Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[muhammad_isa]

Yet God in the Abrahamic traditons is called "Him"..

Purely a language construct denoting respect .. rather than "it".
The French language, for example, has everyday objects with gender.

Evil is better explained by the social sciences as mental health issues..

Not at all .. your definition of evil is not as defined in scripture.

Claims are not evidence..

..not until they are accepted by people as such.
You may make a claim that scripture is all deluded or fraudulent.
I know for a fact, that billions of people do not think so.
Modern govt. employs "political correctness" in this day and age, in order to maintain law and order in a diverse society.

This says nothing about whether scripture is true or false.
You say that all scripture is false until proved true, relying on the fact that empirical proof cannot be provided.
I say that it's true, and you should prove to me that scripture is all one big conspiracy.
Naturally, you cannot, any more than I can prove it is true.

This belief of immortality is not evidence, and does not help establish the belief that any Gods exist.

The discussion is not about evidence .. it's about answering the question of why God allows evil in this life.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There are claims of gods existing, and thre claims of evidence, which after analysis and assessment are shown to be flawed and inadequate. Oddly most every argument, or "proof?, exists because the conclusion has already been made: God exists. So your statement above might be separate in one sense, but the two are connected. Why would believers present their arguments and "proofs", unless they have already decided a God exists?

What "proofs" have been presented that suggest a God exists, or even likely exists?

Do you think a rational mind should assume, and then believe, a God exists when there is no adequate evidence and "proof"?

Do you understand why critical thinkers don't assume conclusions are true until there is adequate evidence?

And I take it you accept that God is a fictional charatcer given the points I made that counter your assertion they are not.

Belief in God is based upon the possibility of God being there, combined with intuition. Claims of evidence come from confirmation bias, because God is invisible not merely to the eyes but in all ways that God can be detected. This property for God follows from the axiom of God's existence: If God exists then God must be invisible. That, in turn, means God cannot be proven or disproved. You can argue with traits that people say God has though. Like, you could argue that God doesn't have human love. A lot of people claim God does. You can argue that God didn't create the universe in six days. Its pretty obvious that God didnt'.

A rational mind believes what it needs to, and humans are driven by need and desire not by rationality. Our thoughts bend, and when we think we are looking straight on its as though light itself turns around corners. When there is something we need, we melt like wax and soften and change shape. Our very minds are altered. That doesn't mean nothing is true. I think there are true things. I just don't believe people are rational.

What do you mean "im spite of" when Tb offers two points that support the title?

She says the absence of proof is proof of absence. I disagree with that without having to assert proof of existence. I'm not trying to prove God's existence. I also think human suffering doesn't disprove God. It just means that God allows suffering.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Evidence of Abrahamic scripture, and its associated Messengers claim otherwise.
i.e. the nature of the soul is immortal and "belongs to God" .. "is of God" .. a spiritual, non-physical soul, that does not cease upon death.

There was a time when I did not exist. I am not intrinsically necessary. On the other hand I exist permanently in a certain range of years, those years being part of space-time. In that sense I exist eternally, though my vision and experience is limited to less than fifty years. Who knows whether I have lived this life once or infinite times, because I only know my momentary experience. When I am born I know nothing.

I'm not with you .. can you explain?

"Personally I do not believe we are owed anything and don't think we are immortal. Evil is not a problem for that reason." Its better than nothing. We aren't even very good. How do you feel about killing a venomous spider? I'd kill one, but I'm not much different from that spider. I have legs and eat things. I think further ahead but not that much further. I'm always thinking about food. When I eat or drink I compare it to other food and drink. There's nothing cosmic about it. Then I crap out something like dirt, and that is the product of my body. I exist to make poo. It is not humiliating. I am not much different from that spider or other creature. Who cares what happens to me?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Who knows whether I have lived this life once or infinite times, because I only know my momentary experience. When I am born I know nothing..

Exactly, whatever the "reality" is/was before we were born is hidden from us .. as is what happens when we die.
We might assume that there was "nothing before or after" our current lives, but it cannot be known.

"Personally I do not believe we are owed anything and don't think we are immortal. Evil is not a problem for that reason." Its better than nothing. We aren't even very good. How do you feel about killing a venomous spider? I'd kill one, but I'm not much different from that spider..

What's better than nothing?
There are different ways of killing .. crucifixion seems rather cruel, wouldn't you say?

Who cares what happens to me?

