Frustrated athiest asks why do you believe in God?

[ChristineM]

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.

No it wasn't, Stalin was religious, known as the only christian in the Kremlin. They also persecuted atheists.

They killed millions in the name of nationalism

So i see that as confusing atheism with nationalism

 

[ChristineM]

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."

As i said, they think about questions they don't work to solve those questions.
Philosophy Is Not a Science

In sum, philosophy is not science. For it employs the rational tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement.​

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

That's exactly what you have done multiple times. It's all you have and it's not even a real argument.
You ignore the context of the OP and bait and switch.
If beliefs inform actions then all atheists should have zero morals because atheism has no grounds for morality, only survival.

 

[ChristineM]

If beliefs inform actions then all atheists should have zero morals because atheism has no grounds for morality, only survival.

Absolute total bs based on ignorance.

Atheists are human, humans are moral creatures. Stealing morality and claiming it for yourself is an immoral act don't you think?

 

[sun rise]

Absolute total bs based on ignorance.

Atheists are human, humans are moral creatures. Stealing morality and claiming it for yourself is an immoral act don't you think?

An atheist argument for morality can be based on evolution. We have magpies who took off tracking devices on other magpies for example. We have endless examples of morality especially a sense of fairness ANIMALS’ SENSE OF FAIRNESS .

I am of course not an atheist but fair is fair - some arguments from atheists are well grounded in scientific evidence and those should be respected by theists.

 

[Trailblazer]

And there are no "other explanations" then "they are actually god's messengers" for people who claim so?

That strikes me as very bizar, seeing as how it's pretty much guaranteed that there are plenty of people who claim to be so and who you don't believe either - because their claims are incompatible with your religious beliefs.

Anyone can make a claim but the existence of false claimants does not mean there are no true Messengers of God. That is like saying that the existence of junk cars in a junkyard means that there can be no nice new cars in the car lot down the street and that is a logical fallacy.

Of course many people claim to be Messengers of God, or even God Himself, but that does not mean that a true Messenger of God would not also claim that. Of course He would claim that because He would want people to know who He was and what His message was.

It is the fallacy of hasty generalization to say that just because many people falsely claim to be Messengers of God, therefore there have never been any true Messengers of God. What indicates whether a man was a true Messenger a God is the evidence that backs up his claims.

Hasty generalization is an informal fallacy of faulty generalization by reaching an inductive generalization based on insufficient evidence—essentially making a hasty conclusion without considering all of the variables.

Hasty generalization usually shows this pattern

1. X is true for A.
2. X is true for B.
3. Therefore, X is true for C, D, etc.

Faulty generalization - Wikipedia

For example, if a person sees 10 people, all of them falsely claiming to be Messengers of God they may erroneously conclude that there are no true Messengers of God.

If you believe that the "only real evidence" is the fact that there are people who claim to be messengers, then you are effectively saying that the "only real evidence" are people making bare unevidenced claims.

The Messengers of God DO NOT make bare unevidenced claims. They provide evidence to support their claims.

Why are bare claims considered "good enough" when it comes to your religion, but not nearly enough when it comes to any other subject?

The claims are not bare claims since there is evidence that backs them up.

You have JUST acknowledged that you do NOT HAVE "reason, logic and evidence". What you have are BARE CLAIMS from people that you just believe.

NO, I did not acknowledge that. Why would I just believe a man who claimed to be a Messenger of God? Do you think I would believe that Jim Jones is a prophet of God just because he said so? I am not an idiot.

You have acknowledged that by saying that "the ONLY real evidence are the messengers". Meaning, the claims they make. You think these claims are evidence, as per your own words.
That is not reasonable, logical nor proper rational evidence. Instead, that's "just believing" bare claims.

The evidence that God exists is the Messenger, who is a Manifestation of God, and who He was as a person and what He did on His mission and what He wrote are the evidence that support His claims.
His claims are not evidence!

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

NO, I did not say that the claims are the evidence. Claims are not evidence !!!!!! There has to be evidence to support the claims as otherwise they are no more than bald assertions.

The reason is that you have no rational, reasonable, logical, valid evidence.
What you have, per your own acknowledgement, are claims that are just being believed.

