Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

[F1fan]

Perhaps there is a cat in the room, but we're using search methods against which its discovery is immune or resistant. Such as with one's eyes closed.

And why would a person compromise their search? I suggest any ordinary person can search a room to see if any cats are in it. It’s not particularly difficult.

I do agree that specificity is helpful when considering the question of the existence of a god.

And that is difficult for theists claiming their version of God exists. They are often vague.

Helpful, but not absolutely required. The general idea is a good enough starting point to begin a search for evidence. At least, I believe it is.

What would evidence of God look like that is conclusive and not dependent on liberal interpretation? Some say miracles. Yet are any confirmed as real? Not really.

I’d be impressed if children no longer faced life threatening diseases. Alas, they continue to face the lottery of life like any other animal.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

faith is hope turned to action, as opposed to belief being an unfounded presumption of one's own righteousness.

Your definition of faith isn't useful or coherent to me. Those two are the same thing by my reckoning.

Hope = optimism, yes.

Why write yes? Did you think that's what I meant? I took pains to make a distinction, but I guess you just want to ignore that and repeat yourself. OK. Noted. Rejected for reasons already given and ignored in your response.

And that X action often gets positive results.

That's what makes it more than hope. Deliberate action is preceded by belief.

Always.

If that belief isn't empirically justified, it can be called faith, or unjustified belief. You can ignore that, too, or address it. If you think it wrong and can give a rebuttal, please do. If not, well, mere dissent with or without what you believe isn't relevant or persuasive.

Ever.

That's wrong, of course

I wrote, "If you have belief with it, and it the belief isn't empirically justified, NOW it's faith." Since you consider your unsupported claim sufficient, then my answer is, no, you're wrong. Next. If you ever feel like offering a falsifying counterargument to anything, I'll be here to address it. If not, just assume, "I don't believe you" to be the response.

Every time.

Evidence is irrelevant to this discussion because it's not forthcoming to a sufficient enough degree to establish probability and 'play the odds'.

That was in response to, "It's 10-0 in the bottom of the ninth. My team is behind and yours ahead. We both have the same hope, but you are optimistic while I am pessimistic. If you predict your team will win, your belief is justified by evidence the history of baseball. If I do the same, my belief is faith-based and contradicted by that evidence. We can have the same hope - "I hope my team wins" - but if we have the same belief - "My team will probably win" - only one of us is justified by evidence."

Evidence is the difference between a belief being justified and not. It's always relevant when making claims about reality.

you just HAVE TO slander faith one way or another, so of course you'll insist on being wrong no matter what.

Slander? Sorry that you frame dissent as slander, but that's your choice. Faith is a logical error. Belief in gods is no more founded than belief in vampires. If that offends you, then so be it. As I said, that's a choice. Another choice would be to rebut it if you can without an emotional response.

Yes. And that's why he's a fool. He demands evidence while he defines it out of existence, and then uses this phony lack of evidence to justify closing off a useful possibility. And for what? Ego is the only reason I can see.

Define evidence out of existence? This sounds like the foolishness to me. And adding your editorials about who's being righteous or egotistical or phony adds nothing either except another emotional layer to your failure to rebut. How about let's stick to reasoned, evidenced arguments and rebuttal (falsifying counterarguments, not mere dissenting opinions) to those arguments we find fault with?

 

[Unfettered]

And why would a person compromise their search? I suggest any ordinary person can search a room to see if any cats are in it. It’s not particularly difficult.

I agree that it's not difficult. And I don't offer an answer to the general question "why" someone would compromise his search. I'm just exploring the question objectively, without assumptions.

I will offer, as an example, that I've searched for things in less-than-ideal conditions, such as in the dark when I didn't have a flashlight. I've even searched for things intentionally in less-than-ideal conditions, such as in the dark without a flashlight (because I assumed I could find the thing without a flashlight), though not always successfully.

So it's not unreasonable to consider that, in a search for the existence of God, a person might search in a way that makes success difficult or unlikely. Nor should it be assume that a person so engaged has done so intentionally.

So, again, I'm not making assumptions; I'm addressing the question (which is broad from the outset) with broadness. I expect that the broadness will become more and more refined as the discussion unfolds.

And that is difficult for theists claiming their version of God exists. They are often vague.

Sure. I believe the question or postulation that brought me into the discussion was vague. I don't remember now, though. I'd have to look. If I've gone from specific (OP) to vague (my response), I could be at fault here of making things muddier than was necessary. I don't think so, though. Either way, it's a good, worthwhile discussion, in my opinion.

What would evidence of God look like that is conclusive and not dependent on liberal interpretation? Some say miracles. Yet are any confirmed as real? Not really.

That's just it; I can't answer that for you. You alone define the terms upon which you will accept any proof offered to you. We often bypass this very discussion entirely (what is acceptable proof), when addressing the question, thereby dooming our examination of the question to failure from the outset.

I’d be impressed if children no longer faced life threatening diseases. Alas, they continue to face the lottery of life like any other animal.

By "impressed," are you saying that you'd accept such a result as proof there is a god?

 

[F1fan]

I agree that it's not difficult. And I don't offer an answer to the general question "why" someone would compromise his search. I'm just exploring the question objectively, without assumptions.

I will offer, as an example, that I've searched for things in less-than-ideal conditions, such as in the dark when I didn't have a flashlight. I've even searched for things intentionally in less-than-ideal conditions, such as in the dark without a flashlight (because I assumed I could find the thing without a flashlight), though not always successfully.

In any event if you have a pet cat and you are looking for it you will do your best to improve your odds of finding it. The cat exists, it is somewhere, whether you find it only means you didn’t look in the right place.

But my original point is that you can eliminate one room at a time and narrow down options.

So it's not unreasonable to consider that, in a search for the existence of God, a person might search in a way that makes success difficult or unlikely. Nor should it be assume that a person so engaged has done so intentionally.

I suggest it is a search doomed to failure. How a person searches for something not known to exist is a fool’s errand. That so many claim to have found God, yet it be different conceptually, and through different methods, and no tests in reality suggests people telling themselves what they want to be true.

So, again, I'm not making assumptions; I'm addressing the question (which is broad from the outset) with broadness. I expect that the broadness will become more and more refined as the discussion unfolds.

