Just Believe

[viole]

Try not to just see words. Put sentences together, and get the meaning.
I was speaking of people living in Jesus' day.
People who saw Pharaohs of Egypt can tell you all they know about them. If Pharaoh hit a man on his head, people witnessed it. They had evidence.
People who saw Jesus, knew what they saw. That would be evidence for them.

Yes, but this are all nice stories in a book. That would be like me telling you that wooden boys exist whose nose grows when they lie.
Do you have something more than that?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

I have no reason to think God would save me in that situation whether God exists or not. Which is why that analogy is stupid.

I just asked a question to see if the answer
would be "stupid", as some might say.
Of course, I wouldn't broach such a term.

 

[viole]

Your response was not an answer to my question either, which was how is it any different when the atheist uses the exact same language to explain the disbelief of the atheist, that the atheist uses to explain the disbelief of the theist? Can you answer why you say the same words, yet it's not the flipside of the same 'believerism" coin?

But I will attempt to address your question here below. Then you can address mine as well?


It is from his perspective, just as much as your question about his faith is from your perspective. You consider your question worthy of attention, the same as he considers his or hers wother of attention. I hear the same concerns being expressed, beginning from different perspectives, each claiming to have the real truth.

That to me says they share more in common, than the differences. Arguing heads instead of tails, means you're both using the same coin.


There are many ways to understand how or why someone chooses the atheistic perspective of ultimate reality. There are also many reasons why someone chooses the theistic perspective of ultimate reality. Simply saying it's because they "don't want to believe" easily can be said both directions. Are either right?

I'm not saying their claims have any more merit than yours. I'm saying they are both doing the same thing. They are brothers and sisters from the same parents.

Nope. You clearly said that your refusal of oblivion is on the same footing as my refusal of God's judgement. Which is fine.
However, I pointed out that my Muslim friend completely agree with you. My atheism is a refusal of Allah judgement.

So, my direct question to you is: is my Muslim friend argument tenable? If not, why is your tenable, then? All you need to do is say yes/no.

Simple logic. Please give me a strong answer to that, so that I will stop believing that destroying theistic arguments is too easy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

Are you looking for signs? No sign will be give this wicked generation, except the sign of Jonah. - Jesus.
Seriously though, just as the mason builds boxing, for his concrete slab, but removes it after the cement hardens, the signs Jesus and his apostles performed served their purpose. Afterward, when the Christian congregation was established, and before the great apostasy, those signs were no longer necessary.

Paul's comments at 1 Corinthians 13:8-13 helps us appreciate that.
"Love never fails. But if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with. For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially, but when what is complete comes, what is partial will be done away with. When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, to think as a child, to reason as a child; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the traits of a child. For now we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face-to-face. At present I know partially, but then I will know accurately, just as I am accurately known. Now, however, these three remain: faith, hope, love; but the greatest of these is love."

Exemplary Christians would work.

Evidence for whom?
There were evidence for who lived at that time.
Do we have evidence we can believe the ones who wrote these things? That's where examining the evidence in the Gospels, the writings of Paul, and others, come in. As well as the external evidence supporting the Biblical texts, and the other evidence followers of Christ observe.
To give just one example... In fact I will give two, since two witnesses are better.
The "claims" the writers made, included Matthew 28:18-20, and matthew 24:14, as well as a number of other texts, such as John 15:17-19 ; 2 Timothy 3:12, 13 and perhaps hundreds of scriptures, give evidence of both the truthfulness, and reliability of those "claims". That evidence is clear.
Add that to the text at John 13:34, 35, and there is no doubt about other texts, including Galatians 5:19-23.
...and on, and on.

So, contemporary Christians have nothing to offer themselves?

Is that why detectives disagree, and juries, and forensic experts... because they have no evidence?
I think you redefined the word evidence, to mean something it does not mean.
Evidence is not determined by what individuals think.
Evidence is just the information, or data, sitting there doing nothing, and people examine it, and form conclusions, based on how they interpret that data.

They disagree because they don't have evidence. Having a "smoking gun" is not always possible. So they are left to rely on testimony from eyewitness & experts. And a lost of mistakes, injustices occur because of a lack of evidence.

More than one person may agree on something, while more than one person agrees on something different.

Because they have no evidence to support what is being claimed.

So, if there is no evidence for us today then you are left to rely on faith. OK, the OP implied this was a bad idea.

I tend to agree but you don't have to. I'd say your argument was with the OP.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

First, recognize that you have no evidence whatever that God does not exist.