No, that is not true, as noted above.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Absolute total bs based on ignorance.

Atheists are human, humans are moral creatures. Stealing morality and claiming it for yourself is an immoral act don't you think?

Humans are moral? Read any history books?
We are not naturally moral.
They need rules and a rule giver or they steal and lie and rape and murder.

 

[Wildswanderer]

An atheist argument for morality can be based on evolution. We have magpies who took off tracking devices on other magpies for example. We have endless examples of morality especially a sense of fairness ANIMALS’ SENSE OF FAIRNESS .

I am of course not an atheist but fair is fair - some arguments from atheists are well grounded in scientific evidence and those should be respected by theists.

Lol, yes animals are so fair. Especially wolves eating thier prey alive.
I have had animals and been around them my whole life. By and large they are completely selfish.

 

[Trailblazer]

We are not naturally moral.
They need rules and a rule giver or they steal and lie and rape and murder.

How many people who steal and lie and rape and murder are atheists?

 

[cladking]

No it wasn't, Stalin was religious, known as the only christian in the Kremlin. They also persecuted atheists.

They killed millions in the name of nationalism

So i see that as confusing atheism with nationalism

I'm sorry but I've spoken with soviets and have read about the country for decades and every source seems to agree they were officially atheistic;

Soviet atheism - Conservapedia

Killing priests and bishops is hardly conducive to building a religious state. Excluding religious people from all positions of wealth and power hardly incentivizes individuals to be religious.

 

[sun rise]

Lol, yes animals are so fair. Especially wolves eating thier prey alive.
I have had animals and been around them my whole life. By and large they are completely selfish.

Humans eat live oysters and boil lobsters and dungeness crabs while they are alive. So you've made a great case that humans are just like wolves.

And I've been around humans my whole life. By and large they are as selfish as lower animals.

 

[Wildswanderer]

How many people who steal and lie and rape and murder are atheists?

That's not even the point.
The point is, there's no basis for morality apart from a higher power.
It's all relative, if it's only based on our selfish desires.
Of course atheists adopt the morals of their culture, but most cultural morals originally came from beliefs in deities.

 

[cladking]

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

Again I disagree. Modern metaphysics is simple enough most philosophers are at least partly familiar with it. Of course it includes all experiment and few philosophers are up on experiment.

There's just not that much to comprehend; observation > experiment. Throw in a few definitions and axioms and you have 'science".

 

[Wildswanderer]

Humans eat live oysters and boil lobsters and dungeness crabs while they are alive. So you've made a great case that humans are just like wolves.

And I've been around humans my whole life. By and large they are as selfish as lower animals.

I haven't found this true at all
Most people I've met are more than willing to help you.
I've seen far more good than bad. But I don't live in a city. Perhaps people become more selfish if they live in tight quarters all the time.

 

[cladking]

Stalin was religious,

"In the initial years, when Lenin was still alive and later when Stalin was still consolidating his position, they were looked down upon by the communist authorities, but were generally left alone.

When Stalin secured his grip on power, he started his radical changes in all aspects of Soviet society, and religion was no exception. Because Marx wrote, that religion is opium for the masses, religion was seen by communists as counter-revolutionary, subversive, reactionary and all round bad for the communist people and communist society.

Stalin started his crackdown on religion in early 1930s. They closed down many churches, many of them were even demolished, priests were persecuted, many of them were murdered by NKVD, monasteries were closed, sometimes repurposed, sometimes demolished.

Persecution of religion sometimes delved into realms of bizarre and ridiculous. In one case a political commissar in NKVD took icons of saints from a church, then tried each icon, found them guilty, sentenced them to death and then they shot each icon with a pistol.

The persecution went so far, that there were just a hundred or so churches left in all of Soviet Union. Religious people risked persecuted for going to church, for doing their religious rituals, even for admitting being religious.

Then WWII started, and Stalin needed to rally the people. For that reason he stopped pushing communism for a while, and started pushing nationalism in communist disguise. That included ending persecution of priests, opening the churches and allowing the people to pray again.