Sure. I believe the question or postulation that brought me into the discussion was vague. I don't remember now, though. I'd have to look. If I've gone from specific (OP) to vague (my response), I could be at fault here of making things muddier than was necessary. I don't think so, though. Either way, it's a good, worthwhile discussion, in my opinion.

Vague doesn’t help make the case for those who claim they found God. It is a way to mask their mental exercises.

That's just it; I can't answer that for you. You alone define the terms upon which you will accept any proof offered to you. We often bypass this very discussion entirely (what is acceptable proof), when addressing the question, thereby dooming our examination of the question to failure from the outset.

I disagree. It’s believers who set their standards for evidence, not critical thinkers. This is why believers csn believe they found God. They rig the thinking in their favor so they get the outcomes they want.

By "impressed," are you saying that you'd accept such a result as proof there is a god?

Doubtful. It would be a datapoint and not proof. I would be impressed with that sudden change. It could be aliens sympathetic to children, unlike the earthly Gods. So the Gods still have more to show to suggest they exist as so many imagine them.

But then again, maybe God is a Republican and what we observe proves it. My big question about the Christian version of a loving God is why does it create so many children with genes that cause cancers. That suggests to me that no such God exists.

 

[Unfettered]

In any event if you have a pet cat and you are looking for it you will do your best to improve your odds of finding it.

That's a safe assumption, but still an assumption, as I've shown. And without care, assumptions wreck these kinds of analyses.

I suggest it is a search doomed to failure. How a person searches for something not known to exist is a fool’s errand.

Except that the idea that god exists does not usually originate with oneself, but with others who claim to have knowledge of god's existence. Clearly, this is not always the case. But usually it is. Would you agree that the search for god is typically fueled by a desire to come to know what others know? Or claim to know? I mean, god is big news. It's a game-changer. If it were not so, it seems that few would ever care.

That so many claim to have found God, yet it be different conceptually, and through different methods, and no tests in reality suggests people telling themselves what they want to be true.

That is also an assumption.

Vague doesn’t help make the case for those who claim they found God. It is a way to mask their mental exercises.

Another assumption. In my profession I deal with things that are highly technical and can only be understood quickly with a certain foundation of knowledge. When those without such knowledge ask me why things work or don't—especially when they suddenly stop working—I do not flood them with precision, but with vagueness. If they want to know what I know, they'll have to pay a commensurate price. But my being vague in responses is not to mask any kind of mental exercise I'm doing to hold myself, and them, in a prison of ignorance or superstition. It's because they lack a foundation for understanding. What is really amusingly relevant here, is that I hear people speak of technical things in terms of magic and superstition all the time, always because they lack appropriate context to understand the truth.

Am I suggesting that vagueness is helpful (as opposed to deceptive, or to veil ignorance or wishful thinking) in discussions about god? Yes, I am, when vagueness is what is appropriate. It won't always be, of course.

I disagree. It’s believers who set their standards for evidence, not critical thinkers. This is why believers csn believe they found God. They rig the thinking in their favor so they get the outcomes they want.

More assumptions. You may have had experiences that compel you to condemn the claims of all "believers" as proceeding from the same motivation, but if you actually do so, you yield to the same fault you find in them—rigging the thinking in one's own favor.

Doubtful. It would be a datapoint and not proof.

Understood. But at least you would not toss it out (now I'm assuming, though with cause). I was getting worried that you could offer no objectivity at all to the question and discussion. I'm not convinced at this point that there is a critical mass of it (objectivity), however, which would warrant further discussion.

So I'll thank you for the discussion and leave the question of continuing to you. It is starting to feel that the discussion has exhausted (too much assumption; not enough critical analysis).

I would be impressed with that sudden change. It could be aliens sympathetic to children, unlike the earthly Gods. So the Gods still have more to show to suggest they exist as so many imagine them.

But then again, maybe God is a Republican and what we observe proves it.

The critical question remains, "Would you investigate seriously?" That you seem to equate god with aliens (and perhaps Republicans) on the point suggests that you would not take seriously an investigation into the question of whether any of them could be credited in the case of unexplained, abrupt, permanent shielding of children from life-threatening diseases. I lack adequate context to assert that, of course; it just appears that way.

Peace to you. I'm game if you're still wanting to discuss.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is It Reasonable to Believe Gods Don't Exist?

If it is reasonable then those who strongly claim that come out with the evidences they ask from the believers, right?

Regards

But they don't have any, so they will always hide under different pretexts, right?

Regards

 

[F1fan]

That's a safe assumption, but still an assumption, as I've shown. And without care, assumptions wreck these kinds of analyses.

An assumption? What, you don't like your cat? You're just going to pretend to look? If I'm looking for one of my cats I can assure you I will do what I can to find the critter. That's why I'm looking.

Except that the idea that god exists does not usually originate with oneself, but with others who claim to have knowledge of god's existence. Clearly, this is not always the case. But usually it is. Would you agree that the search for god is typically fueled by a desire to come to know what others know? Or claim to know? I mean, god is big news. It's a game-changer. If it were not so, it seems that few would ever care.

That is how indoctrination and social pressure works. The Asch experiments show us that a person in a group will conform to the wrong idea only because they feel uncomfortable being an outcast, even with the correct answer. Humans evolved to conform to tribal norms as a survival advantgae, and this trait is still a part of our mental impulse.

Solomon Asch Conformity Line Experiment Study

The Asch paradigm was a series of conformity experiments by Solomon Asch designed to investigate how social pressure from a majority group could influence an individual to conform.

www.simplypsychology.org

As far as religious concepts, most all of us have been exposed to one or more religious frameworks, and we have our own experiences. Mine was typical for an American, I was taken to church and expected to worship Jesus. I was pesky and kept asking questions, unlike my sister and cousins, who all bought what they were told. My 9 Catholic cousins had to go through the whole thing, Mass every weekend, confession, the eucharist, you name it. They didn't like it, but to my surprise only two of them eventually went their own way. As for me, I was never convinced. Something never added up. The biggest red flag was how my Catholic aunt and Baptist aunt were hostile to each others religion, which was odd to a 10 year old since they were both Christian. Even at holidays they were not friendly. I found all this fishy, so like any seeker of truth I was not going along with any of this until I had answers.

