Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[F1fan]

Evidence is not what makes anything real, evidence is just what some people need in order to believe some things are real.

Rational thinkers. Those who believe in ideas that lack evidence are not rational thinkers.

What exists in reality exists in reality, whether there is evidence for it or not.

Only those things that have evidence are what can be determined to exist. Without evidence there is no basis to decide something exists.

Let's note that there is good evidence that the Tooth Fairy exists. Many of us have put teeth under our pillow and find money the next morning. Incredible. How else could this happen except the Tooth Fairy doing it? Millions confirm this happens. Just incredible.

 

[Trailblazer]

And then there are those who possess the ability to perceive what others are unable to perceive, hear, or feel. I'm sure it would scare the living daylights out of most people if they could see, hear, and feel what I see, hear, and feel on a daily basis and have seen, heard, and felt since I was a child. Despite what was said in prior posts, I know that there is plenty of evidence for the spirits all around us.

I was going to mention that what you have seen and heard is evidence of the supernatural, but I didn't know if you would want me to bring you into this discussion.

Maybe 'one reason' that you can see and hear it and they cannot is because it would scare the living daylights out of most people.
I mean even that TV experience scared me a little, until you confirmed what it was. I had it in my mind what it was but others were telling me it could have been something else. No, it really couldn't have been.

 

[Trailblazer]

Only those things that have evidence are what can be determined to exist. Without evidence there is no basis to decide something exists.

As I have probably said on this forum 100 times, there is evidence but no proof, and that evidence is the basis for my belief.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I was going to mention that what you have seen and heard is evidence of the supernatural, but I didn't know if you would want me to bring you into this discussion.

Maybe 'one reason' that you can see and hear it and they cannot is because it would scare the living daylights out of most people.
I mean even that TV experience scared me a little, until you confirmed what it was. I had it in my mind what it was but others were telling me it could have been something else. No, it really couldn't have been.

I don't mind you mentioning me in topics related to the supernatural (the paranormal), since you and I are good friends. I see multiple spirits practically everywhere I go, and if I don't see them visually, then I can audibly hear them, feel their presence, or get a mental vision of them. In any case, seeing, hearing, and feeling the presence of spirits is an everyday occurrence for me, and being a psychic medium and a sensitive is a very natural part of my life. It's not something that I can just turn off whenever I want to. It is what it is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

('Abdu'l-Bahá, Selections from the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá, pp. 256-57)
('Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, Vol. 8, issue 7, p. 78)

I requested you not to quote Abdul Baha or Shoghi. The web-site may be anti-Bahai, but he/she is giving references.

 

[Trailblazer]

I requested you not to quote Abdul Baha or Shoghi.

Sorry. I was so upset by what you posted that was allegedly written by Baha'u'llahthat I did not see that at the top.
What I posted from Abdu'l-Baha does not change the fact that those quotes you posted are not what Baha'u'llah ever wrote.

 

[Aupmanyav]

To think that there could possibly be evidence for the supernatural is irrational, F1fan.

To believe in something which has no evidence also is irrational, samtonga43.
When are you going to return the 100,000 USD which you took as a loan from me?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sorry. I was so upset by what you posted that was allegedly written by Baha'u'llahthat I did not see that at the top.

OK. Then, what about the references that this person has given?
Mistranslation? Should only the translations and explanations by Abdul Baha, Shoghi or House of Justice be used?

Evidence is not what makes anything real, ..
What exists in reality exists in reality, whether there is evidence for it or not.

Evidence surely shows reality. Are you saying that evidence has no value?
And what does not have evidence is of value?
What kind of logic is this? I fail to get your logic.
Oh, you have faith which does not have anything to do with evidence or whatever the reality may be!

I'm sure it would scare the living daylights out of most people if they could see, hear, and feel what I see, hear, and feel on a daily basis and have seen, heard, and felt since I was a child.

Ah, you have not grown out of your childhood fears?

 

[Trailblazer]

OK. Then, what about the references that this person has given?
Mistranslation? Should only the translations and explanations by Abdul Baha, Shoghi or House of Justice be used?

Yes, they are deliberate mistranslations of the Writings, intended to deceive the reader. There are authoritative translations in the Baha'i Reference Library and those are the only ones that we know to be accurate. There are also some provisional translations that might be good but we know that the translations on the anti-Baha'i websites are wrong since they directly contradict the all the authoritative translations we have.