When the war was won, the anti-religious policy got harsher again, but not so harsh as it was in the 30s. After Stalin's death, persecution stopped, and communist leadership embarked on some kind of a truce with the church. Henceforth the church was scornfully tolerated. Being religious was still a big career barrier, and religious people were always looked upon with scorn and suspicion. It went on like that until the end of communism.

When communism ended, it took just a year or two for orthodox Christianity to flourish again in Russia, many people started going to church again and today, almost 3 decades after the end of communism, orthodox Christianity is a big player in Russian society and in lives of ordinary Russians."

-from quora

 

[Trailblazer]

And I've been around humans my whole life. By and large they are as selfish as lower animals.

Sometimes even more selfish!

 

[sun rise]

I haven't found this true at all
Most people I've met are more than willing to help you.
I've seen far more good than bad. But I don't live in a city. Perhaps people become more selfish if they live in tight quarters all the time.

Helping another can be selfish when someone wants something in return, when someone does it to feel good about themselves, does it to impress the person they're with and so forth. A truly selfless act is rare and wonderful because then someone does it with no personal motive.

 

[Trailblazer]

The point is, there's no basis for morality apart from a higher power.
It's all relative, if it's only based on our selfish desires.

That's true, but from what I have seen atheists are no more selfish than believers.
Jesus said to deny self, but that teaching really did not take because I don't see any Christians denying self.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[rational experiences]

I never prayed to God I prayed that earths holy life light would heal humanity.

Seeing our evil.minded brother who thinks he is a machine. Then he says God is a machine changed its holiness. Machine an unholy God now.

I knew brothers and sisters had become self possessed idols and thought how religious iconagraphy lied.

Why praise sacrifice of life?

Oh it saved us we were taught.

So I thought because I can. If you aren't meant by condition equal human to be life harmed why praise it.

Then you get the humans who say be grateful we are lucky to be alive.

Why don't you preach that statement instead so self possessed men won't think God as a man will save them again. When God his machine and God the reaction needs God the man to save it.

By machine theoried Jesus.

Builds a machine knows it's a machine not Jesus....
First he says is second now a reaction inside the machine....knows it's not Jesus.

As a human is a human as a human.

So not only does he want his machine to be Jesus he wants the reaction to be jesus. As God in the heavens where the body of human a machine sits like us. Humans.

Why your brother asks you ...do you all want to die when asking where is a God? The actual reason he is questioning you all.

Not to say don't believe you were attacked saved survived. Asking why you believe you should do it again. Or allow it at all. Seeing millions die from early age unnatural life sacrificed.

As he is using machines again.

The very reason he is.

And as he test studies attacks life everyday surely he realises machines are fixed. How a program he uses is fixed. Atmosphere ever changes.

Not controlled by his lying theisms. Not controlled by his machines.

Father advised him if you point all your transmitters at the collider only it was how a pyramid temple technology was applied.

Why are you transmitting at life instead?

Brother said it is because his machine won't work so if he gets life sacrificed signals he can theory them back to a non sacrificed life. Then it will work.

The sort of sick minded thinking he uses. Seeing most humans aren't sacrificed already first you liar. Why didn't your machine work direct where you claim it would.

Highest life condition first?

Knowing his technology in olden times worked instantly in the presence highest life first.

 

[F1fan]

There is some of that, but there is also the very real mystery of the meaning and purpose of one's existence. It's difficult for people to know what to do with their lives when they don't know why they are alive at all. Our brains function in such way that we are driven to ask questions that we cannot answer.

And the wise thing is to recognize the self is asking questions that can't be answered, so set them aside. You don't get involved with groups that claim to have answers. That what theists do, and we atheists are asking even more questions that theists can't answer.

It's a part of who we are, and what we are, and how we are. The idea of "God" helps us to resolve that mystery for ourselves. And that helps a lot of people to live better (more meaningful and purposeful) lives.

We people like meaning, we like feeling special, we like feeling connected, we like many things that religions deliver to this primal desire. The dilemma is the ongoing conspiracy by many religious organizations to not ask questions (I mean the question we atheists ask). I don't mind people believing Santa exists, but give them the chance to question it.