I wanted actual answers, not dogma. Not ritual. Not conformity and belonging. Answers. The thing is no one comes to a conclusion that a God exists via reasoning and facts. If a person believes it is for non-rational reasons. Do believers ever really question why they came to believe at all? And I don't mean the insincere questioning to offset that bit of doubt, but actual investigation like what critical thinkers perform. In my experience it is not many.

That is also an assumption.

I wrote "That so many claim to have found God, yet it be different conceptually, and through different methods, and no tests in reality suggests people telling themselves what they want to be true."

This isn't an assumption, this is an observation. Are you saying you aren't aware that believers have different verions of God? That they have different ways to "find" God?

Another assumption.

I wrote "That so many claim to have found God, yet it be different conceptually, and through different methods, and no tests in reality suggests people telling themselves what they want to be true."

No, this is also an observation. I have observed Christians and other believers become more and more vague about what they think God is over the decades that i have been debating. I'm not sure if believers learned the hard way, or read it in some online fellowship advice. Believers who define their God open the door to rebuttal. Of course it makes sense to be vague, as most believers will claim that God is immaterial, and if that is the case how does it have attributes that the material being like we mortals can detect withmout primitive material senses? The only option available is theat the believe has some extrasensory perception ability. That is something I would NOT assume a believer has.

In my profession I deal with things that are highly technical and can only be understood quickly with a certain foundation of knowledge. When those without such knowledge ask me why things work or don't—especially when they suddenly stop working—I do not flood them with precision, but with vagueness. If they want to know what I know, they'll have to pay a commensurate price. But my being vague in responses is not to mask any kind of mental exercise I'm doing to hold myself, and them, in a prison of ignorance or superstition. It's because they lack a foundation for understanding. What is really amusingly relevant here, is that I hear people speak of technical things in terms of magic and superstition all the time, always because they lack appropriate context to understand the truth.

Your example is here is not a sound comparison. Why? Because you are probably being vague with them for efficiency and time savings. But if you did have to go into detail and explain every step, you could, and you could show your work, and others would acknowledge that you are factually correct. No theist can do this with their claims, vague or precise. In fact your example is contrary to what theists claim, because the more detail a believer goes into about their beliefs the less credible they become. Being vague covers the details of belief that can be shown to be untrue in reality. That is why vagueness is a mental exercise, it is covert work.

Am I suggesting that vagueness is helpful (as opposed to deceptive, or to veil ignorance or wishful thinking) in discussions about god?

How is it helpful? Anything different than what I described?

Yes, I am, when vagueness is what is appropriate. It won't always be, of course.

Why do you think it is apprropriate? Is there a secret being kept? Something's fishy. If believers have the truth, why be vague, unless there is insecurity about some of the details?

More assumptions. You may have had experiences that compel you to condemn the claims of all "believers" as proceeding from the same motivation, but if you actually do so, you yield to the same fault you find in them—rigging the thinking in one's own favor.

Again, what I stated was more observation. There have been many conversations on this forum where believers are exposed of having their own weak standards for what they consider evidence, and critical thinkers explain how logic is the set of rules to follow, and the usual evidentiary standard of law and debate is used. This is why critical thinks can't agree with the conclusions of Baha'i, or Christians, or Muslims, or JWs, or the one Urantia fellow, or Mormons. All these diverse believers have the same evdience to all the others, yet so many different conclusuons that different versions of religion and God exists. Only critical thinkers reject all these conclusions and that is because none of the evidence compels a reasoned conclusion.

Understood. But at least you would not toss it out (now I'm assuming, though with cause). I was getting worried that you could offer no objectivity at all to the question and discussion. I'm not convinced at this point that there is a critical mass of it (objectivity), however, which would warrant further discussion.

Don't get too excited just yet, realize my suggestion was that all children be naturally exempt from fatal diseases, which would be an extraordinary thing. It hasn't happened. Whatever God believers think exists does nothing about these kids suffering and dying. Almost as if this God is powerless or a sociopath. Atheists don't have to manage this cognitive dissonance.

So I'll thank you for the discussion and leave the question of continuing to you. It is starting to feel that the discussion has exhausted (too much assumption; not enough critical analysis).

It amazes me how few answers believers have despite all the promise their belief is supposed to give them. Religious dogma is inevitably a trap that the believer can't escape with sound answers.

The critical question remains, "Would you investigate seriously?"

Why ponder any question if not seeking truth. And that means if there is no answer to a question then the answer is not believing in some temporary answer. Uncertainty is OK, but it takes a lot of courage. Belief is easy.

That you seem to equate god with aliens (and perhaps Republicans) on the point suggests that you would not take seriously an investigation into the question of whether any of them could be credited in the case of unexplained, abrupt, permanent shielding of children from life-threatening diseases. I lack adequate context to assert that, of course; it just appears that way.

Actually aliens is a more plausible explanation than a God. Life is known to exist in the universe, so that is a real phenomenon that is possible elsewhere. How many Gods are known to exist outside of human imagination? Zero.

And lighten up a little bit. We are here to have fun.

 

[Revoltingest]

To the titular question....
Yes.

He said "tit".

 

[lukethethird]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

The difference between Charlie and me is this;

Joe claims God exists, I say, I'm not so sure, you will have to show me.

 

[Unfettered]

And lighten up a little bit. We are here to have fun.

I don't know... you sure sound pretty serious yourself... Or am I reading you wrong here and you're just making all these strong assertions about believers and god and such for kicks and giggles…

And I had to split the post; we're getting to wordy here...

An assumption? What, you don't like your cat? You're just going to pretend to look? If I'm looking for one of my cats I can assure you I will do what I can to find the critter. That's why I'm looking.

LOL, play fair. It's clear that I used examples to show how someone intent on finding something might either intentionally or unintentionally search less-than-ideal conditions. What, haven't you ever casually searched for something first and only stepped it up a notch or two when your initial effort failed? Or do you jump straight to, "I haven't seen my 5-year-old for 2 minutes; he must be kidnapped...call the police!"

(trying to lighten up, like you suggested)

That is how indoctrination and social pressure works. The Asch experiments show us that a person in a group will conform to the wrong idea only because they feel uncomfortable being an outcast, even with the correct answer. Humans evolved to conform to tribal norms as a survival advantgae, and this trait is still a part of our mental impulse.