I certainly care what happens to me..
Why would anybody want to suffer tomorrow .. or next year .. or after their death?
OK if you do not believe in life after death, then you do not believe that scripture is accurate in that respect.
Suffering is a part of reality .. there will always be a person suffering more than ourself .. we should care.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I certainly care what happens to me..
Why would anybody want to suffer tomorrow .. or next year .. or after their death?
OK if you do not believe in life after death, then you do not believe that scripture is accurate in that respect.
Suffering is a part of reality .. there will always be a person suffering more than ourself .. we should care.

I don't wish to suffer either.

Exactly, whatever the "reality" is/was before we were born is hidden from us .. as is what happens when we die.
We might assume that there was "nothing before or after" our current lives, but it cannot be known.

I agree it cannot be known.

What's better than nothing?
There are different ways of killing .. crucifixion seems rather cruel, wouldn't you say?

The disciples must throw away their own lives and consider themselves to be dead. They are to live in service to others. That is a cruel death, too; and maybe that is why the Christians wear crosses to remind them of their commitment to such a life dead to their own desires, their own selves. It is a painful life, but it is for the joy they will bring to the world. I think the prayer of the Christian ought to for peace and goodwill, and I think that is what it means to pray for all things at all times. There is patience and endurance required, and the joy is that it will benefit people in the future.

then you do not believe that scripture is accurate in that respect.

Its just that I have been wrong so many times about scripture. I've been told so many things that were wrong, too. Finally I've learned that its not important to be right. This is not something we can demand or even expect. There is no footing -- only water to tread. I used to think it was all a perfect puzzle that would become simpler as parts were put into the correct place, but that was not how it turned out. It is an incomplete puzzle, and we are not required to solve it. Even as I become certain and confident and more knowledgeable my own memory begins to betray me. One time I said 'Noah' instead of 'Moses'. More recently I completely misremembered details about the story of the tower of Babel. We have short lives and not enough time, and we aren't destined to be masters of knowledge.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Its just that I have been wrong so many times about scripture. I've been told so many things that were wrong, too. Finally I've learned that its not important to be right..

We are all wrong on occasions .. nobody knows all.
However, if we break the law, being ignorant of it is no excuse.
If we drive a car, we need to know the rules in order to be safe, and not break them

Religious knowledge is for our benefit, individually and collectively. God has no needs, and wishes us success.
He has sent us Messengers from amongst ourselves to teach us, in order to guard ourselves from evil .. to prosper in this life and the next.
..to take a middle path .. to be generous, but not wasteful.
In the remembrance of God do hearts find peace.

Even as I become certain and confident and more knowledgeable my own memory begins to betray me. One time I said 'Noah' instead of 'Moses'. More recently I completely misremembered details about the story of the tower of Babel. We have short lives and not enough time, and we aren't destined to be masters of knowledge.

No soul is asked of it more than it is capable of ..
..and God is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

 

[Brickjectivity]

We are all wrong on occasions .. nobody knows all.
However, if we break the law, being ignorant of it is no excuse.
If we drive a car, we need to know the rules in order to be safe, and not break them

Religious knowledge is for our benefit, individually and collectively. God has no needs, and wishes us success.
He has sent us Messengers from amongst ourselves to teach us, in order to guard ourselves from evil .. to prosper in this life and the next.
..to take a middle path .. to be generous, but not wasteful.
In the remembrance of God do hearts find peace.

Mostly I like the idea that there is something above all government authority and that governments should not claim original authority. I also like the idea of a more complex and abstract being, somewhat like the tree is to the branch or like the vine is to the leaf. Thirdly I like there being someone who knows all things. I don't care if God is not directly interactive or does not answer prayers or does not have human attributes or does not directly create or does not obey more or accept my requests. These are not important to me any more.

No soul is asked of it more than it is capable of ..
..and God is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

This also is not to me a matter unless it is a command for me to forgive. It is after all people who have trouble forgiving things, not God who is never harmed. It is I who am angry with wrongs from the past and I who have the power to forgive at personal cost. If God forgives and I do not then God's will is not done on earth.

 

[F1fan]

Purely a language construct denoting respect .. rather than "it".
The French language, for example, has everyday objects with gender.

You do realize this contributes to gods being more symbolic and less literal, yes?

And you don;t think male gods had to do with gender roles for humans? It is aparent that gods in many cultures were designed after humans. This surely counters the Abrahamic belief of humans being created in the image of God, but looking at all the evidence that is not accurate. The evidence is both science, like biology, archaology, and cultural stidies that reveal the God of Abraham was a tribal war god among many other gods. We can't look at the Genesis creation myths and believe it is literal, or about Yahwah.

