Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[Wildswanderer]

The issue of abortion is a difficult moral dilemma. The pro-choice people aren't advocating for abortion as something fun, they acknowledge there are serious personal, social, and health aspects to pregnancy and a blanket prohibition ignores these many, complex elements. No one likes abortion, but we do value liberty for women. Also notable is the lack of support for universal healthcare by anti-choice people, and that, to my mind, is a worse moral violation because that results in the deaths of people and infants due to a lack of healthcare access. So until you are on board with healthcare for all you can keep quiet about the morals of being pro-choice.

Nonsense. Liberty to kill isn't liberty at all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But religions don't hate death. Even Christianity says there is life after death, and this afterlife is better than our physical life, so why are you saying it's bad? Aren't you a Christian?

Death is a foreign invader in Christian theology. We were originally created to live forever, which our souls do. I am trying to explain why we find death repulsive. We intuitively know we will live eternally, but we still see people physically dying.... to the person who only believes in the material world, death is permanent and he has no hope of anything else. We have hope beyond death.

 

[Wildswanderer]

But dogs don't eat dogs in nature, there is completion for resources. It's only humans who deliberately kill each other for petty reasons.

Not true. For example a weasel will get into a hen house and kill 13 chickens and eat part of one.
There's plenty of killing for the sake of killing among animals.

 

[Wildswanderer]

argue that even many believers aren't convinced a God exists. Look at many conservative Christians who do not follow Jesus' example of helping the needy, rejecting greed and material possessions, who devote themselves to others, etc. We see many conservative Christians actually live contrary to what Jesus taught, they are antiChrists. If these people really believed in God they would be bending over backwards to live as Jesus did, to help the needy and be moral in every aspect of life. They don't.

Irrelevant. You never find the truth by looking at other people.

 

[F1fan]

Nonsense. Liberty to kill isn't liberty at all.

But it isn't killing. I understand your religious ideology needs to distort and misrepresent what is happening in fetal development to make your argument have more bite, but it isn't a coherent argument. You guys don't even support healthcare for all, so you have no moral basis against abortion. This is just a political issue that you can use to exploit the emotions of many believers.

 

[F1fan]

Death is a foreign invader in Christian theology. We were originally created to live forever, which our souls do. I am trying to explain why we find death repulsive. We intuitively know we will live eternally, but we still see people physically dying.... to the person who only believes in the material world, death is permanent and he has no hope of anything else. We have hope beyond death.

Christian theology has few factual elements, and most of it is an exercise in absurdity. None of what you say here is factual. It might be part of your religious dogma but it means little in discussions where facts are critical.

 

[F1fan]

Irrelevant. You never find the truth by looking at other people.

You are avoiding my point. It's that more conservative Christians behave in a way that is contrary to what jesus taught, and that suggests they aren't all that interested in belief in God, and more interested in what political polices they just justify through religious exploitation. The only reason to be a conservative Christian these days is to justify some immoral political position or some anti-science stance.

 

[F1fan]

Not true.

What I said was true. Your next comment didn't even refer to the point of one species killing it's own for sport.

For example a weasel will get into a hen house and kill 13 chickens and eat part of one.
There's plenty of killing for the sake of killing among animals.

I never said there wasn't. But if your weasel comment is true there will be an explanation for this unique behavior.

 

[F1fan]

I am, but you aren't grasping it.

The only thing I can grasp is your incoherency.

There are no "things" outside our cognitive awareness of "thing-ness". There is only physical phenomena. A great big cosmos of physical phenomena. "Things" are make-believe. We bundle our experience of some physical phenomena together and we call it "this thing". And we say it "exists" now, as this "thing". And we don't realize that we have just created it. We objectified it into our "existence". And we think because the physical phenomena exists (we presume) apart from our awareness of it, that the "thing" we objectified must then exist beyond our awareness, too. But they don't. Because they never did. We created them. We create the "facts", and the "evidence", and "truth" that you are so certain exists apart from you. We don't create the physical phenomena. But we do objectify it into "existence" in the realm of the metaphysical. We humans are as much metaphysical beings as we are physical beings. And we spend our lives negotiating these two realms of being.