This would apply if it actually did, or does apply where it actually does. But my example was clear: I suggested that a prime reason for searching for god was a desire to know what others know, not a fear of being an outcast, etc.

As far as religious concepts, most all of us have been exposed to one or more religious frameworks, and we have our own experiences. Mine was typical for an American, I was taken to church and expected to worship Jesus. I was pesky and kept asking questions, unlike my sister and cousins, who all bought what they were told. My 9 Catholic cousins had to go through the whole thing, Mass every weekend, confession, the eucharist, you name it. They didn't like it, but to my surprise only two of them eventually went their own way. As for me, I was never convinced. Something never added up. The biggest red flag was how my Catholic aunt and Baptist aunt were hostile to each others religion, which was odd to a 10 year old since they were both Christian. Even at holidays they were not friendly. I found all this fishy, so like any seeker of truth I was not going along with any of this until I had answers.

And I don't blame you. Curiously enough, however, your experience was one Jesus specifically warned his disciples against when he commanded them to love one another. That hallmark (loving one another), he said, would identify them as his disciples. Not professions of conversion; not vast knowledge of the scriptures, etc. Loving one another. Seems to me that your abandonment of the Catholic faith fulfills the concern behind Jesus's warning. Irony.

I wanted actual answers, not dogma. Not ritual. Not conformity and belonging. Answers. The thing is no one comes to a conclusion that a God exists via reasoning and facts. If a person believes it is for non-rational reasons.

I'm going to disagree there. If you're saying that none of these things get you there in isolation, I might agree with that. But if you're talking about obtaining the kind of surety that would make one "steadfast and immovable" in faith, knowledge and understanding, everything is ON the table. Everything. Revelation, miracles, logic, reason, science. Everything. I guarantee you that my devotion to God could never have resulted from superficialities. God did not make me that way. He instilled in me a high bar for even Himself to clear. I wouldn't expect anything less from a being who claims to be all-knowing (and to know me). I can't and won't speak for anyone else, but I have as much disdain for empty religious platitudes as you do, though I might show a little more compassion to those who seemingly found their faith on them. After all, the sick need the physician; they don't need to be kicked while they're down.

Do believers ever really question why they came to believe at all? And I don't mean the insincere questioning to offset that bit of doubt, but actual investigation like what critical thinkers perform. In my experience it is not many.

There may be more than you realize, but I know exactly where that thought comes from. It is a valid thought. And comparatively speaking, I'm sure you're right (that there are few). That said, there is good reason that God hasn't allowed faith in Him to grow unchallenged. We are protected by the difficulty of the task. Again, I would expect nothing less from a Father who loves his children and whose vision extends beyond transitory things, even when those transitory things are heavy.

I wrote "That so many claim to have found God, yet it be different conceptually, and through different methods, and no tests in reality suggests people telling themselves what they want to be true."

This isn't an assumption, this is an observation.

Fair enough. I retract the comment.

Are you saying you aren't aware that believers have different verions of God? That they have different ways to "find" God?

No, I'm not saying that I'm not aware of those things. It is more than apparent that there is a multiplicity of all of what you describe among humanity.

No, this is also an observation. I have observed Christians and other believers become more and more vague about what they think God is over the decades that i have been debating. I'm not sure if believers learned the hard way, or read it in some online fellowship advice. Believers who define their God open the door to rebuttal. Of course it makes sense to be vague, as most believers will claim that God is immaterial, and if that is the case how does it have attributes that the material being like we mortals can detect withmout primitive material senses? The only option available is theat the believe has some extrasensory perception ability. That is something I would NOT assume a believer has.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I agree that the vagueness to which you refer here can, in many cases, proceed from fear of something. Or from a quiet, suppressed understanding that what one believes doesn't make sense even to himself. Etc. I have made similar observations. I'm guessing most conscientious questioners have.

I don't sense that you were inviting an exploration of the questions you posed in there, so I'll not attempt any. But, for my part, I fear nothing, and would open to anyone's scrutiny everything I claim to know and understand.

Your example is here is not a sound comparison. Why? Because you are probably being vague with them for efficiency and time savings. But if you did have to go into detail and explain every step, you could, and you could show your work, and others would acknowledge that you are factually correct. No theist can do this with their claims, vague or precise.

I don't agree with that, but I understand why you would say it. At the same time, while I would be willing to share in detail all the knowledge and understanding I claim, I would withhold from persons I judge to be insincere in their queries those experiences I consider most sacred to me. The knowledge might be for everyone, but the experiences are mine; they are given to confirm my faith, not create it in the critic. In other words, there is wisdom in the pearls/swine admonition Jesus gave (this should not be controversial to any person who reverences things that he suspects others will openly mock, or belittle).

In fact your example is contrary to what theists claim, because the more detail a believer goes into about their beliefs the less credible they become.

I agree with this only when what is being detailed isn't true. So yes, the more nonsense you hear, the less credible it all becomes. The problem we all have with the truth is that it turns this on its head—the more truth we hear, the greater the burden becomes on us to accept it, which can be very painful when our motive is to believe is easy for us to believe.

 

[Unfettered]

Second part.

Being vague covers the details of belief that can be shown to be untrue in reality. That is why vagueness is a mental exercise, it is covert work.

When vagueness proceeds from applicable motives or fears, yes.

How is it helpful? Anything different than what I described?

Yes, different. Giving persons all the information you can is not always helpful. Judgment is required. And sincerity of motive. Ought we not to be careful to not judge all vagueness to be ill-motivated?

Why do you think it is apprropriate? Is there a secret being kept? Something's fishy. If believers have the truth, why be vague, unless there is insecurity about some of the details?

It isn't always fishy. People are imperfect. Both believers and non-believers. People must be given latitude to exercise judgement when answering questions—and be given latitude to make mistakes in exercising judgment. Some vagueness may be appropriate because not all people are prepared at once for the nuances of truth. Everyone wants to believe that they are, by my experience has shown me that it takes more humility and maturity than most people have to sincerely consider things they are initially inclined to disbelieve, whether they have what I would consider just cause to disbelieve them, or not. It may be appropriate to be vague because questioners are not always sincere in their questioning (when the questioner knows that their is zero change they'll be open to, or swayed by, his question, does he deserve more than vagueness?). It may be appropriate to be vague because sometimes, as a believer (I hate that term; it's so distracting from what ought to be going on) you don't always know exactly what to say, or when to say it. It may be appropriate to be vague because, for all one's effort and professions and desires, it takes years to become equal to truth, as opposed to merely understanding a few truths on a superficial level. Etc.

