How Much Do You Doubt God's Existence?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

like lots of atheists, you speak of God a great deal.

That wasn't addressed to me, but I'll answer, too. My answer is the same as @Kfox. The topic never comes up in my conversations or my thinking except here on RF or when I am discussing what I do here with others. But in this context, it is a word that comes in handy. FWIW, I almost never refer to "God" using that word capitalized. I generally write deity, a god or gods, or if I am referring to the specific deity most mean with that word, it is the god of Abraham. Here's a month's worth of those:

It seems that believers like to try to imply that "God" is on our mind and that that is due to a hole in ourselves where a god ought to be, as if we understand that something is missing and are drawn to the concept for that reason. They ask what draws atheists to a site for religious people, the implication being that it is due to that same hole. But they flatter themselves when they do that. If we were drawn to religion, we'd be in one. If we had a need that could be filled with a god belief, we'd be theists.

What I am drawn to is how people think and process information. Belief by faith is an interesting topic to me. I also enjoy seeing how people attempt to rationalize away the contradictions between what they believe by faith and what is actually the case. I like the just-so reasons for why this deity never presents itself. And as a result, references to gods are commonplace in such discussions. But that shouldn't be misunderstood for some kind of attraction to theism.

what do you mean, when you speak of God?

Also not asked of me, but a question I'll answer. I agree with @Kfox again. I'm generally referring to whatever the theist means by that word. My definition for a god like the god of Abraham is a sentient universe creator. I understand that the word is also used to refer to other entities by polytheists, and metaphorically.

you must have typed the word God a dozen times today alone. I wouldn’t call that “extremely rare”.

I think he meant that the topic is unusual in his thinking on any given day. You seem to want to equate the number of times he uses the word with his degree of interest in gods. Here are the ten times he used the word today. The first two quotes are him repeating himself about when he speaks of "God" and the third a reference to when others use the word. And these two thoughts are exactly the same two answers I gave you - I rarely use the word when not on RF, and when I am and do, I mean whatever god the theist I'm in discussion with believes in:

• "I speak of God when on this forum because that is a popular subject. It is when I'm with my friends and family does it rarely come up. But to answer your question; the vast majority of times I speak of God on this forum it is reference to the God of Christianity, due to..."
• "The only time I speak of God is when I am on this forum. When I'm with my family, friends, even my theistic friends, I never speak of God unless they do; which is extremely rare. Again; if someone brings up the subject of God, it's in reference..."
• "When people speak of God, they're speaking of what God means to THEM not me. My reference to God is based strictly on what other people have said about him; I've never created a concept of God for myself."

I hope that addresses the issues you brought up. The atheists you see here are generally humanists and critical thinkers. They tend to be well educated and have a proclivity for philosophy, especially epistemology, and this is a ripe venue for discussing such matters. In my case, I'd add a fascination with how people think. That is why the political discussions are also of great interest to me (specifically, support for Trump), as well as the discussions about vaccines and climate change.

They all center around how people decide what's true about the world, and the mental gymnastics they employ to try to justify their beliefs. You might mistake interest in such topics for interest in the topics per se rather than interest in how people come to their beliefs and how they defend them. That is not to say that I don't have interest in the topics like climate change or vaccines per se, but that has nothing to do with these discussions, which are settled matters for me, and I don't go to the faithful for their knowledge.

Consider the flat-earthers. They're fascinating. How in the world did they come to be flat earthers? What perverse need is being satisfied. I'm assuming that it's a form of trolling and not a belief sincerely held in good faith, but if it were, that would be interesting as well. All of this is so foreign to me that I have difficulty understanding how it could happen to people, and THAT's the appeal of those conversations, not the subject matter per se.

Your situation is a little more comprehensible to me than most others. Three of the theists on RF have confided that they have had problems with impulse control that they have gained control over through a god belief. And I don't begrudge you that. If theism makes your life better, then go for it.

But it would degrade my life. Not that it's an option for me this side of despair or dementia - something that radically changed my cognitive or affective status. If such ever befell me, theism might become an option and might become a source of comfort, but here and now, it would not be a positive change.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You were asked, "Who created diseases and disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famines, tsunamis, tornadoes, typhoons, forest fires, etc. " The correct answer is very simple: nobody. Also, all incorrect answers are simple, too. Name anybody you like and you'll have a simple, incorrect answer.

Right nobody .. because G-d is not a person

I notice that you also tried to deflect with, "do we not at least share in the responsibility for undesirable climate-change?" That's irrelevant to the question asked..