Not at all .. your definition of evil is not as defined in scripture.

Ancient texts will have their own perspective on evil from modern societies. Did you know that in the social sciences the word "evil" is not used? The social science observe and descibe human behaviors and idenitify abnormalities. The more extremes of human behavior are colloquially referred to as evil, like serial killers and criminals without remorse for the harm they cause. Your fellow Muslims who behead people for minor infractions or suicide bombers are examples. Do you find anything in the Quran that says Muslims should behave this way?

..not until they are accepted by people as such.
You may make a claim that scripture is all deluded or fraudulent.

If I did (which I haven't) that would mean I need to show evidence that those who wrote, edited, and translated the holy books had an intent to decive people.

I'm sure these ancient people were sincere in what they wrote. The same wiith Baha'i's Baha'u'llah, the Mormon's Joseph Smith, the guy who wrote the Urantia book, or the Gita, etc. I have no evidence that any of these people intended to decive others, so I don't make that claim.

I know for a fact, that billions of people do not think so.

Which does nt mean the books they assign meaning to are true and valid at face value. That people believe their holy books are true and valid is irrelevant to whether they are true. Theists often cite the numbers of people who believe in a holy text, and this is a logical fallacy called argument by popularity. By your statement above the Baha'i are correct. the Mormons are correct. The Hindus are correct. The Urantia believers are correct, and all because there are people who believe their texts are true.

This is why critical thinkers need more, because even you believers don't accept the beliefs of other theists. Even you would need more evidence to accept that Mormons were right, yes?

Modern govt. employs "political correctness" in this day and age, in order to maintain law and order in a diverse society.

Like not beheading infidels for not wearing a head scarf? yeah, it's terrible that non="politically correct" governments lets women get away with crimes against God.

If this isn't what you mean, 1. do you condemn Muslim theocrasices that execute citizens for religious violations, and 2. what DID you mean by "political correctness" and how does it maintain law and order?

This says nothing about whether scripture is true or false.
You say that all scripture is false until proved true, relying on the fact that empirical proof cannot be provided.

That is your tough luck. If there is no empirical evidence then no rational mind can conclude these texts are true.

As I have exlpained, in logic and debate any proposition is by default UNTRUE until it is shown to BE true, or at least likely true. Since you admit there is no empirical evidnce to show that scripture is true then why assume it is? The answer is for personal reasons that are not rational.

That is OK, just admit it. But when you claim God exists, or that the Bible is true you are then obligated to back up what you claim. To avoid this obkligation a person avoids making claims in debate. Truth claims imply the statement applies to all people. If you limit the scope of a claim you give yourself wiggle room.

I say that it's true, and you should prove to me that scripture is all one big conspiracy.

Straw man fallacy. I have no evidence that the Bible was created, edited, and translated, and then spread over centuries as part of some elaborate conspiracy. This is why I have made no such claim as you write above.

What I do is assess whether the texts correspond to real and true things, and these anceint books make references to many things that do not reflect reality or real and true things. These are magical references and to believe them are real and true requires a lot of evidence, and there just isn't any. Remember, that many people do believe these stories is irrelevant.

Naturally, you cannot, any more than I can prove it is true.

Thanks for admitting you can't demonstrate scripture is true, so I take it you will no longer post claims that require us to interpret scriptures literally?

The discussion is not about evidence .. it's about answering the question of why God allows evil in this life.

False. the title is "Legitimate reasons not to believe in a God" and the reasons are: a lack of credible evidence.

Your suggestion here implies a God exists. You haven't demonstrated any gods exist, let alone the one you think exists.

At best your suggestion here is a speculative discussion about why a God would allow evil, assuming it exists. You suggestion isn't about a real God allowing evil, and thast is because no gods are known to exist outside of human imagination. And why assume any odf this? Because you are reading ancient books literally, and assuming they represent a reality that evidence does NOT support.

 

[F1fan]

Belief in God is based upon the possibility of God being there, combined with intuition.

What do possibilities have to do with justification for any belief?

By this way of thinking you should believe you have cancer only because it is possible you have it. This isn't a rational conclusion, nor a valid justification to believe.

Claims of evidence come from confirmation bias, because God is invisible not merely to the eyes but in all ways that God can be detected.

