Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[cladking]

Given your many posts about your religious beliefs you've missed and ignored a lot of science. That is poor judgment, and it's on you.

I have no religious beliefs. You obviously have missed the point of my every post.

I also try very very hard to have no beliefs in science. This might be hard for others to see because I am a metaphysician, generalist, and nexialist. If that isn't hard enough I'm also a metaphysician of ancient science.

At any given time I have dozens of experiment in progress and employ numerous thought experiments. I try to see anomalies and this comes naturally to me, anyway.

I do believe there was an Initiating event or process but have no beliefs about Its Nature or characteristics.

 

[ChristineM]

Few people seem to understand this;

Except you of course.

BTW, philosophy is not science and for the most part philosophers don't comprehend science, it is the difference between thinking about a problem wnd solving the problem

Science changes one funeral at a time.

Actually one discovery at a time

Every man is a product of his time and place. Newton thought differently than you.

I should think he did. The guy was religious. And there is one thing you should remember before trying to compare me to your straw man

 

[cladking]

I see many posers striving to be the most arrogant & ignorant.
Stand down!
I am the master of ignorance & arrogance on RF.

Believers are deluded.
Atheists rule.
I have spoken.

A man after my own heart.

I defer to the master.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't you think people should decide that for themselves?

So to you this is just a matter of opinions?
The "mujahedeen" of the ISIS caliphate considered it a "positive result".

Are you saying that we should "just respect their opinion"?
Isn't there perhaps a more objective standard to determine just how "positive" (or not ) the result is?

Perhaps we could look at objective societal data? Like how it affects human rights, individual freedoms, freedom from religion, overall well-being, etc?

Or do you think you should be deciding it for them?

Did I ever say that? No, I did not.

Do you think all those billions of people are lying when they claim that their faith in their God has helped them to live better and more positive lives?

I say that the people themselves are not in a position to make any objective assessment about that.
Just ask the ISIS mujahedeen. They'll claim to be living "better and more positive lives" then when they weren't radicals and were living in secular democracies. Would you agree with them? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and scream NO, YOU WOULD NOT.

So, why not? They obviously think so... so "who are you" to tell them otherwise?
After all, you believe they should be deciding this for themselves right? And we shouldn't tell them that they are wrong, right? Right???

Or do you think that they're just too stupid to know this

No. I think they aren't capable of being objective about it.
Obviously if they thought it was bad for them, they wouldn't be doing it.
That goes for the peaceful christian and that also goes for the violent islamist terrorist.

All of them consider their faith to be a positive. They can't all be right.

, and that you, being far more intelligent and ethical than they,

I didn't say that at all.

should determine the real value of faith in their lives?

Nope. Objective fact and analysis, from a neutral non-invested position, will determine that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Most theists believe without any idea why they believe at all. It's largely a subconscious activity that projects onto consciousness. The mystery many theists claim is part of their beliefs is their confusion why they believe in irrational al ideas that their rational mind conflicts with. That inner turmoil and conflict has too be reconciled, and that is achieve ed with adoption the mantra of "mystery".

There is, of course, another way of looking at this; the determined atheist does not see what the spiritually awakened person claims to see, so he seeks to resolve the turmoil this provokes in him, by showing that the other is deluded. His frustration then arises from the fact that his protestations fall on deaf ears; if you could see as I see, the believer, says, then you would believe as I believe. This, it seems, is intolerable to the determined non believer. A painful dilemma indeed, for the unfortunate rationalist.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No. Illustrating how beliefs matter, because they inform actions, and thus why one should care about what fellow citizens believe about stuff.

But it doesn't surprise me at all that you managed to miss the obvious like that.



It has EVERYTHING to do with it, since the topic of this sub-conversation is "why care what other people believe?". And the answer to that is "because beliefs inform actions".

Regardless of what the beliefs in question are. They matter, because they inform actions.



For the 5th time: because beliefs inform actions.

How many times must it be repeated?



Yes, the "mujahedeen" from ISIS in the self-proclaimed Syrian caliphate also felt "happier and more fulfilled".
So? Does that make it good? Is it relevant at all?




Neither do I. In fact, I'm not aware of there being any kind of connection.
Many muslims even drink and their religion, unlike most brands of christianity, explicitly forbids it.
So no idea what you are on about.



You determined this, how exactly?
Bill Gates is arguably one of the biggest philantropists in the world. I don't think there is anyone who gave away more money then he did to charities. He's an atheist. So what?
None of this has any relevance to my answer to your question.