And there are just as many situations in which vagueness may not be appropriate.

Again, some latitude in judgment is good to extend. No one is benefited when people become imbued with a spirit of cynicism. Least of all the cynic. Whereas honest questioning and careful movements are always constructive, even when over-zealous believers (or non-believers) haven't the fortitude to exercise patience when others don't just swallow what they say.

Again, you come to me with sincerity and there isn't a thing I won't share. There is nothing to hide. I want all to have all (no, I don't have all; it's the principle I'm pointing to).

Again, what I stated was more observation. There have been many conversations on this forum where believers are exposed of having their own weak standards for what they consider evidence, and critical thinkers explain how logic is the set of rules to follow, and the usual evidentiary standard of law and debate is used. This is why critical thinks can't agree with the conclusions of Baha'i, or Christians, or Muslims, or JWs, or the one Urantia fellow, or Mormons. All these diverse believers have the same evdience to all the others, yet so many different conclusuons that different versions of religion and God exists. Only critical thinkers reject all these conclusions and that is because none of the evidence compels a reasoned conclusion.

Well, I would hold in contempt any claim that, because I am what you would call a "believer," I neither think critically about the spiritual things I claim as truth, nor am capable of objective, critical thinking. I suspend no call to investigate. Hardly the cliche of "blind faith" that is levied against those who honor God (though many who claim to honor God do so blindly, that is true; and don't get me started on "blind faith," perhaps the most ridiculous oxymoron ever uttered by man).

That said, if what is asked of me is to abandon all matters of faith to prove to a skeptic the existence of God through means other than those God has offered as effective to that end, I will surely fail. God, himself, could not do it, either. So I fear neither the failure nor the attempt. I'd count myself as in good company as I walked away from those pointing the finger and laughing.

Perhaps the only thing more ridiculous to me than the idea that I, as a believer, cannot and do not reason these things (for if I did, I would clearly reject them, right?) is the idea that all systems of faith ought to be lumped together for their common inability to make an apple into an orange for skeptics (speaking figuratively of the expectation to provide scientific evidence to prove what was not, from the beginning, designed or promised to be subject to such a standard). Such an idea, in my mind, cannot but stem from ignorance. Innocent ignorance, in many cases, but ignorance nonetheless. But that is the burden of those who so believe, and not something I need to spend energy getting riled up about.

So no, not all those of faith are simpletons, or deluded. Not all faith systems are equal in merity, or lack thereof. Believe it or not, some of us have very good, very rational reasons for the things we conclude and do. Go figure.

Don't get too excited just yet, realize my suggestion was that all children be naturally exempt from fatal diseases, which would be an extraordinary thing. It hasn't happened. Whatever God believers think exists does nothing about these kids suffering and dying. Almost as if this God is powerless or a sociopath. Atheists don't have to manage this cognitive dissonance.

Neither do those of faith who actually know what's going on.

It amazes me how few answers believers have despite all the promise their belief is supposed to give them. Religious dogma is inevitably a trap that the believer can't escape with sound answers.

Dogma is a trap. On that we agree. I disagree entirely on the first point, though not on behalf of those who believe things that aren't true. I agree that they may have few substantive answers.

Why ponder any question if not seeking truth.

Agreed. Well said.

And that means if there is no answer to a question then the answer is not believing in some temporary answer. Uncertainty is OK, but it takes a lot of courage. Belief is easy.

I agree; when there is no answer to be found, there is no answer. So work with the answers that are. Yes, humility is a must always, but it is not prideful to acknowledge truth. Nor is it courageous or virtuous to claim uncertainty when one knows the truth. Belief is easy…right up to the point that what we are inclined to believe is dismantled by the truth. What do we do then? Do we yield to the pressure of the critics, the naysayers, and the blind? Or do we honor conscience, embrace the critics' scorn, run with the truth, and endure whatever abuse results?

Actually aliens is a more plausible explanation than a God. Life is known to exist in the universe, so that is a real phenomenon that is possible elsewhere. How many Gods are known to exist outside of human imagination? Zero.

A curious conclusion. Do you know that no god exists, or is it that you haven't been presented with evidence acceptable to your sensibilities that gives you cause to believe one exists? It's a fair question asked sincerely.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Depends.

Scenario 1. God sees humanity bowed down with trouble, sorrow and grief and so brings a healing medicine and gives it to Joe who willingly accepts it and administers it to a sick humanity who is then healed.

Scenario 2. God offers the same healing balm to Charlie who refuses it so humanity has WW3 and destroys itself.

Our very survival depends on the remedy God has offered but been refused by Charlie. Joe acted responsibly by accepting and then distributing it.

 

[F1fan]

LOL, play fair. It's clear that I used examples to show how someone intent on finding something might either intentionally or unintentionally search less-than-ideal conditions. What, haven't you ever casually searched for something first and only stepped it up a notch or two when your initial effort failed? Or do you jump straight to, "I haven't seen my 5-year-old for 2 minutes; he must be kidnapped...call the police!"

This line of discussion began when i said a person can determine a cat is not in a certain room, and you interduced conditions for searching that make searching difficult. My response was that if a person was determined to search that they will rise above the conditions the best they can. The tangents are irrelevant at this point. Any search for any given thing has many variables, from the thing, to the conditions, to the person, etc. So that aside the search for a cat, or for God, or for a missing 5 year old will all have different scenarios. Can you agree that if Jim is looking for his cat that he can search a room sufficietly to determine it isn't in there?

This would apply if it actually did, or does apply where it actually does. But my example was clear: I suggested that a prime reason for searching for god was a desire to know what others know, not a fear of being an outcast, etc.

Based on what data? What leads you to think the prime reason for there being theists is a desire to know what others know?

Have you noticed that believers don't have knowledge about any gods, they know what religions claims about gods. There are no gods known to exist. So how do so many end up thinking they are searching for an actual God, or gods? Why aren't there more atheists?

I suggest you look into the evolution of the human brain, and how religions were created as civilizations became permanent, and managing large populations meant using more complex authorities.