This is why critical thinkers demand a high standard for evidence, not the squishy, subjective "evidence" theists often provide to justify their belief, like "possibility". Why is "possibility that a god exists" good enough for you but not good enough for critical thinkers, except confirmation bias at work?

This property for God follows from the axiom of God's existence: If God exists then God must be invisible. That, in turn, means God cannot be proven or disproved. You can argue with traits that people say God has though. Like, you could argue that God doesn't have human love. A lot of people claim God does. You can argue that God didn't create the universe in six days. Its pretty obvious that God didnt'.

All this means is that a rational and critical mind will not decide any gods exist. Yet you have decided a God exists.

Your axioms can include that God has blonde hair and blue eyes that human vision cannot detect. It is redundant.

A rational mind believes what it needs to, and humans are driven by need and desire not by rationality.

The need for rational minds is valid evidence. A ratiuonal mind is one that is skilled at reasoning, and other skills like identifying bias and emotional influence. Few people have these skills. Most show us they have a degree of reliable thinking, enough to avoid trouble, but not enough that true/false is a high priority in life. We observe many people belkieve in untrue concepts for the sake of emotional well-being and coping with stress and anxiety. This is why the human brain evolved the way it did. We can believe all sorts of irrational and untrue concepts and still function in our societies. In some places, like strict theocracies, it is an advantage to believe in irrational ideas, as it keeps you from being executed. We see how Trump supporters rallied around an untrue idea in the Big Lie, which led some to break into the Capitol and disrupt congress on Jan 6, 2021.

Humans are not naturally rational, nor skilled thinkers. We are heavily motivated to believe for emotional reasons, as the book Emotional Intelligence explains. We have little reason to adjust our behavior until we face negative consequences, whether that be peer pressure or arrest.

She says the absence of proof is proof of absence. I disagree with that without having to assert proof of existence. I'm not trying to prove God's existence. I also think human suffering doesn't disprove God. It just means that God allows suffering.

Why would you assume any gods exists in the first place? Where did you pick up the idea of a god? Friends? Family? Society? Why did you go along with the groupthink? Why didn't you question this idea you were hearing others talk about? Are you already trapped and committed to belief in a God and it's too late to go back and doubt?

 

[CG Didymus]

Why would you assume any gods exists in the first place? Where did you pick up the idea of a god? Friends? Family? Society? Why did you go along with the groupthink? Why didn't you question this idea you were hearing others talk about? Are you already trapped and committed to belief in a God and it's too late to go back and doubt?

It's almost like self-fulfilling prophecy kinds of things. It seems like God, Jesus, and even Satan are real because of things that happen that can't all be coincidence. But I do think it depends on what a person believes and expects to happen. No matter what the beliefs, a person will experience "their" particular beliefs in God in some way. God guides them, protects them. Miraculous things happen. But they aren't all necessarily believing in the same things about who and what God is.

People can believe in a fertility God, and they get pregnant. Or a God that supplies them with rain at the right time to ensure a good crop. But I've felt the power and the love of the God I was believe in. I felt it in my heart, and it seemed very real. Only problem is... I felt that same that while believing in three different religions that believed in very different things about God. So, now how can I trust my feelings when it all depended on my particular belief at the time? And each negated the other beliefs I had, especially the born-again Christian one. It made sure that I believed in only their way and no other way.

But that belief depends, ultimately, in a very literal belief in the Bible and NT. How far can a person keep believing all those things literally without, at some point, start to doubt them? Will Jesus still love a person and be in their heart when they no longer believe in creation? Or the flood? Or that Jesus rose physically from the dead?

But this thread is from a Baha'i. The belief they hold is that God sent several manifestations to the world at different times. Which goes against what most Christians believe about God. And they also don't believe that Satan is real. But for many, especially some Christians, Satan is very real. They feel him and know when he's attacking them and trying to cause them to do something wrong or to doubt God and Jesus. So, again, Satan is real to those that believe that he is real. But to a Baha'i, he's not real. So, I agree with you. People believe what they believe, because that is what they are told is true and they chose to believe it and it becomes real to them. And that is an important part of the proof... They experience things that, to them, verifies that it's real.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..This surely counters the Abrahamic belief of humans being created in the image of God..

No, it doesn't .. "in His own image" means from a spiritual point of view .. Loving .. Forgiving .. Merciful etc.
Ask any Muslim or Jew, and they will explain further.
God is not a physical being with form.

I'm sure these ancient people were sincere in what they wrote..