Let me remind you...

You asked "why do you care what people believe".
My answer was "because beliefs inform actions".

Sure, for some people their religious beliefs inform their action to donate.
Their religious beliefs also inform their actions to engage in extremely asocial behavior by discriminating, even demonizing, gay people and non-believers.

You are a great example of that last one, btw.



Cherry picking positives while ignoring the horrible bits is not honest.



It matters not.
ISIS scum living in the Syrian caliphate were also happier then when they lived in secular democracies.
So does that mean that you will support them and their caliphate?
After all, they are happier that way, right? And you seem to think that that makes it a valid argument.

Wait, don't tell me you are holding on to a double standard???
That would be SOOOO unexpected!!!

So, do you really need me to talk about how many have died under atheist regimes, or are you content with just spouting nonsense?
The issue again is atheist vs theist, why do you care which someone is on RF? If you think most here are terrorists or Nazis, you really need help.
The OP is about being frustrated because he cannot convince someone here to abandon their belief in God. Why would anyone want to take away the thing that gives the average person happiness and makes more productive citizens?

 

[cladking]

I don't know man... seems to me like you're being pretty condescending yourself within this thread, seem to think you, personally, have all the answers and that others are completely wrong, etc.

No. I have no answers at all. I am merely the only person who seems to know he is totally ignorant and the only person smart enough to know we are all idiots. ...Myself moreso than most.

You trying to give "Scientists" a run for their money?

"Science" is heavily flawed and we are blind to it. Well... ...some scientists can see that a tool is designed for only a specific purpose and this purpose is highly limited. I can see this not because I'm smarter or know more but simply because I have a different perspective. ... A very very different perspective. While I might be wrong about anything the fact is Egyptology is not a science at all and biology is a science only to the degree actual experiments have been performed and interpreted correctly. Many things we take as true including some that lie at the very heart of all science are either not true or, more likely, true from only some perspectives. I've long disagree with the belief in "survival of the fittest" but my current stance is derived in part from my understanding of ancient knowledge about change in species.

Little science today is based on experiment and we are running into new territory where theory is founded chiefly in mathematics and beliefs. Reductionistic science implodes when its metaphysics is not respected.

 

[ChristineM]

So, do you really need me to talk about how many have died under atheist regimes, or are you content with just spouting nonsense?

I would be interested what you call an atheist regime. Or are you confusing atheism with nationalism?

 

[Trailblazer]

How is it "arrogant" to point out that believing things without verifiable evidence isn't rational?
I don't consider it arrogant at all.

It is your choice to require verifiable evidence, just as it is a believer's choice to believe without verifiable evidence.

Why do some atheists need to label believers as irrational? When you do that it borders on arrogance because you are saying you are rational and believers are irrational.

You could just say "I do not consider it rational to believe in God without verifiable evidence" and that would not be arrogant.

Likewise, I can say I do not consider it rational to 'require' verifiable evidence for God. According to Scriptures, the reason there is no verifiable evidence is because God provides no such evidence since God does not want to be verified. I do not consider it rational to require evidence that God chooses not to provide. I consider it illogical.

 

[Trailblazer]

But they usually aren't.

I cannot disagree with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So, do you really need me to talk about how many have died under atheist regimes, or are you content with just spouting nonsense?

The question was why I care what people believe. I answered.
Having said that, go look up why people died in those regimes. You'll find out that "not believing claim X" had nothing to do with it and instead, it was all about communism.

Again a good example for why it matters what people believe.
Atheism is about what people do NOT believe about a very specific thing.

Non-beliefs don't inform actions.
Beliefs inform actions.

The issue again is atheist vs theist

That is not at all the issue in the post you are replying to.
The issue there is why care what other people believe

It's not even about what they believe.

If you think most here are terrorists or Nazis, you really need help.

Another one who isn't capable of understanding a simple analogy to illustrate a point. And you're even replying to a post where I went out of my way to explain said point.

Again: what is being believed is not the issue. The issue is WHY CARE WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE AND WHY, REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT IS THAT IS BEING BELIEVED.

That nazi thing was just an example to illustrate why you SHOULD care what other people believe. Again: regardless of what it is that is being believed.

And the answer is, because beliefs inform actions.

Why is this so hard to comprehend??

Why would anyone want to take away the thing that gives the average person happiness and makes more productive citizens?

...in their opinion.

