Just Believe

[nPeace]

Almost exclusively because they were indoctrinated into it, generally before they had developed sufficient judgement to question those doing the indoctrination.

The same way we can believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Because those we are programmed to believe, when we are children, said so.

The really, really interesting thing is that -- in fact -- most people DO NOT BELIEVE to that extent.

Believing in the claims of Christianity, Islam, Judaism or any other religion seem to involve accepting risks -- but those risks are never imminent. They're never here and now. I don't have to jump off a cliff, I just have to suppose that there's a cliff involved when I'm dead and gone. That 's a lot less threatening than your fellow in the picture (I'd never do that, by the way, I'd be terrified down to my shorts).

Well, and here's where we get to what you have simply decided to believe "without evidence." You accept -- on the word of the Bible alone, and in spite of the failure of any and all attempts to replicate what is claimed -- that those "great signs" actually happened. Nobody can do them now, can they? Oh, wait, there are claims made by the Baha'is and Mormons that they have. Oops. Why don't you accept those? Just out of curiosity.

Sorry, I can't help you. I don't believe in a god without evidence -- it is you who does that. So? How do you do it?

Sigh
Please prove this claim "You accept -- on the word of the Bible alone," Then we can talk about your next claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not evidence for, nor against.

There is so much against the process of creation of the universe and the advent of humans which the scriptures mention - the six day creation and creation of Adam from mud and creation of woman from ribs (or from baculum - penis bone, as some have opined. That is why baculum is mising in humans).

"The first recorded attempts to explain the lack of baculum in humans might be more than two thousand years old: the Biblical 'rib' that was 'taken' from Adam may actually be the baculum." Baculum - Wikipedia

 

[danieldemol]

I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?

Easily done as many humans are not strictly rational creatures.

To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."

Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT

Is that not idiotic?

Jumping off a cliff is idiotic because it has disastrous results. By comparison beliefs are not necessarily disastrous, which is where your analogy fails.

If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it. "

That's pretty much what He did.

However, Jesus performed great signs,

Nah, people who came after Him added claims of miracles to help the story sell.

and used the scriptures to teach with authority

So the claim goes, yet the overwhelming majority of Jews were never impressed.

In my opinion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: ..

Professor John R. Brobeck was not a physicist.

 

[YoursTrue]

View attachment 54555

Yes, but don't scientific assertions change from time to time when evidence evokes different opinions? And conclusions? And categories?

 

[firedragon]

I answered, and if you read it's Egypt, then you must be joking.

Well, there was no evidence in your post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Easily done as many humans are not strictly rational creatures.


Jumping off a cliff is idiotic because it has disastrous results. By comparison beliefs are not necessarily disastrous, which is where your analogy fails.


That's pretty much what He did.


Nah, people who came after Him added claims of miracles to help the story sell.


So the claim goes, yet the overwhelming majority of Jews were never impressed.

In my opinion.

Here's a problem with that: Many Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to appear. So would you say those are believing in mythical prophecies of peace on earth, life without problems as we see today? In other words, does the majority opinion always count? Of course, it's obviously influential because of opinion and/or teaching true or false, but is it always right?

 

[danieldemol]

Professor John R. Brobeck was not a physicist.

And even if he were (he is not as you pointed out correctly), saying something is improbable but not impossible therefore it is evidence it occurred is ridiculous, which is the wool @nPeace appears to be trying to pull down over our eyes.

In my opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Professor John R. Brobeck was not a physicist.

Interesting, because I've been reading the works of a rather well-known physicist who also said he is an atheist. I like his writing very much. Yet there is nothing to prove that there is not a power higher than the laws proclaimed by scientists. Including that of gravity.

 

[danieldemol]

Here's a problem with that: Many Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to appear. So would you say those are believing in mythical prophecies of peace on earth, life without problems as we see today?

Yes I would.

...does the majority opinion always count? Of course, it's obviously influential because of opinion and/or teaching true or false, but is it always right?

No, the majority is not always right, but in this particular case the majority appears to be correct in the assumption that Jesus did not use the scriptures to teach with authority, as He may have taught from the scriptures, but in their eyes He was heretical and thus had no authority.