And I don't blame you. Curiously enough, however, your experience was one Jesus specifically warned his disciples against when he commanded them to love one another. That hallmark (loving one another), he said, would identify them as his disciples. Not professions of conversion; not vast knowledge of the scriptures, etc. Loving one another. Seems to me that your abandonment of the Catholic faith fulfills the concern behind Jesus's warning. Irony.

1st. I was not raised Catholic, I was taken to Mass by family members against my will. 2nd. Looks like Martim Luther was the one to blame there, as he caused a huge exodus from the Church. 3rd. It's not as if the Church is a shining example of what Jesus taught, at any time in its history. I'm shocked the instution still exists, but it has succeded in becoming intgral in the cultural lives of many people all over the planet. Even my cousins were sickened when the child abuse scandals were exposed, but they still went to Mass. It's what they do. They don't see any way to reject being Catholic. To my mind this is the trap of indoctrination and religious fervor. I value my own freedom and autonomy to understand what is true to become absorbed in any ideology. And given that I don't assign any meaning to what Jesus taught, or what the Bible says Jesus taught, so no irony. I heeded my own warning about religion, as what I observed did not add up to the ideals being claimed.

Additionally, I don't see how anyone can love others without loving themselves as well. So the love comes from a balanced and stable mind that is open to understanding what is true about reality.

I'm going to disagree there. If you're saying that none of these things get you there in isolation, I might agree with that. But if you're talking about obtaining the kind of surety that would make one "steadfast and immovable" in faith, knowledge and understanding, everything is ON the table. Everything. Revelation, miracles, logic, reason, science. Everything. I guarantee you that my devotion to God could never have resulted from superficialities. God did not make me that way. He instilled in me a high bar for even Himself to clear. I wouldn't expect anything less from a being who claims to be all-knowing (and to know me). I can't and won't speak for anyone else, but I have as much disdain for empty religious platitudes as you do, though I might show a little more compassion to those who seemingly found their faith on them. After all, the sick need the physician; they don't need to be kicked while they're down.

OK, you disagreed with me when I said that no one comes to a conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning, yet you didn't explain why you disagree. You didn't rebut my observation with example of believers who DID follow facts, and USE reason to make a sound conclusion that a God exists. You didn't even cite Kalam. But Kalam has serious flaws anyway, but it is the closest example of an attempt.

So do you have any examples of anyone following facts and using reasoning to conclude that a God exists, and this be accepted by critical thinkers?

How did you come to decide that a God exists? Facts and logic? If so, show your work. If not, then what happened that you ended up believing?

There may be more than you realize, but I know exactly where that thought comes from.

If there is more, then where is it? We have thousands of years of believers sharing their beliefs and experiences, and frankly it is not very convincing at face value. If anything there is less agreement among believers, some trying to find a smaller tribe while others are affiliating with the big tribes. Anything goes to satisfy minds looking for significance in an indifferent universe.

It is a valid thought. And comparatively speaking, I'm sure you're right (that there are few). That said, there is good reason that God hasn't allowed faith in Him to grow unchallenged. We are protected by the difficulty of the task. Again, I would expect nothing less from a Father who loves his children and whose vision extends beyond transitory things, even when those transitory things are heavy.

Look for yourself, in the Middle East you are likely to become Muslim. In India you are likely to become Hindu. In the USA South you are likely to become Baptist. Around Boston you are likely to become Catholic. In Japan you are likely to adopt Shinto. In Russia you are likely to become Russian Orthodox. In England you are likely to become CofE. In Utah you are likely to become Mormon. How else do you explain these geographical phenomenon if not the social and cultural influence on the young? Could it be all these religions are truth? Have you ever asked yourself what's this all about if your personal beliefs are true? Maybe the Hindus are onto something, possible? Maybe Christianity is wrong, possible? How far have you really gone in questioning all this?

 

[F1fan]

No, I'm not saying that I'm not aware of those things. It is more than apparent that there is a multiplicity of all of what you describe among humanity.

So where is the truth about God? It's anything goes. Is it the God of Methodists who are becoming more liberal and tolerant, allowing gays and women in leadership? Is it evangelicals, many of whom think evolution is wrong and there was an actual Adam and Eve? Maybe the KKK and their God-given superiority over minorities (in their interpretation)? Christianity is an ideological buffet that lacks any coherent definition and descrivtion of God and Jesus. It is anything goes, whatever you want to believe there is a version available for you to pick. How does any Christian debate what God is with such disparity out there among the rank and file? Why so much confusion and disagreement?

This is why there is serious doubt about what Christians claim that goes beyond their own mind.

Thank you for taking the time to explain. I agree that the vagueness to which you refer here can, in many cases, proceed from fear of something. Or from a quiet, suppressed understanding that what one believes doesn't make sense even to himself. Etc. I have made similar observations. I'm guessing most conscientious questioners have.

As I just noted Christianity is too diverse and broad, and with the internet more believers are exposed to more options. No wonder there is confusion, and with confusion come vagueness. I wonder if some believers come to forums to help themselves distill what they think God is and isn't.

I don't agree with that, but I understand why you would say it. At the same time, while I would be willing to share in detail all the knowledge and understanding I claim, I would withhold from persons I judge to be insincere in their queries those experiences I consider most sacred to me.

They could be insincere, but don't you think your message is powerful enough to reach them? Don't you think you owe it to others to let them make up their own minds? You writing them off sounds judgmental, as you testify to here. You could be correct, but my point is that you are guessing.

I don't know what knowledge you are claiming. If it is how to do surgery that has a technique that is conclusive. If it is Christian ideology, well.....I'll introduce you to an Imam and you guys can fight it out until we have a winner.

The knowledge might be for everyone, but the experiences are mine; they are given to confirm my faith, not create it in the critic. In other words, there is wisdom in the pearls/swine admonition Jesus gave (this should not be controversial to any person who reverences things that he suspects others will openly mock, or belittle).

You are being vague, and all I wonder is why you are insinuating, and not being forthright. If you have the truth, then state the truth. If you you aren't confident, why are you posting at all?

What I notice is that you are preparing this discourse for rebuttal and criticism by stating the "pearls before the swine" notion. I have seen Christians use this to deal with criticism, that the believer is above the swine that dares criticize their beliefs (as they contribute on an online forum). I'm not sure if this is your motive, but I see you reluctant and cautious, and setting the stage for some sort of protection for your beliefs.