Why does that matter? I have no more (or less) evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist than that God does not exist. That also doesn't matter.

More to the point is that we have no evidence that any god exists. We are told repeatedly by people that like to use words like materialist and the physical realm a lot that we will never find evidence of their god using the senses and our devices that amplify them.

If an entity that it is claimed exists leaves no more impact on reality than things that don't exist, it doesn't matter which this alleged god is - a noninterventionalist god that either lacks the ability or desire to impact our lives, of a fiction of mankind's imagination.

It not only doesn't matter, for example, whether an undetectible god such as the deist god that is said to have set the universe in motion and then left it, or it arose naturalistically, it also doesn't matter if we know which is the case (apatheism). The answer to the question is useless.

And given that the lack of evidence is equal, either way, you are logically being afforded a choice. Just pick one and see if it works for you. If not, pick another.

Regarding matters that can neither be ruled in or out, agnosticism is the only rational approach. We must resist the cognitive bias that needs an answer so much that we guess just to resolve the cognitive dissonance that uncertainty causes in many.

In the end all "evidence" means is that an idea "works" with our conception of reality.

Then you're doing it wrong. Your conception of reality should be derived from the impartial evaluation of evidence, not the other way around. If you come to the matter with a conception of reality not derived from evidence, and then review the evidence with that mind set, you've got a faith-based confirmation bias at work. We saw this in the ID people, whose thesis - an intelligent designer exists - caused them to see irreducible complexity in biological systems where none existed.

Medical trials are double blinded specifically to eliminate this type of prejudice in both the investigator and the patient, both of which are hoping to see a beneficial effect of the therapy, and will report that there was a beneficial effect if they allow their judgement of the evidence to be clouded by a preconceived belief.

The 'evidence' for choosing to place one's faith in the existence of God is the positive result derived from having done so. This does not prove that God exists, but it does prove that faith, when properly understood and applied, does work, and does work positively and effectively. The whole "God question" isn't really about whether or not God exists, because there is no possible way any human could ever determine that. The real question is about choosing whether or not to trust in the existence of a God. It's a question of faith, not existence.

This sounds like an argument for atheism in the person for whom there is no positive effect of a god belief.

You apparently benefit from believing that there is a god. I can only guess how. Perhaps you are afraid of extinction after death, or of never seeing your deceased love ones again. Maybe you like to think that there is magic in the world, or somebody looking after you, or somebody that think's you're more special than the beasts and made in its image, or think that your life has more meaning or purpose if a god exists.

Whatever it is, I have no such need. Furthermore, when I was a Christian, I also got no benefit from that belief, which is one reason I left it.

Aren't we better off if we can be whole and complete without the aid of such a belief? Aren't we better off if we can accept the possibility that none of things is true than to need a god belief to satisfy some need not otherwise satisfied? Glasses in those who can't read without them fulfills a need, and we understand why people with blurry vision want them, but that doesn't make the person who can read well without them want to go out and get glasses however much the other guy praises the benefit they gave him. I don't envy the guy who gets benefit from reading glasses any more than I envy the guy who benefits from a god belief.

• "Atheism isn't for the weak. It's easier to believe in a god than not because being an atheist means that there is no devil to blame, no expectation of reuniting with deceased loved ones, no personal protection from the cosmos, only one life to live, personal responsibility for one's choices, marginalization in a theistic society, and no easy explanations for our existence." - anon

 

[Revoltingest]

I suspect somebody tried that already, and he preceded in death one of his family members who wrote: You must not test the LORD your God

He continually argues that with no proof there's no God,
one must believe in that God....not any of the other gods
who've arisen over the ages....that particular one..."God".
I just cannot force my self to believe in sky fairies.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?

We are on page 4 and the topic has had 66 posts. I suppose someone or the other must have mentioned that the stories in scriptures cannot be taken as evidence.

 

[PureX]

Not a thing. I was addressing claims made by the OP; that scripture = evidence.

Not evidence for, nor against.

 

[Windwalker]

Nope. You clearly said that your refusal of oblivion is on the same footing as my refusal of God's judgement. Which is fine.
However, I pointed out that my Muslim friend completely agree with you. My atheism is a refusal of Allah judgement.

First, you assume what I believe. I have never said what my position is, other than to recognize that theists and atheists are simply arguing opposite sides of the same coin. I personally use a different currency, which I have not explained as it's beside the main point. I have been historically both a theistic believer and an atheist in that order, so I have the advantage of knowing how each sees things, and how much they actually share in common with each other.