Again, I'll refer to the "mujahedeen" from ISIS in the brutal syrian caliphate.
They too are "happy". They too consider themselves "more productive citizens".

This to illustrate how the believer itself is not in a position to be able to objectively evaluate that.
Killing Jews made Hitler happy to.

Bottom line is that that is not an argument at all.

Now please try to formulate an intellectually honest reply to this point instead of once again trying to misrepresent my point by claiming that I'm comparing christianity to nazism or what-have-you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't think I've ever seen someone say that.
I've seen people say that believers can not think ciritically concerning the subject of their religious beliefs.
I've not seen people say that believers lack the skill of critical thinking across the board.

What's the difference? If someone cannot think critically about religious beliefs why would they think critically about OTHER things?

I have seen atheists say they are critical thinkers and that believers lack the skill of critical thinking.
Nothing could be more arrogant.... I'm smarter than you are.

Just because one holds a specific irrational belief, does not in any way mean that they are irrational across the board.

Who are YOU to say what is irrational? That is arrogant.

When they believe the earth is only a couple millenia old when ALL the evidence SCREAMS it is 4.5 billion years old, then they ARE being irrational.

I agree because what is known from science contradicts that belief, but that is only ONE religion, Christianity. It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to draw inferences from one religion.

For a belief to be rational, it would have to be backed by reasonable, objective, independently verifiable evidence.

I consider such a requirement to be patently absurd because I know something about God, so I know there can NEVER be verifiable evidence for God. As such I consider it irrational to EXPECT to have such evidence.

Religions require faith precisely because such evidence isn't available.

And the rational thing to do is believe on faith, if you want to believe, since God CHOOSES not to provide verifiable evidence.

I am not aware of any religious beliefs that I could categorize as being "rational".

I think the Baha'i Faith is rational because it is based on and in accordance with reason or logic.

Likely that is the case because there is nothing inherent about atheism or agnosticism.
They are instead specific positions concerning specific claims, that come without doctrines or claims.

As positions, they are rational, since those positions are "disbelief of claims due to a lack of verifiable evidence".

What definition of "rational" do you adhere to, which makes such positions "not rational", I wonder?

Rational means based on and in accordance with reason or logic. I do not consider it reasonable to expect there to be evidence for God if God chooses NOT TO provide such evidence.

If nonbelievers accept that God does not provide verifiable evidence and just say they are unwilling to to believe without verifiable evidence that would not be irrational.

I mean it is obvious that if God exists God does not provide verifiable evidence so expecting that is irrational.

Yes, it's about what underpins the positions you hold in relation certain claims.
"faith", is not a rational underpinning, since "faith" by definition is belief without evidence.

And belief without evidence, isn't rational.

Belief with no evidence would be blind faith and that is not rational but there is such a thing as evidence-based faith. There is evidence that God exists but it is not verifiable evidence so we need faith to believe that God exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is your choice to require verifiable evidence, just as it is a believer's choice to believe without verifiable evidence.

Which has nothing to do with it being rational or not.
But sure, you can choose not to care about rational reasoning underpinning your beliefs.

Why do some atheists need to label believers as irrational?

It has nothing to do with atheists or theists.
It has to with what type of belief is rational and what isn't.

Whenever you believe something based on no evidence, regardless of what it is, you are engaging in irrational belief. Faith-based religious beliefs happen to be fall in that category. It's by far not the only one. There's also horoscopes, fortune tellers, tarrot card readings, believing whatever nonsense is posted on facebook, alien abduction, bigfoot, etc.

When you do that it borders on arrogance because you are saying you are rational and believers are irrational.

I have never labeled people as rational or irrational.
BELIEFS can be rational or irational.

People are perfectly capable of holding an irrational belief while being rational in every other aspect of their lives. In fact, they kind of have to out of necessity. They won't live very long if they don't.

You could just say "I do not consider it rational to believe in God without verifiable evidence" and that would not be arrogant.

Which is what I say.

Likewise, I can say I do not consider it rational to 'require' verifiable evidence for God According to Scriptures, the reason there is no verifiable evidence is because God provides no such evidence since God does not want to be verified. I do not consider it rational to require evidence that God chooses not to provide. I consider it illogical.

Replace "god" with "magical unicorn". Your paragraph would have the exact same merit.
That makes it irrational.

In fact, not even a magical unicorn.
Let's just say that *I* am god. I am an all powerfull all knowing being.
No, you will not be getting any evidence for that, "because I have no desire to provide you with such" since I don't want to be verified.