I agree with this only when what is being detailed isn't true.

And what Christian, or other religion, dogma is true at face value? Is it true that Jesus was executed so the sins of mankind would be atoned? No, it is a Christian idea that doesn't correspond to anything that is real and true. Christians can go into more and more detail about salvation, but does it even demonstrate that it is true in reality? No, it reveals more of the absurdity of the story. I argue that most all Christian concepts are better if interpreted symbolically rather than literally.

So yes, the more nonsense you hear, the less credible it all becomes. The problem we all have with the truth is that it turns this on its head—the more truth we hear, the greater the burden becomes on us to accept it, which can be very painful when our motive is to believe is easy for us to believe.

And by truth you mean what is true about reality (what we can determine is factual and likely) and not what implausible ideologies claim (that we dismiss)?

Or are you meaning "truth" as what is meaningful to a person even if not objectively true, and even contrary to knowledge? Clarify if you would.

 

[shunyadragon]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason.
Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

It is reasonable for people to believe in God(s) and to believe God(s) do not exist. Your post is worded subtly biased against the belief in God(s).

People say and claim lots of things about God as factual, however they go about justifying to themselves to make that claim.
How is it any different from making the claim that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact?

Not all who believe in God(s) believe the claim is factually based.

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Subjective claims are not right or wrong

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Millions of people believe a God or Gods exist for whatever reason. Isn't just as reasonable for someone to believe that no Gods exist for whatever personal reasons they happen to have as well?

Yes, but I'd say just as unreasonable rather than just as reasonable. Both are unjustified leaps of faith. Some say they find comfort in a god belief. If that's so, it's rational in a different sense to go on saying that God is real to you, but the belief itself remains insufficiently justified.

Joe claims God exists. Charlie claims God doesn't exist. Is there any wrong being done by either?

Not to others unless they're teaching those beliefs to children. But Joe may be harming himself because of his god belief, especially if it's in the god of Abraham. Look at these threads. The dharmics and pagans seem to be unharmed by their polytheism, and in my opinion, it's because their spirituality is earth and nature based, and unlike with the religions like Christianity and Islam, they aren't saddled with a belief that leaches the sacred from nature and exports it to an angry, harshly judgmental god living outside of nature while issuing threats and commandments while advocating assorted bigotries. How can that be good for anybody that believes it or anybody else?

 

[Unfettered]

Can you agree that if Jim is looking for his cat that he can search a room sufficietly to determine it isn't in there?

I can. Will I? That depends. I understand that your introducing the cat-search analogy was to better define or clarify the framework of the primary discussion, which is about the reasonableness of believing gods don't exist. My seeking to have nuance included in your analogy is because I believe the analogy, as presented, inappropriately constricts the framework of the primary discussion by reducing all searches for cats or god to conform to a single, simple idea. You certainly don't have to agree with may amendments, but dismissing them as irrelevant kind of kills the discussion. I know I didn't offer them because I thought they were irrelevant, but because I believe they are.

If you can accept the reasonableness and validity of my amendments, then I can accept your simple analogy and we can move on. Otherwise, no, I can't.

Based on what data? What leads you to think the prime reason for there being theists is a desire to know what others know?

I didn't say it was "the" prime reason, but "a" prime reason. And I don't offer data for that statement; I offer the statement because of my own experience. If that is inadmissible in a discussion, then I'm not sure what we're doing here. If you don't agree that it is "a" prime reason, then disagree and maybe say why. I certainly agree that there are myriad other reasons people search for god including, potentially, every reason you would offer.

Have you noticed that believers…

I don't presume to know what other people do and do not know. I focus on what I do and do not know. I don't always find credible what other people claim to know, but who am I to tell them that they don't know what they claim? If they don't know it, that has nothing to do with me.

There are no gods known to exist.

If this is the framework of the discussion, there is no point talking about it, because it would be 100% reasonable to believe gods don't exist. I'm good either way; just let me know.

So how do so many end up thinking they are searching for an actual God, or gods? Why aren't there more atheists?

Are these actual questions, or just rhetorical? I sincerely do not know.

1st. I was not raised Catholic…

I think you might have been responding to a point I didn't make. I was not calling into question your separation from the Catholic religion, or the reasons for which you did.

I value my own freedom and autonomy to understand what is true to become absorbed in any ideology.

This is an interesting statement! But a totally different discussion.

And given that I don't assign any meaning to what Jesus taught, or what the Bible says Jesus taught, so no irony.

You don't have to assign value; there is still irony there. Just sayin'.

Additionally, I don't see how anyone can love others without loving themselves as well. So the love comes from a balanced and stable mind that is open to understanding what is true about reality.

I largely agree. Tempted to offer nuance, but that's a different discussion.

OK, you disagreed with me when I said that no one comes to a conclusion that a God exists via facts and reasoning, yet you didn't explain why you disagree.

Well, how many discussion are we going to have here? If you really want me to share all that, I'm not opposed to it outright. But wouldn't that constitute a serious derailment of what we're already discussing? If you don't think so, let me know. I just didn't judge that going into detail served the present discussion.

You didn't rebut my observation with example of believers who DID follow facts, and USE reason to make a sound conclusion that a God exists. You didn't even cite Kalam. But Kalam has serious flaws anyway, but it is the closest example of an attempt.

I'll cite myself then. I am such a person (one who applies every relevant tool I possess). But again, unless you agree to abandon what we're already discussing here, this doesn't seem the place for a completely new discussion.

So do you have any examples of anyone following facts and using reasoning to conclude that a God exists, and this be accepted by critical thinkers?

In isolation? I don't. I believe it's possible, but it also might not be. In another thread I've been going down that path, to see if I can get there. But it has gotten derailed because folks are getting impatient and personal (apparently, I don't reason correctly).

How did you come to decide that a God exists? Facts and logic? If so, show your work. If not, then what happened that you ended up believing?

I'll ask again... is this now the discussion we're having—my experience? I'm not opposed to sharing, but considering that you're firm in your own declarations that there is no god, why are you wanting to peer inside my box? Would you not just measure everything I say against your predetermined standard and find your conclusions once again confirmed? Seriously, if you would not do that you're a different breed of person entirely, because I've found that degree of objectivity and discipline to be exceptionally rare. Are you serious, then? I'm not assuming; I'm asking.