Not really .. so-called 'natural disasters' are often the result of our own collective behavior.

"Downright reject, or criticize without full knowledge"? Be honest. Your god can do no wrong in your eyes.

Of course not .. I'm sure you know of the term 'Holy'.
No man can be compared to the purity of G-d.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, you don't need faith only, without deeds, as Paul wrote... OK!

The topic on the faith/beliefs of Paul (Saul of Tarsus) is a complex topic.
..but no, a faith without deeds is not complete.

 

[Ajax]

No, I wouldn't, anyway. The truth is a singular whole. But we humans dan;t perceive it that way. We can only perceive it from limited, relative points of view. So it is very likely that some of those points of view wiil contradict other points of view. Like the way a mountain will look like a different when viewed from different sides.

There is no logical reason why we should expect any particular human perception or exerience of God to mimic any other. As God is a far greater form of reality that any human will be able to comprehend in full.

The differences between Abrahamic religions and denominations are not simply viewing a mountain from different sides. It's a different mountain altogether, despite most fervent theists (and all fundamentalists) claiming that the Spirit guides them.

Also by the same token about truth, there is no possibility that 66-81 books in the Bible, written by different authors about the same hypothetical subject, in a span of half a millennium, can be without hundreds of contradictions, falsehoods and fictitious stories. I know no other book claiming to be serious and truthful, but containing so many false and contradicting stories.

This is just as true of any of us, in relation to what we call "reality". No human's eyes will ever be fully opened to that which is so far beyond our ability to comprehend.

I agree. Your point should be forwarded then to the people believing in the supernatural.

You apparently don't understand what faith is, and what it's for.

We don't need faith when we know what's going on, and what's going to happen. Because we have that knowledge to rely on. It's precisely when we DON'T know what's going on or what's about to happen that we need to trust in the unknown (faith) to keep moving forward.

I know very well the definition of faith. But it's completely different to have faith on something which is based on empirical experience as opposed to have faith in the supernatural, which none of us can comprehend. Also faith is not a pathway to truth.
And as I said many times, I can understand people who find comfort in religions, and if this helps them to move forward in life, well done by them.

 

[YoursTrue]

When people speak of God, they're speaking of what God means to THEM not me. My reference to God is based strictly on what other people have said about him; I've never created a concept of God for myself.

That is one reason why I read and studied the Bible with those who believe and as a result I decided there is a God who cares and is supreme. Now naturally, not all will come to this point, but my study and experiences have convinced me that God exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is one reason why I read and studied the Bible with those who believe and as a result I decided there is a God who cares and is supreme.

I can't understand how someone could reach that conclusion from the Bible.

Now naturally, not all will come to this point, but my study and experiences have convinced me that God exists.

That's what convinced you that God exists? So you were an atheist when you decided to study the Bible?

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't understand how someone could reach that conclusion from the Bible.


That's what convinced you that God exists? So you were an atheist when you decided to study the Bible?

Basically, yes. But someone spoke to me about morals and principles and convinced me to study with them. I resisted at first. I was reluctant. Soon though I was not sorry once I accepted the offer to study with them. I'm not trying to convince you about the Bible because I see many many different expositions about and of the Bible here. And, of course, there are many ways of reading it (interpreting it). I am convinced that only God can bring a person to the right understanding. Of course not all will agree with that.

 

[YoursTrue]

I can't understand how someone could reach that conclusion from the Bible.

I can understand how you feel, and I might feel the same way. That is basically how I feel about those who are members of a religion that is purportedly based on the Bible and then say most, if not all of it, is based on myths. Now I know you might not believe what I am going to say, but only God can bring you to the point of understanding.

 

[Kathryn]

Yes, your conscious awareness is only aware of 5% or less of what is going on in your brain at any given moment. this is like that small circle on a piece of paper. There is a near infinite amount of activity going on inside your that you are unaware of and can't fathom.

It's possible there is a God outside of that, but if there is, I'm not sure what is left for them to do since your brain takes care of everything necessary to support your survival and conscious experience.

I believe that I am made in God's image however, and that I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Even so, I know that there are things I do not understand or comprehend out there, and I'm OK with that.

You were asked, "Who created diseases and disasters, earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, famines, tsunamis, tornadoes, typhoons, forest fires, etc. " The correct answer is very simple: nobody. Also, all incorrect answers are simple, too. Name anybody you like and you'll have a simple, incorrect answer.