Either Muhammad was sincere or he wasn't.
If he was was sincere, then he must have been deluded [according to you], as He claimed that the revelations were from God.

..do you condemn Muslim theocrasices that execute citizens for religious violations..

I do not automatically support a government because it is labeled "Islamic", if that is what you mean.
I am a believer in democracy, and not military juntas.

..when you claim God exists, or that the Bible is true you are then obligated to back up what you claim..

..and reams of pages on this site do just that .. or are we all just talking past each other?

To avoid this obkligation a person avoids making claims in debate. Truth claims imply the statement applies to all people..

It does nothing of the sort.
A person can believe whatever they wish.
It is not reasonable to force people to adopt a certain religion or creed .. God does not approve of that .. it is tyranny.

I have no evidence that the Bible was created, edited, and translated, and then spread over centuries as part of some elaborate conspiracy..

That's fine .. but I have evidence that many of the creeds that you "fling around" are falsehood .. but that would need a separate thread for each one.

Remember, that many people do believe these stories is irrelevant..

It might be irrelevant to you .. not to me. I don't consider that believers are all being fooled by scriptural texts that are all made-up by "sincere fiction writers"

At best your suggestion here is a speculative discussion about why a God would allow evil, assuming it exists..

Of course it is .. there is nothing to discuss otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I felt that same that while believing in three different religions that believed in very different things about God. So, now how can I trust my feelings when it all depended on my particular belief at the time?

God doesn't change .. just creed or details that you believe about Him change.

And each negated the other beliefs I had, especially the born-again Christian one. It made sure that I believed in only their way and no other way..

Life is a spiritual journey. We learn, and change as we go along.

..I agree with you. People believe what they believe, because that is what they are told is true and they chose to believe it and it becomes real to them. And that is an important part of the proof... They experience things that, to them, verifies that it's real..

..more or less, yes.
..but we don't need to be "stuck in a rut" .. if we find a creed that we can see is more coherent and likely to be true, we can act on it .. if we want to, or are able to.
..or we can sit on the fence like you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

What do possibilities have to do with justification for any belief?

By this way of thinking you should believe you have cancer only because it is possible you have it. This isn't a rational conclusion, nor a valid justification to believe.

I'm not trying to get you to believe anything. I hope you can see proof is not needed for belief. We can prove some things, but most things we cannot. Only some things lend themselves to proof. I don't have to give a justification for something to not be fiction. Your belief that you are rational is a belief: something you cannot prove. Does that make it fiction?

There are reasons for believing other than proof, such as wishing for something to be true or wishing for it to become true. Like sustainable fusion power...

This is why critical thinkers demand a high standard for evidence, not the squishy, subjective "evidence" theists often provide to justify their belief, like "possibility". Why is "possibility that a god exists" good enough for you but not good enough for critical thinkers, except confirmation bias at work?

I think critical thinking is important. Nobody is rational at all times. I don't have to justify my belief to have it, and this thread is about whether God can be disproved not about about how to prove God is.

The need for rational minds is valid evidence. A ratiuonal mind is one that is skilled at reasoning, and other skills like identifying bias and emotional influence.

By what ontology should we believe rational minds exist? It is an assertion, and one can show lots of examples of irrational minds but cannot prove a single person to be rational. It is an example of belief without proof.

The need for rational minds is valid evidence. A ratiuonal mind is one that is skilled at reasoning, and other skills like identifying bias and emotional influence. Few people have these skills. Most show us they have a degree of reliable thinking, enough to avoid trouble, but not enough that true/false is a high priority in life. We observe many people belkieve in untrue concepts for the sake of emotional well-being and coping with stress and anxiety. This is why the human brain evolved the way it did.

It evolved to conserve energy as much as possible, and that is what people do generally. We don't spend effort thinking about difficult things unless there is a reward. Humans have been around for tens of thousands of years, suffering from heat and cold and only now do we have air conditioning which works based upon very simple principles. People die all the time when air conditioning fails. Things like this are evidence that we are stupid.

Humans are not naturally rational, nor skilled thinkers. We are heavily motivated to believe for emotional reasons, as the book Emotional Intelligence explains. We have little reason to adjust our behavior until we face negative consequences, whether that be peer pressure or arrest.

Or rewards, but we can also get rewards and negative punishments for thinking rationally. We are lucky to get in a few rational thoughts.