Evidence surely shows reality. Are you saying that evidence has no value?
And what does not have evidence is of value?
What kind of logic is this? I fail to get your logic.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that verifiable evidence, which is proof, cannot be procured for supernatural things that cannot be verified. But what exists in reality exists in reality, whether it can be verified to exist or not.

 

[samtonga43]

I became a Christian, and approached the experience as if it might be what it claimed for itself or not. I was already 18, and had been an apt learner until university life distracted me, and so, had some critical thinking skills. I remember distinctly agreeing with myself to suspend disbelief until I had had a chance to try this religion out and like a pair of shoes, see if it fit or not, or became more comfortable over time. Although I was a believer for many years, I think that it was already too late for me to believe by faith. My belief was based in experience - the euphoria my charismatic first pastor could generate during a church service, which I interpreted as the Holy Spirit. That congregation was nondenominational evangelical Protestant.
I say too late for faith, because this all happened in my army years, when I was suffering great angst first at what appeared to be throwing away my dreams of going to medical school (I dropped out of university just ahead of being thrown out) and then at my predicament of being in the army so far from home. I believe that this is what predisposed me to investigate religion - psychological comfort.

Are you saying that religion is psychological comfort to the believer, or that you gained psychological comfort in investigating religion?

But the empiricist in me never died during the period of trying on the religion for fit, despite my efforts at suppressing the cognitive dissonance as part of the suspension of unbelief. I say this, because it was after discharge and a return to my home state that I discovered that the euphoria was not the Holy Spirit, since that feeling didn't follow me to California. That's empiricism.

Correct. The Holy Spirit ‘lasts’. Euphoria doesn’t. Many Christians have also discovered the high degree of dissonance between euphoria and the Holy Spirit. You are not alone. I was not at all surprised to see the words charismatic, euphoria, evangelical, non denominational, in your description of the church you left. But in my church we encourage each other to think critically, to question everything, to ‘reason together’ (Isaiah). Are you basing your judgment of Christianity on Christianity as you experienced it during your years in a charismatic church environment?

This was followed by a return to university now older, wiser, and more disciplined, where I learned critical thinking formally, and developed habits of thought that are incompatible with believing by faith.

It seems to me that this type of binary, black-or-white thinking is illogical. I do hope you will consider the possibility that many Christians are able to think critically, and develop habits of thought that are compatible with believing by faith.

One must put aside critical thinking to accept basic Christian tenets.

Please do not include me, and many others, in your ‘one’. (You know, it has just occurred to me to wonder if we are using the term critical thinking in the same way.)

As I indicated above, it was necessary to deliberately suspend critical thinking - to suspend disbelief - to give the religion a fair test. Then, the evidence I described that I could not ignore brought me back into the fold. So, my history was, critical thinker (empiricist) suspends critical thought (skepticism) for most of a decade, then leaves faith.

My experience was moving from atheist critical thinker to Christian critical thinker.

The Christian part required turning off that voice of reason, the voice of cognitive dissonance, because there is no sound argument that ends, "therefore God." As soon as anybody has expressed a faith-based belief, they have left critical thought behind.

You may have done so. Millions of others have not.

Look at the abortion issue in America, based in a religious belief believed by faith, although it need not be a religious belief. We brushed on beliefs about vaccines. To that we can add beliefs about gun violence, election hoaxes, climate change, and bigotry.

Yes, American Bible Belt-ism does not exactly exemplify critical thinking. But don't you think it irrational to assume that ALL Christians are exempt from this 'critical thinker' appellation?

Some Christians have learned to compartmentalize their faith, and they can do science, for example, the same way an atheist would. But their god belief remains irrational, because it is believed by faith.

Faith automatically rules out rationality? I believe it is irrational to deny that a Christian can think critically about her/his faith.

 

[samtonga43]

Yes, they are deliberate mistranslations of the Writings, intended to deceive the reader. There are authoritative translations in the Baha'i Reference Library and those are the only ones that we know to be accurate. There are also some provisional translations that might be good but we know that the translations on the anti-Baha'i websites are wrong since they directly contradict the all the authoritative translations we have.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that verifiable evidence, which is proof, cannot be procured for supernatural things that cannot be verified. But what exists in reality exists in reality, whether it can be verified to exist or not.