So to point out how these are saying the same thing. The Muslim says to you, you refuse to accept Allah because you don't want to face the truth, is identical to you saying that he is not accepting their is no God, because he doesn't want to face the truth of nihilism or "oblivion" as you put it. Each thinks the other doesn't believe as they do, because the truth is too hard for the other to face.

Another metaphor besides the flipsides of the same coin, would be to say "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree which grew it".

So, my direct question to you is: is my Muslim friend argument tenable? If not, why is your tenable, then?

I think his perspective is as valid to him, as yours is to you. You each believe the other is wrong, and yourself right. That I see as the source of the problem. It's the same binary coin with only two choices: my ideas or yours. I reject that premise. I reject such conclusions. You are both wrong, and both right.

Simple logic. Please give me a strong answer to that, so that I will stop believing that destroying theistic arguments is as easy as stealing lollypops from little kids.

Ciao

- viole

Or is it you are simply taking swipes at the low-hanging fruit which are half-eaten of worms already anyway (like YEC), and ignoring all the apples which are much higher up in the tree? The same thing can be said of atheism as well. It too has its low-hanging fruit arguments. But it also has its deeper, more insightful truths as well, such as the thoughts of say Camus or Sartre. So does theism with its greater minds.

To share what I believe here, I believe atheism and theism are expressions of the same thing, and both are valid perspectives. Each offers some light of understanding of the whole, which transcends both perspectives. They are just languages to speak of the nature of absolute reality, one which sees a face of willful mind and intention, and one which sees it as wholly naturalistic and material in nature without any clearly identifiable purpose.

Each are starting places upon which we form our own ways of looking at Reality, and seeing truths about it. But these are perspectives, different sets of eyes we can and should use in order to see a larger and more inclusive picture. I realize that no one perspective is right and all others wrong, and that the "true believer" be they in the form of a theist or an atheist, are operating off that same binary mode of perspective. "If this isn't true, than it's a lie", mentality. I simply don't believe that is sound reasoning.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Stupidity. Yes?
If one has no evidence that someone will catch them, and they jumped out the twin towers, they might have well have said, "I have no evidence that this plane won't explode, but faith might cause it not to, and I will survive. I mean, it's like 90 stories off the ground."
That's fear. Not faith.
No evidence. No faith. Just blind emotional... I can't even call it a belief.


Have not seen what? The wind?
Blessed are those who believe and has not seen me. (John 20:26-29)
One does not have to see the wind, but they might hear it, or feel it. Hence believe.
One does not have to see Jesus, but what they hear, and learn, and observe or experience, gives them rational reason for believing.

It's not that complicated.

Evidence isn't the end all be all. People put faith in god and their evidence is the results of their conviction.

It's like if you flew an plane you put faith in the air pilot to get to your destination. It's not blind.

What you're talking about is if you blind faith where there's no pilot but you feel you can fly it regardless.

 

[Nakosis]

Have you tried jumping off that cliff to test if God will save you?

If I was among the faithful, I would say God would not have led me to the Clift in the first place.

 

[PureX]

Why does that matter? I have no more (or less) evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist than that God does not exist. That also doesn't matter.

No evidence is no evidence. It's meaningless. And so are your silly attempts at analogizing fairies.

More to the point is that we have no evidence that any god exists.

Which is equally pointless, as no evidence isn't evidence of anything. The significance you're trying to imply, here, doesn't exist.

We are told repeatedly by people that like to use words like materialist and the physical realm a lot that we will never find evidence of their god using the senses and our devices that amplify them.

Well, I would always suggest thinking for yourself, as opposed to letting others tell you what you should be thinking. The point is not that there is no evidence, the point is that a human being cannot qualify or validate any possible evidence there could be. So whatever evidence you are expecting, and claim is "missing", is a logical fiction.

If an entity that it is claimed exists leaves no more impact on reality than things that don't exist, it doesn't matter which this alleged god is - a noninterventionalist god that either lacks the ability or desire to impact our lives, of a fiction of mankind's imagination.

EVERYTHING that exist may be the "evidence" of God just as easily as nothing being evidence. Again, we humans have no way of identifying and validating whatever evidence there may be for the "source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is". Just because you can't see the evidence and influence doesn't mean it's not there. In fact, it may be EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. Which is WHY you're unable to see it.