If there is more… Look for yourself, in the Middle East you are likely to become Muslim… How else do you explain these geographical phenomenon if not the social and cultural influence on the young? Could it be all these religions are truth? Have you ever asked yourself what's this all about if your personal beliefs are true? Maybe the Hindus are onto something, possible? Maybe Christianity is wrong, possible? How far have you really gone in questioning all this?

Again, are you asking because you want to hear my answer and would look at it on its own merits, not appealing to stereotypes or intellectual prejudice of any kind? If not, don't bother asking. Either way, that's a different thread. But if you are sincere in your question, and can impress upon me that you have the discipline to be objective, and you create a thread for the discussion…I'll be there. It would be a marathon though, for my part. Or it could be brief. After all, I'm a "believer" (whatever that means), and you're not, and I don't know that you're in a place where you can even tolerate discussions of faith for very long. They have to be so offensive to your sensibilities now. At least, that's what I conclude from the passion with which you express contempt for faith-oriented or faith-inclusive thinking.

 

[Unfettered]

So where is the truth about God? It's anything goes.

That's correct; it is a free-for-all. This is a problem? How else should it be?

They could be insincere, but don't you think your message is powerful enough to reach them?

Would it reach you?

Don't you think you owe it to others to let them make up their own minds?

Most certainly. Would you not agree, though, that most of us have our minds made up about a great many things before others start sharing their own understanding or claims? Let's be honest here; people don't share (or are vague) because the tendency is for all of us not to be genuine in our entertainment of what others believe or claim, especially when those things are perpendicular or opposite to what we believe. Is this not accurate?

You writing them off sounds judgmental, as you testify to here. You could be correct, but my point is that you are guessing.

You are correct in that some judgement is applied. But for my own part I do try not to be capricious about it. I listen for clues. I mean, "God doesn't exist!" is a pretty clear message to me that whomever I'm talking to is not likely to listen objectively to the reasons I would offer that he does. Could I be wrong in that judgment? Sure. Is it likely that I would be? You tell me.

You are being vague, and all I wonder is why you are insinuating, and not being forthright. If you have the truth, then state the truth. If you you aren't confident, why are you posting at all?

Are these the only possibilities? Do these constitute the only choices I get when trying to explain 1) whether I am actually being vague (or whether you're mistaken) and 2) why I'm being vague (assuming #1)?

What I notice is that you are preparing this discourse for rebuttal and criticism by stating the "pearls before the swine" notion. I have seen Christians use this to deal with criticism, that the believer is above the swine that dares criticize their beliefs (as they contribute on an online forum). I'm not sure if this is your motive, but I see you reluctant and cautious, and setting the stage for some sort of protection for your beliefs.

Well, which is it? Am I being evasive? Am I being judgmental? Am I looking down on you? Am I afraid that you'll not accept my "testimony"?

Maybe we just talk to one another, ask for clarification on things when when need it, and refrain from stereotyping or conjectures about motive?

And what Christian, or other religion, dogma is true at face value? Is it true that Jesus was executed so the sins of mankind would be atoned? No, it is a Christian idea that doesn't correspond to anything that is real and true. Christians can go into more and more detail about salvation, but does it even demonstrate that it is true in reality? No, it reveals more of the absurdity of the story. I argue that most all Christian concepts are better if interpreted symbolically rather than literally.

All this tells me is that you're not someone with whom to address these questions. There would be no point. Or am I missing something?

And by truth you mean what is true about reality (what we can determine is factual and likely) and not what implausible ideologies claim (that we dismiss)?

Or are you meaning "truth" as what is meaningful to a person even if not objectively true, and even contrary to knowledge? Clarify if you would.

I understand that there is a composite called "truth" that does not belong to any person or society or nation or religion, and is not subject to anyone's opinions, perceptions, assessments, etc. It is simply "truth." It exists independently and we can either discern it, discover it, conform to it, or rail against it. We are free. I'm interested in what is in that sphere of truth. That's what I want and what I seek. I do not claim that it is always easy to penetrate the confusion that permeates our existence, in our pursuit of truth. At least, that has not been my experience. I do not claim that we are abandoned to seek truth alone. That hasn't been my experience, either. But that's a matter of faith and you may not care about that. My mind is not bound by any presuppositions about what is, or is not, in the composite of truth. Where truth is found, I accept it (I ought to, anyway). Nor do I prejudice its origin. If a liar speaks the truth, he does, and I would be a fool to reject it. Though, I would also be a fool to trust him (the liar, not the truth he speaks). To come to know and understand the truth in its entirety is a journey of eternity. Or, if this world is all one believes in, it is a long journey in this life to come to know and understand as much truth as possible, and to do right with it.

Does that clarify?

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, but I'd say just as unreasonable rather than just as reasonable. Both are unjustified leaps of faith. Some say they find comfort in a god belief. If that's so, it's rational in a different sense to go on saying that God is real to you, but the belief itself remains insufficiently justified.

So, no reasonable position to be had?

Not to others unless they're teaching those beliefs to children. But Joe may be harming himself because of his god belief, especially if it's in the god of Abraham. Look at these threads. The dharmics and pagans seem to be unharmed by their polytheism, and in my opinion, it's because their spirituality is earth and nature based, and unlike with the religions like Christianity and Islam, they aren't saddled with a belief that leaches the sacred from nature and exports it to an angry, harshly judgmental god living outside of nature while issuing threats and commandments while advocating assorted bigotries. How can that be good for anybody that believes it or anybody else?

I suppose polytheists and dharmics are less authoritative and more intuitive.
With Abrahamics you are stuck with other people's ideas about "God". Folks you never met and have very little knowledge of.

 

[Nakosis]

It is reasonable for people to believe in God(s) and to believe God(s) do not exist. Your post is worded subtly biased against the belief in God(s).

The intent was to maybe let folks see the opposing position could also be held by reasonable people.

Not all who believe in God(s) believe the claim is factually based.

Sure, fair. I just had finished several posts that assumed that God's existence was self-evident and any other position was unreasonable.
I thought maybe they could see someone else having this same confidence in there not being a God.

Subjective claims are not right or wrong

That is the difference I see between belief and faith. Belief allows subjectivity, faith doesn't.