing" someone doesn't describe taking voluntary donations from them. I think your knee is jerking quite badly, here, if you think billions of people are robbing the poor because of their faith in God.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The senses are all that we appear to have. Like it or not, if your beliefs were true they could be tested and confirmed.

They are true according to the senses of those who experience them. And by saying the senses are all we have while agreeing with the claim that we can't be sure of what we perceive, you have effectively shown that science can't be sure of anything.

 

[Wildswanderer]

A God that commands that you love him, while simultaneously fearing him and doing what he says, or else.
That's not love, imo.

Your opinion of what love is isn't what's important because you, as a mere human, are subject to all kinds of human emotions and false ideas.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I say if there is anyone out there who "claims to be able to heal," they should get themselves to the nearest children's hospital and get healing.

Anyone who is Biblical would be saying it's God who can heal and that they are only the channel he may or may not choose to work through.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

God doesn't encourage murder. Read The ten commandments. Instead he died to save the people who had him killed.

Depends on whether you believe in the Bible. If you do, than I gave you 5 examples from the old testament when God does command or commit murder. If you do not, than we can have another conversation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Depends on whether you believe in the Bible. If you do, than I gave you 5 examples from the old testament when God does command or commit murder. If you do not, than we can have another conversation.

Of course i believe the Bible. I also believe that the God big enough to make the rules has the authority to break the rules he made when he decides to.

 

[F1fan]

So it's not natural or it is? Because in reality, it's both. We are spirit and flesh and the flesh to quote some actor "Wants what it wants." and has no problem with violating whatever ethical norms there are to get there. That's why Scripture tells us to live by the Spirit not the flesh.

In reality it means nothing to say "we are spirit". This is a religious belief, not a fact. The fact is some have stable and sound mental health and some do not. It's the lottery of life we all are part of.

And yes we have a limbic system that is very much a primitive and animal brain. This part of our brain causes us a lot of trouble. Some folks are free spirits, and others are more disciplined. Humans are not robots and our being can't be defined by any ideal framework. Traits can be observed and defined in science and these are categories that humans fall into or not.

 

[F1fan]

Of course i believe the Bible. I also believe that the God big enough to make the rules has the authority to break the rules he made when he decides to.

Then it's a hypocrite that can't hold humans to any moral absolute. If we humans are bound to moral absolutes then they are only absolute because the God is obligated to follow them as well. If God can get away with being immoral then that opens the door to certain religious extremists to claim they commit terrorism because they are following God's extra special morals. See how easy that can happen without moral absolutes?

 

[F1fan]

Bob gave a beggar some money and says he did it because he trusts that is what his God would want him to do.

What about what Bob wanted? Is Bob just a mindless drone following a script of expectations? Why can't Bob just be a good guy with empathy and made his own decision? Does he really need to give the credit to a God we aren't certain exists?

And you say his own reasoning is not "evidence" for his own actions. And now that it's right in front of you, you still can't say, "yeah, well, I guess that would be considered pretty good evidence". Ya just can't do it. Because that would mean that Bob's faith in God caused him to do something good. And that there are billions of Bobs out there in the world doing exactly that, and for exactly that reason.

Yet atheists do the same thing without faith in God, nor having to think a God is involved. Explain.

 

[F1fan]

Billions? I hardly think so. And "robbing" someone doesn't describe taking voluntary donations from them. I think your knee is jerking quite badly, here, if you think billions of people are robbing the poor because of their faith in God.

What about those creepy televangelists who swindle old people for donations? Are they doing God's work?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Then it's a hypocrite that can't hold humans to any moral absolute. If we humans are bound to moral absolutes then they are only absolute because the God is obligated to follow them as well. If God can get away with being immoral then that opens the door to certain religious extremists to claim they commit terrorism because they are following God's extra special morals. See how easy that can happen without moral absolutes?

I see you have no understanding of what transcendence is.
Just by virtue of being God, he has to make decisions we never will. If you had all knowledge, would that not make a difference in your understanding of morality? I find it ironic that you think God has to abide by his moral absolutes for us when without him morality is completely subjective.
First understand that everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die. No ones death takes God by surprise. God by virtue of being all powerful, decides when your last heartbeat will be. As a human you don't have that right for anyone else.
God is not obligated to give us life us at all. He doesn't owe us anything.

 

[F1fan]

I see you have no understanding of what transcendence is.
Just by virtue of being God, he has to make decisions we never will. If you had all knowledge, would that not make a difference in your understanding of morality?

First, let's be aware that you are not referring to facts, but religious dogma that you learned from other people. Human morality is part biology and part cultural. Religion did not exist in the early stages of human evolution yet how humans behave socially developed at this time.

I find it ironic that you think God has to abide by his moral absolutes for us when without him morality is completely subjective.

It's all subjective since no God is known to exist that we can refer to. My point is that your view that a God can do anything it wants opens the door to "true believers" to assume these special morals of God and do whatever they want. They claim God says it's OK, and how can you say they are wrong if you believe this God exists? It's a huge flaw in your thinking. If you want absolute morals, like no murder, then God has to follow the same rules. That gives no extremist any excuse to commit murder for God.

First understand that everybody who dies, dies because God wills that they die. No ones death takes God by surprise. God by virtue of being all powerful, decides when your last heartbeat will be. As a human you don't have that right for anyone else.

These ideas aren't facts to understand, these are religious beliefs that have no basis in reality.

God is not obligated to give us life us at all. He doesn't owe us anything.

Well that certainly is the case for those children who suffer and die from cancer. Your God doesn't seem worthy of worship.