And what does not exist in reality does not exist in reality.
Who would have thought...?

 

[samtonga43]

Thanks.

I have not given up hope yet, although this has been the worst year of my life, as I still have 8 cats left to keep me going and give me a reason to live.

That's what I do daily, when I go out on my evening walk for an hour or more -- pray!
And sometimes during the day the cats can hear me calling out -- Help me Jesus, help me God!
Needless to say, I am still waiting for help to arrive, but I never give up hope.
Hope springs eternal.

Have you considered that God is perhaps waiting for you to recognize that He IS helping you?

 

[samtonga43]

To believe in something which has no evidence also is irrational, samtonga43.
When are you going to return the 100,000 USD which you took a a loan from me?

OH!!!! Don't tell the world!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, they are deliberate mistranslations of the Writings, intended to deceive the reader. There are authoritative translations in the Baha'i Reference Library and those are the only ones that we know to be accurate. There are also some provisional translations that might be good but we know that the translations on the anti-Baha'i websites are wrong since they directly contradict the all the authoritative translations we have.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that verifiable evidence, which is proof, cannot be procured for supernatural things that cannot be verified. But what exists in reality exists in reality, whether it can be verified to exist or not.

OK. What is the official translation of the referenced quotes that this person has given. Could you give me a link to that OR these lines have been abrogated (by Abdul Baha, Shoghi or your House of Justice)? That is one more funny thing about Allah. Today he says something, tomorrow he abrogates it. No consistency.

I agree to the underlined portion. But Bahaollah, even after being a manifestation of Allah (as you believe) has not given even an iota of evidence about existence of Allah or his being a manifestation of that entity despite writing 17,000 already translated 'tablets' and many more still untranslated, and a lot of books? All talk, no proof. Then how come you believe what he said? Had science done something like that, you would have crucified the scientist.

And what does not exist in reality does not exist in reality.

Yeah, what does not exist in reality does not exist even after a thousand declarations that it exists. I am talking of God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Needless to say, I am still waiting for help to arrive, but I never give up hope.

Jesus did not promise anything in this life. Promises of all manifestations are valid only for after-life. So, you might as well stop hoping.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And what does not exist in reality does not exist in reality.
Who would have thought...?

Are there things that do not exist?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Jesus did not promise anything in this life. Promises of all manifestations are valid only for after-life. So, you might as well stop hoping.

On the contrary, it seems to me that Matthew 7:7-8 refers to God’s love and support being available in this world, to those who honestly seek.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Believers don't make their judgments based on facts or evidence..

I do not expect to see God, or expect to see the moon split in two etc.
If there was no Bible or Qur'an, there would be no Christians or Muslims.

So you are saying i have a belief and am wrong? So this must apply to you? You have a belief so you could be wrong as well, yes?

We can all be wrong.

The thing is an intelligent designer is a religious idea, so irrelevant to explaining the universe..

It's only irrelevant if the teachings of Jesus and/or Muhammad are not true.
My mind tells me that God exists.
For you, it is unreasonable to believe anything without empirical evidence .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you saying that religion is psychological comfort to the believer, or that you gained psychological comfort in investigating religion?

I'm saying that religion provides a kind of psychological comfort to the adherent, and that that was the case for me as well when I entered Christianity. I might also add that it was a psychological effort to bore my way out of religion, that even when I had decided that this god probably didn't exist, that I found myself praying to it for a sign if I was making a mistake for most of a year even though the angst that brought me to religion was largely resolved. I was out of the Army, back home, and back on track in college.

Are you basing your judgment of Christianity on Christianity as you experienced it during your years in a charismatic church environment?

My view of Christianity is based on both my experiences inside the church and those that followed in the decades thereafter, most recently, the recent reversal on reproductive rights in the States and the war on LGBTQ+ ranging from the refusal to bake wedding cakes to refusing to issue marriage certificates to don't say gay and a war on Disney. Before that, it included inputs from televangelists like Robertson, Bakker, and Falwell, then the merger of the church Republican party with and all of the talk of the moral majority, the Catholic church's pedophilia cover-up scandal.