In my opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem is that you can't so easily dismiss the ideal of an ultimate source, sustenance, and purpose for all that is, so you have to equate it with something trivial that you can more easily dismiss.

I can dismiss any unsupported claim as easily as any other. Would you understand better if I substituted another god for the fairies? The fairies seem to be a stumbling block for you to participate in understanding the point. You're not rebutting the claim that one has no more reason to believe in unevidenced gods as it is to believe in unevidenced fairies. You're looking to deflect from the discussion. No problem. I've made my point. Your only response is an ad lapidum fallacy.

It's also interesting that you continually post as if your belief has had a benefit in your life that you imply others will get as well if they just drop the reason shields and begin believing in a god, yet you never say even after being asked directly what that is as you will surely do again here.

I completely disagree with you that there is a benefit from slipping from rational skepticism into the world of belief. I know from personal experience that the opposite was the case. I don't try to sell secular humanism to you or anybody else, but if I did try, I could easily articulate the advantages. I could tell you the ways my life got better. You can't do that in defense of your exhortation to just believe, evidence be damned. I've told you repeatedly I see no value there, and have no unmet needs for religious belief to fulfill. You might as well try to sell me a package of cigarettes. I see no value there, and have no need that a cigarette could fulfill.

a critical thinker will know that a lack of evidence is meaningless unless there is a logical, reasonable expectation that evidence would be extant, and recognizable, and in this instance, neither is the case. So that lack of evidence is evidence on nothing at all.

A critical thinker decides what is true based on the available evidence that supports or make the belief less likely. Lack of evidence is just as relevant as its existence. Each help the critical thinker decide the degree to which an idea should be considered likely.

Why are you demanding physical evidence of mythical, representation 'entities'?

I'm not. I know that nobody can provide such evidence. I'm just saying that I won't believe any claim without it.

Unless you have a logical, reasonable expectation of there being recognizable, verifiable evidence, the lack of it means nothing.

Once again, we don't think alike. I couldn't disagree with you more, but then we have a different level of respect for evidence in deciding what is true.

So the fact that you can't see it certainly does not indicate that it doesn't exist.

You keep making this same logical error. I don't say that gods don't exist.

We humans live by faith. We have no choice.

If by faith you mean unjustified belief, then I disagree. It is very possible to train oneself to not accept insufficiently evidenced ideas. It's how one learns to defend against indoctrination. If one is unable to recognize that a claim is insufficiently supported because he hasn't learned critical thinking skills, then sure, just repeat it to him enough times and it becomes common knowledge to him. One doesn't need to allow that to happen to himself, and in so doing, he can avoid the mistakes that result from false beliefs, such as that ivermectin is safe and effective therapy for COVID. There is insufficient evidence to believe that. A critical thinker rejects the claim not because he knows it's false, but because he has no reason to believe that it is true.

Your exhortation to just drop the critical analysis and swallow your idea is just as unacceptable to me as swallowing horse dewormer just because some faith-based thinkers advocate it. One avoids swallowing a raft of bad ideas that others who are defenseless against empty claims swallow left and right. The Capitol insurrectionists are learning what can go wrong with unsupported belief. They believed that the election was stolen and that Trump would stand behind them. Now they need lawyers, one of which I hear is in the hospital on a ventilator himself now.

Hopefully, some of the climate deniers are starting to see how their guess that climate change must be a hoax because they heard it a few times was a mistake. Many of the vaccine refusers who are basing their decision on indoctrination while avoiding contradictory evidence tell us how wrong they were in their dying breaths.

I've found a better way to decide what is true than faith. I don't see how you can talk me or anybody else that's learned to avoid unjustified belief to start accepting it now.

Except we're ALL colorblind to varying degrees. So your thinking that consensus somehow solves the puzzle of reality is false. And since the vast majority of humans are theists, even consensus rejects you presumptions.

You didn't understand that illustration either. Somehow you missed that the kid in the story can tell if his buddies are seeing red and green or not empirically and determine if his alleged red-green color blindness is a thing or not based on the presence or absence of consensus in their responses.