Incoherent word salad.

So if you are walking down the street and someone jumps out of an alley with a gun and takes your wallet, then hits you over the head and you are stunned, did it really happen? Do you tell the police you were mugged by a "thing" that is a physical phenomenon but also make-believe? Think the cops will find the guy, assuming he exists and doesn't "exist"? How much more confusing can you make it all sound before they throw you out?

 

[F1fan]

No, I think they are trying to better, morally, than they feel they currently are. Some non-theist are trying to do that as well: to be better people than they feel they currently are.

OK, from what we see many theists are pretty immoral but still insist they are righteous, so it's not working for them. We see theists behaving in good and bad ways and attribute it to their God. They feel accountable to this God so will continue the behavior they are doing. Atheists tend to be rooted in their own moral sense and intellectual authority so are accountable to themselves. It's cleaner to only be accountable to the self as if you add in an absent God, well who knows what it wants.

But the vast majority of humans engaged in that quest, do choose to be theists.

It's not accurate to say people choose to be theists. It is accurate to say that most theists make decisions about what kind of theism they like.

Because faith in God is an effective methodological aid to people who are engaged in that quest.

That is a dubious claim. Faith is better described as a highly illusory fantasy that a theist can lose themselves in. The ideas that theists have faith invested are not factual and typically very imaginative. People love their fantasies and illusions. It's more enjoyable than reality for those who use that approach.

 

[muhammad_isa]

People love their fantasies and illusions. It's more enjoyable than reality for those who use that approach.

Just because you see this life in terms of enjoyment, you assume that people believe because they get something out of it.

On the contrary, if they get something out of it, it would be because they have true faith. You can't see that of course, because you are too busy blowing your own trumpet .. being smug and telling us all how adequate you are without G-d.

 

[rational experiences]

The ruler of the universe, the one who created you and has the right to do whatever he wants to do with you, can not be judged to be evil by your human whims. He allows you to continue to exist every second and you should have some gratitude for that.

Says a man adult who believes it.

As just an adult man. A human father's memory to his baby son who grows into a man. Or a man by organisation pretending to be everyone's father when he was only just an adult man.

The term look at yourself in a man adults self idealisms.

You impose by human status laws rules and measures in human science.

Anyone would believe a great big human man by self caused water loss image was a man as the God.

 

[F1fan]

Just because you see this life in terms of enjoyment, you assume that people believe because they get something out of it.

No, I look at it from scientific explanations. Much of what people do with religion, especially those who invest time in religious interests, get enjoyment from it as their reward centers of their brains become active. This reward is hormones in the blood, and this gives feelings of euphoria. This is why so many find enjoyment from any number of interests, from sport to hobbies to sex.

On the contrary, if they get something out of it, it would be because they have true faith. You can't see that of course, because you are too busy blowing your own trumpet .. being smug and telling us all how adequate you are without G-d.

I notice you don't bother to describe what their "true faith" is, or what it accomplishes. Do you not know? Did you just make it it up? Are you bluffing?

 

[PureX]

OK, from what we see many theists are pretty immoral but still insist they are righteous, so it's not working for them.

You need your vision checked. Because theists don't insist they are righteous any more or less than anyone else, does. They insist their God is righteous, and they aspire to be like their God. It's a very big difference from thinking they are righteous.

We see theists behaving in good and bad ways and attribute it to their God. They feel accountable to this God so will continue the behavior they are doing.

Not exactly. Theists use the idea of "God" to embody and represent what they believe to be the ideal of what is righteous. And then they try to emulate that ideal. If that ideal agrees with your ideal of what is righteous, you will see them as "doing good". But if their ideal of what is righteous does not agree with your ideal of what is righteous you will see them as "doing bad". The purpose of theism is not to align with what you think is the ideal of righteousness. It's to help the theist determine what the ideal of righteousness is, for them, and then to help them aspire to it.

Atheists tend to be rooted in their own moral sense and intellectual authority so are accountable to themselves. It's cleaner to only be accountable to the self as if you add in an absent God, well who knows what it wants.