I notice that you also tried to deflect with, "do we not at least share in the responsibility for undesirable climate-change?" That's irrelevant to the question asked, but its consistent with the Abrahamic tendency to give all credit for good things to its god and all blame for the bad to man and occasionally Satan. You knew you couldn't blame man for natural disasters, but you also wouldn't blame your god, so you equivocated ("no simple answer") then deflected to climate change.

"Downright reject, or criticize without full knowledge"? Be honest. Your god can do no wrong in your eyes. You embrace it all uncritically and try to make excuses for what appear to be the sins of this god.

This is a more honest appraisal of the believer's approach to his god - a hard pass.

It's all so much more sensible if one drops the deity out of the equation. There is nobody to praise for the good things in life not done by people and nobody to blame for the bad things that happen that we aren't the cause of. We praise nature. We experience gratitude without an agent to be grateful to. It's the authentic spiritual experience, which we recognize as a sense of connection, of belonging, of mystery, gratitude and awe which we experience in a multitude of situations ranging from stargazing to gardening to listening to inspirational music to witnessing a sunset to loving a pet. This is how we evolved.

Contrast that with the Abrahamic understanding of spirituality, which is worshiping spirits that aren't a part of nature at all and redirecting all of that awe and wonder outside of the universe to nonexistent entities in nonexistent places, and when one has a spiritual experience as I described, one interprets it as the Holy Ghost doing this to and for him rather than his own mind experiencing his own world.

These religions go even further destroying the connection to our world that characterizes authentic spirituality. The describe the world in the most negative of terms. Matter (the universe) is inferior to spirit (the other world). The world is an ugly place, bad and getting worse, fit for apocalyptic destruction, a place one shouldn't be involved in, a place where what is called wisdom there is foolishness. The flesh demeans us.

And the result? How many such people tell us that life has no meaning if there is no god or afterlife? What are they telling us has become of them under this training and instruction? All good has been shifted out of reality and is redirected elsewhere. Connection to Mother Nature has been destroyed and they are now connected to nothing and feel alienated in their own world and lives.

Well, that's your opinion and you are welcome to it.

 

[Kfox]

That is one reason why I read and studied the Bible with those who believe and as a result I decided there is a God who cares and is supreme. Now naturally, not all will come to this point, but my study and experiences have convinced me that God exists.

Out of curiosity, did you study other religions too? Or did you only limit your studies to the God of the Bible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity, did you study other religions too? Or did you only limit your studies to the God of the Bible.

I can't say I studied them because that would take a long time, but I learned about some of them. I learned there are many gods and goddesses in Hinduism, that Zeus also was the God of thunder, had many wives, etc.
Perhaps this will help to give you a glance into my mind -- I was always concerned about mankind's hatred for one another, such as in the time of war. I never understood that. I remember that I read a book by Alan Watts and thought it was interesting, but did not really teach me much except to go deeper into my own mind. And to be honest with you, I found it meaningless and/or confusing to dig into my mind or go on a "trip." Does that make sense to you? I had a friend who died young on an overdose because he believed the ultimate high was death. He started his own religion...had followers, still going. Now, in particular I feel sorry for him, think about him sometimes and believe he will come to life as God intends life to be. Not the miserable mixed up world we face today.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

G-d is not a person

A lot of people feel otherwise. He may not be human, but to them, their god is a person. They call him father. In Christianity, he has a son and the rest of us are also "God's children."

From Wiki:

"A personal god, or personal goddess, is a deity who can be related to as a person, instead of as an impersonal force, such as the Absolute. In the scriptures of the Abrahamic religions, God is described as being a personal creator, speaking in the first person and showing emotion such as anger and pride, and sometimes appearing in anthropomorphic shape. In the Pentateuch, for example, God talks with and instructs his prophets and is conceived as possessing volition, emotions (such as anger, grief and happiness), intention, and other attributes characteristic of a human person.

"Personal relationships with God may be described in the same ways as human relationships, such as a Father, as in Christianity ... A 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that, of U.S. adults, 60% view that "God is a person with whom people can have a relationship", while 25% believe that "God is an impersonal force". A 2019 survey by the National Opinion Research Center reported that 77.5% of U.S. adults believe in a personal god. The 2014 Religious Landscape survey conducted by Pew reported that 57% of U.S. adults believe in a personal god."

so-called 'natural disasters' are often the result of our own collective behavior.

To the extent that humanity has contributed to them, such events are not natural. To the extent that depositing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere cause more frequent and more severe tornadoes and hurricanes or fracking causes earthquakes, such occurrences are anthropogenic (artificial).