You keep showing me that you have a different relationship to evidence and reasoning than I do. Maybe you couldn't answer that colorblindness riddle, but with that evidence, I could. Maybe you don't need compelling evidence to believe, but I do. That isn't negotiable with me. I can see the damage faith-based thought and wrong beliefs can lead to. I've lived it.

You also missed the implied point about the lack of consensus among theists about what it is they think they are experiencing when they claim to experience God being grounds to conclude that they are all looking at something different, that being their own mental states, and misinterpreting them as a perception of something that is not just their own minds. I didn't state it explicitly because I thought the implication was obvious - theists fail the red-green test with their god claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I would.


No, the majority is not always right, but in this particular case the majority appears to be correct in the assumption that Jesus did not use the scriptures to teach with authority, as He may have taught from the scriptures, but in their eyes He was heretical and thus had no authority.

In my opinion.

Yes, he did use the scriptures often. His opposers got really mad when he quoted Psalm 82 to them. And of course there are differing interpretations of this. But John chapter 10 brings this out very well.
Verses 26-39:
"But because you are not My sheep, you refuse to believe. My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
31At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32But Jesus responded, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?”33“We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God.”34Jesus replied, “Is it not written in your Law: ‘I have said you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy for stating that I am the Son of God?37If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. 38But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I am in the Father.”39At this, they tried again to seize Him, but He escaped their grasp."

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I would.


No, the majority is not always right, but in this particular case the majority appears to be correct in the assumption that Jesus did not use the scriptures to teach with authority, as He may have taught from the scriptures, but in their eyes He was heretical and thus had no authority.

In my opinion.

So may I ask what you believe will happen in the future and why you believe it?

 

[danieldemol]

So may I ask what you believe will happen in the future and why you believe it?

I believe the most probable future is that in about 5 billion years our sun will die.
I believe it because that is the average length of time observed for stars similar to our own sun.

Thus it is based on repeated observation, a bit like observing the average person lives to 73 and guessing the likely time of passing for you or me to be around 70 give or take a suitable margin.

In my opinion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I believe the most probable future is that in about 5 billion years our sun will die.
I believe it because that is the average length of time observed for stars similar to our own sun.

Thus it is based on repeated observation, a bit like observing the average person lives to 73 and guessing the likely time of passing for you or me to be around 70 give or take a suitable margin.

In my opinion.

OK, so I take from that you have no thought or hope of a good future for yourself beyond that.-- ?
Since I believe and it is clear to me that God made the earth habitable for man and other living things, mankind eventually to live forever, I believe He has the power to cause life to continue as He wills, including the stability of the sun.
The Bible says that star differs from star in glory. 1 Corinthians 15:41 states, "The glory of the sun is one sort, and the glory of the moon is another, and the glory of the stars is another; in fact, one star differs from another star in glory." Based on that, I conclude that each star is different from another. Since He can make humans live forever according to His will, He can also cause the sun remain forever, if that is His will.

 

[viole]

Do you find evidence for the conservation laws of thermodynamics?

Yes, that is why it is called a law.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Can you please listen, and try for one moment to let go of trying hard to argue for your disbelief.
The........OP........said........nothing........about........a........book.
Do you understand.

Are you asking what the evidence is. Start with Romans 1:20, and Hebrews 3:4. That's where we start.
Then return let's talk about that. Afterward we can talk about books.

Classic. You talk of evidence being in a book, but I cannot address the book.
Is that really what is left to theists to make an argument?

So, let's have a look. Hoping I may do that.

Romans 1:20: For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Here Paul made something up, hoping nobody noticed. Like those salesman of oil snake talking to an audience needing some magic at any cost, and therefore not asking too many critical questions. How on earth can you infer from creation alone, say the trees, the bees, cancer, parasitic wasps, the rainbow, the stars, etc. that the creator has a Son who sort of died for something called sin, and the rest of that theological shebang?

Unless you tell me how that process is intended to work, those guys that know nothing about all that myth, have a pretty thick excuse.

Hebrews 3:4: For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything.