It makes no effective difference. Atheists are no more or less 'righteous' than anyone else is. And they are determining what righteousness is, for themselves, just as everyone else, is. And they are just as likely to try and impose their ideal of righteousness on others as anyone else is.

It's not accurate to say people choose to be theists. It is accurate to say that most theists make decisions about what kind of theism they like.

They choose both to be (or to remain) theists, and they also choose the god-ideal that they see as being the most righteous. Just as atheists choose to be atheists, and choose their own ideal of righteousness. There's very little practical difference except for the idea of "God" as the representation and focus of one's ideal of righteousness.

 

[PureX]

The only thing I can grasp is your incoherency.


Incoherent word salad.

So if you are walking down the street and someone jumps out of an alley with a gun and takes your wallet, then hits you over the head and you are stunned, did it really happen? Do you tell the police you were mugged by a "thing" that is a physical phenomenon but also make-believe? Think the cops will find the guy, assuming he exists and doesn't "exist"? How much more confusing can you make it all sound before they throw you out?

It's likely that you are currently incapable of grasping it. There's no shame in that. It happens. It took me 20 years to finally grasp what the Tao Te Ching was saying. It represented a way of thinking that was just too foreign for me to understand it. The words I read were translated into English, but they still didn't make sense to me. Fortunately, the book seemed to come around in my life about every ten years or so, and by the third time reading it, and after some accumulated life experience, it became clear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's mercy. You want justice instead?
We (Christians) are considered saint's... We still sin, but it is no longer our identity.

So mercy absolves the sinner of his responsibilities? Okay, so what about the victim? Where is their mercy? Who makes it up to them?

Please answer the question posed to you:

But again, how does that absolve us of our bad behaviors, and what's moral about scapegoating our responsibilities onto someone else?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Death is a foreign invader in Christian theology. We were originally created to live forever, which our souls do. I am trying to explain why we find death repulsive. We intuitively know we will live eternally, but we still see people physically dying.... to the person who only believes in the material world, death is permanent and he has no hope of anything else. We have hope beyond death.

That's why your version of Christianity finds death repulsive. I don't intuitively know or think anybody is going to live forever. You do because your religion says so.

I find death repulsive because it takes our loved ones away from us. But I also realize that it can be merciful, as when someone is in excruciating pain, as my grandfather was.

If we were originally created to live forever, as you say, then you're demonstrating yet again that the God of the Bible is bumbler who can't seem to get anything right, despite repeated attempts to do so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not true. For example a weasel will get into a hen house and kill 13 chickens and eat part of one.
There's plenty of killing for the sake of killing among animals.

That's not killing for the sake of killing. That is killing for resources (e.g. hens to eat), as the poster pointed out. Unless you think the weasel was just doing it for fun?

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

People then were just as smart as people today and we still have a lot to learn from the best of them.

I don't think that is the most efficient way to learn for two reasons. One, people were not as smart back then for the simple fact that they didn't have access to the wealth of knowledge we do now. They may have been born a genius, but could not flourish with universal literacy, knowledge sharing.. etc. The list is long. And two, it's better to build on generations before us than to go back all the way to the source. No need to reinvent the wheel when trying to build a car. And I'm not saying the wheel is not important!

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

Also, this system is manipulated (by an unknown force) in an ongoing process.

All the evidence we have and continue to discover suggests the system does not get manipulated. It has rules and it follows the rules without exception. You said yourself, nothing is random from the universes perspective.

In your POV, how will you determine if something exists or not?
If it interacts with the fabric of the universe, it exists. Thoughts exist because they correlate to synapses in the brain. Some things exist but can only be detected with the aid of technology. God does not exist, but people attribute things they don't understand to God, ie feelings of awe and inspiration (amoung other feelings), natural phenomenon like thunderstorms, floods etc., coincidences...

How will you describe "life"?
Standard scientific definition. The meaning of which is subjective
How will you describe the idea that "life" became "Us"?
Humans? Evolution. I'm trying to learn the origin of life itself right now, it's very interesting stuff. Abiogenesis
How do you describe a thought (meaning, what it is) ? and a memory?
Brain activity

Answers in italics