Have you ever noticed that there are two definitions of natural. Man's creations are natural by one, the one that's the opposite of supernatural, but not by the other, the opposite of which is artificial, as in natural versus artificial lighting?

 

[YoursTrue]

Out of curiosity, did you study other religions too? Or did you only limit your studies to the God of the Bible.

P.S. I was in psychiatric treatment for a long time and always wanted to know why we are here in this existence, in other words, what is the meaning of life. No psychiatrist I ever spoke to could tell me. Instead they put me on drugs, etc., so I could go on working, etc. One day my long-time doctor told me a joke which I will relate to you. I think it's funny.
So here it is:
A man wanted so badly to know the meaning of life. He went to a cocktail party where there were many world travelers and sophisticated people. He asked everyone there but only one person was able to answer him. This particular guest had travelled the world over, So the man asked him, "Tell me, do you know what the meaning of life is?" And the well-travelled guest said, "Well, I don't know the answer but I know someone who does. What you have to do is sell everything you have and go to the top of the Himalayas. There is an old man there on top of a mountain that can answer your question." So the man sold everything he had, because he wanted to know the meaning of life. He hired a guide and finally got to the top of the mountain after a big trip, on a donkey, and saw the old man sitting in a lotus position outside a cave, and approached the man and said, "O great guru, tell me, what is the meaning of life, please?" And the guru said, "Life is like a fountain." The traveller said, "Life is like a fountain? Life is like a fountain?" And the guru said, "Well, maybe it's not like a fountain."
I laughed for the first time in years in that doctor's office. But finally yes -- I found what I wanted to know. Hope you think the joke is funny.
And I am not longer in treatment. Got off all my psychotropic drugs. The doctors said I'd never make it. But here I am -- most happily.

 

[PureX]

The differences between Abrahamic religions and denominations are not simply viewing a mountain from different sides. It's a different mountain altogether, despite most fervent theists (and all fundamentalists) claiming that the Spirit guides them.

There is no logical reason to presume that any human should experience and understand the world (or God) the same as any other. We are all different humans, and we are all experiencing the world (and God) from our own unique perspective. The Muslim idea of and experience of God is not much different from the Jewish idea of and experience of God. And in fact they come from the same historical source. The same is true of Christianity. And of all religions, ultimately. But we humans are tribal, and so will tend to fight amongst our tribes over the slightest differences. As evidenced by the fact that there is so much factionalism even within a given religion. It's just how we humans are.

Also by the same token about truth, there is no possibility that 66-81 books in the Bible, written by different authors about the same hypothetical subject, in a span of half a millennium, can be without hundreds of contradictions, falsehoods and fictitious stories. I know no other book claiming to be serious and truthful, but containing so many false and contradicting stories.

I agree. Only a fool would presume otherwise. But there are plenty of those among us that will, nevertheless. And I suppose they have their reasons.

I agree. Your point should be forwarded then to the people believing in the supernatural.

We humans don't actually know what is a 'natural' limitation and what is not, although we certainly like to imagine that we do. So I doubt we'll be seeing the end of human superstition anytime soon.

I know very well the definition of faith. But it's completely different to have faith on something which is based on empirical experience as opposed to have faith in the supernatural, which none of us can comprehend. Also faith is not a pathway to truth.

It's not really different at all when we realize that what you're talking about is faith in empiricism and personal experience as opposed to faith in mysticism and moral idealism. We're all living by faith because none of us has enough real knowledge not to.

And as I said many times, I can understand people who find comfort in religions, and if this helps them to move forward in life, well done by them.

Everyone is basically looking for control over their own fate. This is as true of those who worship science as it is of those who worship the gods. None of us knows what the **** is going on here and we all feel very vulnerable and insecure because of it. So we're looking for ways of convincing ourselves that we have more control than we actually do, and that we know more about what existence is than we actually know.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's possible to transcend what you seem to regard as universal human limitations. You say we're tribal and by that I assume you mean that we all are. You refer to superstition and faith as if we all indulge in those. Look at how much you generalize:

But we humans are tribal, and so will tend to fight amongst our tribes over the slightest differences. As evidenced by the fact that there is so much factionalism even within a given religion. It's just how we humans are.

It may be how many humans are, but not me and I'd say not you, either. It's interesting that you use religion to support your claim. Yes, those people are tribal, but I have no religion and I believe you don't as well. I also don't have a country that I identify with or support. Nor a family beyond my wife and dogs. I have relatives, but they're far away and I see them or communicate with them except my sister, who gets a birthday email once a year. There are no sports teams that I identify with or root for.