It not only doesn't matter, for example, whether an undetectible god such as the deist god that is said to have set the universe in motion and then left it, or it arose naturalistically, it also doesn't matter if we know which is the case (apatheism). The answer to the question is useless.

The answer is exactly as important as you choose to make it. And you don;t get to make that determination for anyone else.

Regarding matters that can neither be ruled in or out, agnosticism is the only rational approach.

Actually, it's not the only rational option. Faith is also a rational, viable option. And one can choose faith while remaining agnostic.

We must resist the cognitive bias that needs an answer so much that we guess just to resolve the cognitive dissonance that uncertainty causes in many.

There is no avoiding "cognitive bias". Which is why remaining agnostic is important. And why I am so often posting against the insistence on "belief".

This sounds like an argument for atheism in the person for whom there is no positive effect of a god belief.

Nothing = nothing. And means nothing. There is no positive effect because nothing invested gets nothing back. Standing on this nothingness as though it's some sort of justified, intelligent proposition seems a very weak way to go.

You apparently benefit from believing that there is a god. I can only guess how. Perhaps you are afraid of extinction after death, or of never seeing your deceased love ones again. Maybe you like to think that there is magic in the world, or somebody looking after you, or somebody that think's you're more special than the beasts and made in its image, or think that your life has more meaning or purpose if a god exists.

Whatever it is, I have no such need. Furthermore, when I was a Christian, I also got no benefit from that belief, which is one reason I left it.

Aren't we better off if we can be whole and complete without the aid of such a belief? Aren't we better off if we can accept the possibility that none of things is true than to need a god belief to satisfy some need not otherwise satisfied?

Please explain why you think not needing or wanting to trust in a God-ideal to make living one's life more sensible and purposeful is a better way to live.

Glasses in those who can't read without them fulfills a need, and we understand why people with blurry vision want them, but that doesn't make the person who can read well without them want to go out and get glasses however much the other guy praises the benefit they gave him. I don't envy the guy who gets benefit from reading glasses any more than I envy the guy who benefits from a god belief.

What does envy have to do with anything? We are who and what we are. And we all have to do the best we can with the situation we find ourselves inhabiting. I can't think of any good reason to compare our existential circumstances with someone else's and saying who's is the more superior.

 

[F1fan]

Evidently you are speaking for yourself.

Feel free to offer an example of any objective thinker who came to a conclusion that a God exists via facts and data.

 

[Father Heathen]

Not evidence for, nor against.

Nothing I said suggested otherwise.

 

[F1fan]

No evidence is no evidence. It's meaningless. And so are your silly attempts at analogizing fairies.

Gods aren't an exempt category just because many cultures include them as part of their belief and meaning. Objectively gods fall into the category of imaginary beings. Not opinion, just the fact of how the category is organized.

 

[ecco]

So can someone help me out here. How does a person believe in a god, without evidence? I know there are quite a number of those who call themselves Christians, who think this way. Blind faith, they call it.

I think you just set up another strawman for yourself. Can you name any Christians who believe based on just blind faith? Any?

I know quite a few Christians. I have not met any in my personal life who believe based on just blind faith.

I have not come across any Christians (or Hindus or Muslims) on RF who said "I believe because of blind faith and no other reason".

So, why did you start this thread?

 

[ecco]

I used to know someone (New Ager) who believed the only reason we can't fly is that we are brought up to believe we can't.

...so he tried flying off of the top of a large skyscraper. For most of the way down he was heard exclaiming loudly "So far, so good".

 

[ecco]

What evidence did Abraham have to believe and take up his family and start heading to a destination that he didn't know about?

Ditto Noah.

 

[ecco]

It's like if you flew an plane you put faith in the air pilot to get to your destination. It's not blind.

Why is that not blind faith?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

your silly attempts at analogizing fairies

If you thought the analogy between gods and fairies was silly, then you didn't understand it. I am comparing two entities that some people believe exist (probably just kids in one case, but that doesn't matter for the present purpose) and some don't, neither having evidence for or against such belief apart from never detecting either, which while not evidence of nonexistence, is the only finding possible consistent with it.

And if you find it silly - more likely a little disrespectful, since one of these ideas is important to you and the other trivial - you bridle at the comparison. Having an emotional reaction to such a thing is on you, your choice, like the creationist who becomes offended at the idea that he is related to chimps and gorillas. You consider belief in one of those ideas a virtue, belief in the other childish, and object to the comparison.