That is another statement that has no evidence whatsoever. Sounds deep, but it is just what Paul made up. Actually, it is even logically contradicting since that would entail that God is the builder of God, if God is part of everything. Again, that has all the landmarks of being a sales argument to people craving to buy some hope coming from some magical Dad in the Skies. To people with too much heaven on their mind, like A.L. Webber would say, and are therefore blind to even the biggest logical contradictions, and utter absence of evidence. of the claims exposed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[danieldemol]

OK, so I take from that you have no thought or hope of a good future for yourself beyond that.-- ?

There is an irrational part of me that hopes my spirit will outlive the body, the sun etc, but there is no evidence for spirits.

As for our sun being different to other suns it is only as different as you and I are different in spite of sharing similar chemical compositions.

Likewise the suns have similar nuclear compositions, and scientists are able to determine the truth of this using spectroscopy.

Using spectroscopy they have determined our sun is a fairly typical main sequence star composed of 74% hydrogen, 25% helium.

In my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Sigh
Please prove this claim "You accept -- on the word of the Bible alone," Then we can talk about your next claim.

From your own words in the OP. Did you not say: "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?"

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The evidence for God is overwhelming. The evidence for Christ being God is real. I don't need everything proven.

If the evidence for God is overwhelming to you, the God is proven. Why did you then add that you don't need it proven?

Is the absence of evidence also evidence of absence

The absence of EXPECTED evidence is evidence of absence. Suppose you just didn't show up at work yesterday, but expected t be paid for your unexcused day off. Your coworkers don't recall seeing you at work that day. Your time card isn't stamped for that day. You're not getting paid on the basis of the absence of what would be expected evidence were your claim honest.

I find the evidence is for Christ being the Son of God because that is really what the Bible teaches.
No man has seen God at any time according to John at John 1:18
People saw Jesus
Moses wrote that No man can see God and live as per Exodus 33:20
People saw Jesus and lived
No one has seen the Father 'except' the one who is from God...... John 6:46
People saw Jesus
Gospel writer John believed that No one has seen God at any time as per John at 1 John 4:12
People saw Jesus

Your evidence is scripture, which is not evidence of anything other than a claim that those things happened. Scripture is not evidence of anything other than that somebody thought that idea and wrote it down. Even if scripture is correct, it takes evidence from archeology or elsewhere to confirm it. Scripture is simply not enough.

You are confusing the conceptual representations of God invented by men, with the reality of God's existence.

What reality of God's existence? That's an insufficiently supported claim, not reality. It turns out that all we have are such claims to consider and rebut, possibly because this reality of which you speak isn't actually real.

Do you find evidence for the conservation laws of thermodynamics?

You've got it backward. The law was derived from evidence. The evidence preceded the law (conclusion). You are free to review or recreate it if that's important to you.

I've never met another Christian of any kind that didn't have what they considered evidence.

I presume you wrote those words to say that such people have good reason to believe what they do because they have what they consider evidence. Others don't believe their claims - they never produce this evidence or any argument based in it beyond saying to look around you because the evidence is everywhere.

You have evidence all around you, yet you declare there isn't any evidence because it doesn't meet some kind of standard of yours.

Perfect. Right on time. You offer as evidence of god that which is only evidence that chemistry occurs and that some molecules self-replicate. Incidentally, what are all of those particles between the base pairs? Do you know what you are depicting above? What are you seeing depicted here?

There is certainly evidence of a Creator. It's called having created things.

If your definition of a creator is that which creates things, then the weather can called a creator, as can any other unconscious process. Is that part of your argument for a god?

an atheist comes to the end of their life and realizes they've spent most of it working, that they haven't done enough, that they aren't enough. They are a loser who didn't get the girl or are still living with their parents. And they are trapped in a world of no hope.

Maybe you should actually speak to a few atheists before posting such jejune comments. I am approaching the end of life, and I am happy. I feel safe and loved, and am surrounded by kindness and beauty. What do you think I should be hoping for? Eternal consciousness. No thanks. A little thought should tell that if you actually couldn't escape conscious experience, you are trapped in whatever reality would follow. Hoping that it will be you and angels singing praises to Jesus all day, or whatever it is you believe, doesn't seem like much of a plan.