We humans don't actually know what is a 'natural' limitation and what is not, although we certainly like to imagine that we do. So I doubt we'll be seeing the end of human superstition anytime soon.

Here you go again overgeneralizing. Many people have transcended superstition and supernaturalism.

It's not really different at all when we realize that what you're talking about is faith in empiricism and personal experience as opposed to faith in mysticism and moral idealism. We're all living by faith because none of us has enough real knowledge not to.

And again. Faith in mysticism is unjustified belief. Faith in empiricism is justified belief, and is very different in its methods and result. It has not been difficult for me and millions of others to learn the difference and avoid the former.

Everyone is basically looking for control over their own fate. This is as true of those who worship science as it is of those who worship the gods. None of us knows what the **** is going on here and we all feel very vulnerable and insecure because of it. So we're looking for ways of convincing ourselves that we have more control than we actually do, and that we know more about what existence is than we actually know.

And here it is again. This also doesn't describe me. I'm not looking for any more control over my life nor do I have any misunderstanding of the limits of the control I do have or the limits of my knowledge.

I wrote these words on another thread called "do-your-beliefs-make-you-happy" just yesterday: "I don't think my beliefs make me happy directly. I'm happy because my life is how I want it to be, which is dependent on those beliefs and a lot of luck. There's nothing more I want but more of the same for as long as I can have it." What does that say except that I don't need any more control over my life, and that I don't completely control circumstances, that much of it is good luck.

I understand that you will continue to cast yourself as a lone enlightened mind in a sea of benightment and somebody like me as the victim of illusion of who and what I am, errors you see yourself as having transcended. You will continue to pontificate about what "our" shortcomings are when what you really mean is the shortcomings of those who don't see further like you do.

That attitude somehow serves you. You will go on using words like faith, scientism and worship inappropriately to try to depict those who have transcended all of that as just as lost as those who haven't. You will continue with your epistemic nihilism wherein everything is illusion and nothing is knowable. You generalize about humanity, but you don't describe my experience of life at all.

You'd likely call me tribal in my support of critical thinking and liberalism. I "caucus" with like-minded souls here on RF. But my loyalty is to an ideology - a worldview and a set of values - not the people who share them with me. Those are the people I most identify with and respect and socialize with most, but they're not my tribe and I doubt many of them think that way about me or one another. That's for the less evolved, a comment you probably take umbrage at. I refer you to Lord Of The Flies. The more primitive and brutal among the boys were tribal, but the two contemplative and gentle types were not tribal.

Or, I refer you to American politics. MAGA is tribal, but its opposition is not. Trump is tribal, but Bidens tribalism is minimal. Yes, he's Catholic and a patriotic American, but neither in a tribalistic way. He's inclusive. He works for Protestants and atheists as much a Catholics, and cherishes the freedom of the Ukrainians enough to devote American resources to their cause. MAGA is less evolved than that intellectually, morally, and emotionally.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A 2008 survey by the Pew Research Center reported that, of U.S. adults, 60% view that "God is a person with whom people can have a relationship", while 25% believe that "God is an impersonal force"..

Mmm .. but that is only words, that attempt to describe "what G-d is".

For example, people don't have a sexual relationship with G-d .. so not "a person" in that sense of the word.

To the extent that humanity has contributed to them, such events are not natural..

..as far as insurers are concerned, they are "natural"

Have you ever noticed that there are two definitions of natural. Man's creations are natural by one, the one that's the opposite of supernatural, but not by the other, the opposite of which is artificial, as in natural versus artificial lighting?

Same can be said about the word "organic" ..
All food is organic really .. but the reference is mainly to the use of non-organic fertilizers, of course.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And I am not longer in treatment. Got off all my psychotropic drugs. The doctors said I'd never make it. But here I am -- most happily.

Mmm .. psychologists are aware of the effect that religion can have in cases of mental illness.
Sometimes it can have a negative effect, but more often it has a positive influence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course it is. The fact that we evolve says nothing about how we originated.

Evolution IS that "how".

It is only a hypothesis that we all originate from LUCA.

No, it's a genetic fact that we share ancestors with other species.
Evolution as a theory (not a mere hypothesis) is a model that details how this occured.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What would it mean to "show up in front of humans"?

An all-knowing and all-powerfull god would know what it means.

What would you expect G-d to look like?

An all-knowing, all-powerful god would know exactly what to look like to instantly convince me that that is what I'm looking at without leaving any room for guessing or whatever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do I? You may be mistaking me for somebody else.

He has a habbit of accusing everyone who values evidence and / or doesn't agree with him of "scientism".