I'm implying that I have no more or less reason to believe either of those ideas, and that either both ideas should not be believed or both of them. Believing in one and not the other is arbitrary. I'm sure that you could get just as much out of a fairy belief if somebody could convince you that that was a virtuous belief and a god belief childish.

The significance you're trying to imply, here, doesn't exist.

My comment was, "More to the point is that we have no evidence that any god exists." To a critical thinker, that is significant. If one requires sufficient evidence before belief, and there is no such evidence available for gods, only atheism is supported by reason - the no answer to a question inquiring about a god belief.

Well, I would always suggest thinking for yourself, as opposed to letting others tell you what you should be thinking.

Again, you misunderstand. I was reporting what many theists believe and post. It was the basis of my conclusion that if they believe in a god that is not detectible even in principle by examining physical reality, that the question of the existence of such a god is irrelevant. It was an exercise in logical thought that demonstrates the inconsistency in the beliefs of those people.

So whatever evidence you are expecting, and claim is "missing", is a logical fiction.

A logical fiction? What's that? A logical fallacy? An error in reasoning? No. An error in reasoning is to believe without sufficient evidence.

Just because you can't see the evidence and influence doesn't mean it's not there. In fact, it may be EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. Which is WHY you're unable to see it.

Or not. There may be no god, and that's why I don't see one.

More to the point, it's hard to see how knowing the answer would matter. What if you had ironclad proof that a god had set the universe in motion with the Big Bang and a host of particles and forces rather than that it budded from some mindless substance (multiverse). How would that matter?

Faith is also a rational, viable option.

No, faith and reason are antithetical. To the extent that an idea is supported by evidence, belief that the idea is correct is a function of reason. Belief beyond what the evidence supports is faith, and is irrational. Believe using valid reasoning or believe anyway without it (faith). One is rational, the other irrational.

Once again, just because you consider faith to be a virtue doesn't make it rational. It just makes it something else you respect.

There is no positive effect because nothing invested gets nothing back.

There is no positive effect because there is nothing there. Of course, it is not possible for you to think that. By faith, you just know that there really is something there, and that if I don't detect it, it must mean that I didn't try hard enough. But I'm not locked into that kind of backward thinking that begins with things believed by faith and then evaluates the evidence in the light of that faith-based belief. I'm capable of understanding that if your experience were of something real, like the sun, I would detect it as well. You must conclude that you have some special sensory apparatus that allows you detect what others cannot.

But I am free to consider other possibilities, likelier ones, in fact. Between whether you're sensing something real that is undetectable to me or you're misunderstanding your mental states and attributing them to an external reality that simply isn't there, you can only consider one, I can consider both, and I consider the latter option much more likely.

Actually, there is a test. I like to tell the story of the kid who thought he was red-green colorblind, but when he remembered other pranks played on him like Santa Claus and the time he went out snipe hunting with his friends made him question whether he was being pranked on color as well. Were other people seeing jus the grey he saw and calling it red sometimes and green sometimes to pull his leg? This is basically asking the same question: is he not seeing something that is actually there (red and green), or are others "seeing" something that isn't. It's easy to tell. Have a bag of ten socks with the numbers 1-10 on them, have somebody who claims to see color tell you which is red and which is green, record the color of each sock, and ask a dozen people that have been kept from collaborating what they see. Do they all give the same answers? If so, you're colorblind. If not, prank exposed.

Try this experiment on people telling you that they are experiencing something that is not merely their own minds, and that the skeptics just aren't spiritual enough or whatever to see if they're all experiencing something out there or misunderstanding what their own mental states signify.

Standing on this nothingness as though it's some sort of justified, intelligent proposition seems a very weak way to go.

Well, we don't think alike, so your judgment of what is weak thought probably won't align with mine. Remember, you don't need evidence to believe, which critical thinkers consider a weak way to go.

Please explain why you think not needing or wanting to trust in a God-ideal to make living one's life more sensible and purposeful is a better way to live.

I referred to not benefitting from a god belief. Why is that better? I gave the illustration of not benefitting from reading glasses. Why is not benefitting from them better than them fulfilling some need? Isn't not needing something generally better than needing it? Would you rather need a ride somewhere or not need one? Would you rather need a second job or not need one?

Or maybe you cannot conceive of a godless life that is fulfilling and purposeful being more sensible than one that requires a god that may not exist to center one and give life purpose. Why would I trade that for a having a need that only a god belief could satisfy? I know you probably don't like these analogies, but aren't you glad that you can fall asleep without a teddy bear? Why would adding such a need that then requires adding the teddy bear be a good thing?