If you don't believe me, you're holding a double standard. Which is irrational.

This is the point: you'ld NEVER accept such "reasoning" for any other subject.

 

[Trailblazer]

What exactly is so "arrogant" about pointing out reasoning mistakes?

It might not be arrogant if you have something to back up your argument, as I just did.

 

[Trailblazer]

To believe in existence of God or that he sends messages is absolutely irrational since there is no evidence for that.

To believe in existence of God and that he sends messages is absolutely rational since there is evidence for that.

 

[Trailblazer]

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,

No, I was just responding to the OP. He asked and I answered.

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

This was not a thread for atheists to come and say why NOT to believe in God, but they cannot help themselves. They have to show up.

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.

Sorry, but my reasoning is not fallacious because the conclusion that God exists follows from the evidence.
The fact that atheists do not like the evidence that God provides is completely moot.

You've been told repeatedly that your interpretation of evidence is incorrect and that your reasoning is flawed, but you don't believe it.

Told by who?
Why should I believe it, because some atheists tell me that? You have nothing to back up the assertion that your interpretation of evidence is incorrect and that your reasoning is flawed except a personal opinion.

Baha'is can just as well tell atheists that their interpretation of evidence is incorrect and that their reasoning is flawed, but we do not generally do that since it is against the teachings of our religion to criticize other people.

 

[cladking]

I would be interested what you call an atheist regime. Or are you confusing atheism with nationalism?

The Soviet Union was an atheist regime. It was almost impossible to be a party member if you were openly religious. They killed millions in the Ukraine through starvation.

 

[Trailblazer]

It has nothing to do with atheists or theists.
It has to with what type of belief is rational and what isn't.

Whenever you believe something based on no evidence, regardless of what it is, you are engaging in irrational belief.

But I do not hold a belief based upon no evidence. I hold a belief based upon evidence.

 

[Heyo]

Who are YOU to say what is irrational? That is arrogant.

I'm not defining "irrational", I'm just citing the dictionary. Arrogant would be to dismiss the dictionary.

 

[sun rise]

BTW, philosophy is not science and for the most part philosophers don't comprehend science, it is the difference between thinking about a problem wnd solving the problem

Um, I hate to disagree with you butt but first part is misleading. While "most" may be accurate, the second is to me misleading: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy

Philosophers of science actively study such questions as:

• What is a law of nature? Are there any in non-physical sciences like biology and psychology?
  
• What kind of data can be used to distinguish between real causes and accidental regularities?
  
• How much evidence and what kinds of evidence do we need before we accept hypotheses?
  
• Why do scientists continue to rely on models and theories which they know are at least partially inaccurate (like Newton's physics)?

Though the field is highly specialized, a few touchstone ideas have made their way into the mainstream. Here's a quick explanation of just a few concepts associated with the philosophy of science, which you might (or might not) have encountered.

• Epistemology — branch of philosophy that deals with what knowledge is, how we come to accept some things as true, and how we justify that acceptance.

• Empiricism — set of philosophical approaches to building knowledge that emphasizes the importance of observable evidence from the natural world.
  
• Induction — method of reasoning in which a generalization is argued to be true based on individual examples that seem to fit with that generalization. For example, after observing that trees, bacteria, sea anemones, fruit flies, and humans have cells, one might inductively infer that all organisms have cells.
  
• Deduction — method of reasoning in which a conclusion is logically reached from premises. For example, if we know the current relative positions of the moon, sun, and Earth, as well as exactly how these move with respect to one another, we can deduce the date and location of the next solar eclipse.
  
• Parsimony/Occam's razor — idea that, all other things being equal, we should prefer a simpler explanation over a more complex one.
  
• Demarcation problem — the problem of reliably distinguishing science from non-science. Modern philosophers of science largely agree that there is no single, simple criterion that can be used to demarcate the boundaries of science.
  
• Falsification — the view, associated with philosopher Karl Popper, that evidence can only be used to rule out ideas, not to support them. Popper proposed that scientific ideas can only be tested through falsification, never through a search for supporting evidence.

• Paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions — a view of science, associated with philosopher Thomas Kuhn, which suggests that the history of science can be divided up into times of normal science (when scientists add to, elaborate on, and work with a central, accepted scientific theory) and briefer periods of revolutionary science. Kuhn asserted that during times of revolutionary science, anomalies refuting the accepted theory have built up to such a point that the old theory is broken down and a new one is built to take its place in a so-called "paradigm shift."