Then there's the white evangelicals who voted 81% for Trump. All of that is Christianity to me, not just my early experience from within. I wasn't an anti-theist when I left Christianity, just an atheist. That came later following the cavalcade of immorality and politicization. I understand that that probably is not Christianity to you, but an outlier by which the religion should not be judged.

it has just occurred to me to wonder if we are using the term critical thinking in the same way

I'm sure we aren't. We would be in agreement if we were. Critical thinking isn't just doing a lot of reading and listening. It is a prescribed method of connecting true premises and evidence to sound conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning. There is no sound argument that ends with, "therefore God." One cannot arrive at that place without a leap of faith (non sequitur fallacy). Therefore, everybody who has done that has done so uncritically, however hard they tried, however much scripture they reviewed, however many hours they spent.

I've used the example of an addition problem to represent this. We intend to add a column of multi-digit numbers, which is our starting point. We can call these addends the premises or evidence that our reason will be applied to in order to reach our sound conclusion (correct sum). There is only one correct sum. Those who are skilled at addition will arrive at this sum, and by comparing their answers, will know that they are correct and that others who came to the same conclusion (sum) also understand addition and are correct.

What we deal with here on RF and elsewhere are swathes of people coming to incorrect sums and claiming to be critical 'adders.' One can see from their results that they chose another path from addends to sum to arrive at a sum that cannot be arrived at using the proper rules of addition.

“If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

That's faith. So is this: The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

That, too, informs my concept of what both faith and Christianity are and do. I realize that my focus is principally on organized, politicized religion here, and not private, personal religion, especially nature-based and philosophical variations such as the Dharmic religions and the various forms of paganism, about which I have no negative opinion, but also, even some liberal, educated Christians and Jews whose worldview seems largely indistinguishable from any atheistic Humanist's godless, empirical, empathy and conscience-driven worldview except for the god mentions in their profiles.

I'm not too far from some of that myself, but I don't call it religion, it has no god beyond nature and its proclivity to exist and evolve in amazing ways, no doctrine, no rituals, no religious community - it's just a one-on-one, spiritual relationship with nature that includes no spirits, just a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connection. One could call it a religious intuition, but why? I try to avoid language connected to supernatural worldviews, because it confuses people the way Einstein did with his metaphorical use of the word God to represent the laws and ways of nature, which is largely understood

The reason I added the word educated above is because in my experience, the skill is acquired almost exclusively following a university education. Nobody is born knowing how to do it, and few become proficient with it or even know just what it is and what it can do. We see that daily in these threads. I think that's what happening here in this discussion in a small way - you seem to recognize that such a thing exists and is a virtuous way to think, but the fact that we really aren't discussing the same process suggests that this is the case.

Don't feel bad. You're not on the Dunning-Kruger level, which occurs when one is completely unaware of this process and assumes that all belief is arrived at the way he arrives at his beliefs - pick something to believe and believe it. If you recall the two-element MECE set I just described - faith and justified belief - in which all beliefs are one or the other but neither both nor neither, for this person, there is only unjustified belief (faith), and all beliefs are as valid as all others, because they're all just guesses anyway if one knows no path to truth (sound conclusion).

I think most of us consider the D-K victim to be arrogant and have an overinflated sense of one's intellectual acumen, but now I believe that it's merely an unawareness that there is a radically different level of thinking possible. I recall conversations on RF regarding the relative dangers of the virus and vaccine with vaccine-deniers. They didn't know whether to trust Dr. Fauci or Tucker Carlson, and one said to me after hearing what the science showed, "That's just your opinion." And when I insisted that it was more, that it was demonstrably correct, and that believing otherwise was uninformed and dangerous, I was called arrogant.

Faith automatically rules out rationality?

Faith, or unjustified belief according to the principles of critical analysis, cannot yield sound conclusions, just as faith cannot yield correct sums.

I believe it is irrational to deny that a Christian can think critically about her/his faith.

Yes, we are using different definitions of critical thinking. It and faith are mutually exclusive (and collectively exhaustive) routes to belief. All beliefs are one or the other, that is, justified by the methods of critical thought or not, and none are both or neither.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Sometimes I feel the same way about God and ending my life, although I don't have any loved ones left, since they have all died and left me alone, which is the primary reason I don't want to be here anymore.

And @muhammad_isa

Why not enjoy life till the last breath, recall nice memories till you can...? Isn't it a gift from God/Nature?