Why would you assume any gods exists in the first place? Where did you pick up the idea of a god? Friends? Family? Society? Why did you go along with the groupthink? Why didn't you question this idea you were hearing others talk about? Are you already trapped and committed to belief in a God and it's too late to go back and doubt?

All of these are great questions, but they are personal questions. These are things for me to ask myself not things to answer other people about. Some things cannot be proven.

 

[F1fan]

No, it doesn't .. "in His own image" means from a spiritual point of view ..

Ask any Muslim or Jew, and they will explain further.
God is not a physical being with form.

Well this is a new one. Christians insist a different interpretation. More inconsistency among the Abrahamics.

But even "spiritual point of view" means what is real, tangible terms?

Loving .. Forgiving .. Merciful etc.

The Old Testament God is none of these, quite the opposite. It actually assetts vices, like being a "jealous God" and creating evil. For those who interpret the Noah Flood myth as real, that is a criminal God given the many innocent people killed.

Either Muhammad was sincere or he wasn't.
If he was was sincere, then he must have been deluded [according to you], as He claimed that the revelations were from God.

I'm sure every authorof religious texts are sincere, this doesn't mean they were correct. The supernatural elements of holy books is a serious thing to take literally and seriously. In the modern world I don;t see how any rational mind can read these books and believe they are literally true. They make claims that are not consistent with knowledge, observations, and life exveriences.

I do not automatically support a government because it is labeled "Islamic", if that is what you mean.
I am a believer in democracy, and not military juntas.

Good for you. Do you condemn Muslim governments that torture and execute people for minor infractions? Do you think these Muslims are guided by God? If not, why do you think they justify their beliefs and actions?

..and reams of pages on this site do just that .. or are we all just talking past each other?

Theists, including yourself, are not able to defend their religious beliefs in debate with critical thinkers. Religious beleifs ARE NOT reasoned conclusions that rely on evidence. You even admit you can't demonstrate scriptures are true.

It does nothing of the sort.
A person can believe whatever they wish.
It is not reasonable to force people to adopt a certain religion or creed .. God does not approve of that .. it is tyranny.

My point wasn't the freedom to believe. My point was that if you take part in a debate, and you make claims in that debate, then you are obligated to play by the rules of debate. As it is we see many theists just keep repeating claims and fail to offer any factual justification for their claims, so what does that accomplish except to disrespect the process and intent of debate? Repeating beliefs seems to assert they are to be accepted by all, and goes agaisnt what you say above. If I am wrong in this suspicion feel free to expain why you repeat claims and don't offer an explanation.

That's fine .. but I have evidence that many of the creeds that you "fling around" are falsehood .. but that would need a separate thread for each one.

I don't argue against creeds, I debate people (like yourself) who have decided a creed or religion is valuable or true. I can interpret ther Bible in a way that is totally symolic and it makes sense and conforms to reality. Creeds do nothing. Texts do nothing. Books do nothing. It is people who assign meaning to these and act on their meaning assignment that need to be accountable. Believers try to hide behind their god, their holy books, and the mass of other believers, but they are still human beings with their own agency, and they are accountable for what they believe, and how they behave.

It might be irrelevant to you .. not to me. I don't consider that believers are all being fooled by scriptural texts that are all made-up by "sincere fiction writers"

This hasn't stoped you from citing "billions of believers" as evidence that some idea or text is correct. You can't have it both ways.

The social sciences have explained why the human brin evolve to believe in religions. It has explained why humans adopt social nroms, even if dangerous to others and irrational. It has explained why the human brain will make poor decisions until it learns certain cognitive skills. This knowledge is not popular with believers because it undercuts the assumptions and decisioons they have made for their personal meaning and purpose. Those searching for truth will accept what science reports and adjust ther thinking and behaviors.

Of course it is .. there is nothing to discuss otherwise.

You were mistaken in what the topic is. It is about why non-believers don;t believe. And thesist are trying to argue for why it is rational to believe in their religious framework. Theists are failing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..even "spiritual point of view" means what is real, tangible terms?

With non-physical concepts, such as mind, we are able to convey some kind of simile for emotions and awareness etc. .. yes.

The Old Testament God is none of these, quite the opposite..

I think it's a case of remembering the wrath of God mentioned in the OT, that you find hard to understand, but not remembering the Merciful side of God, which nobody seems to have a problem with.

It actually assetts vices, like being a "jealous God" and creating evil..

"jealous God" does not do the Hebrew word(s) with full meaning.
God is not "jealous" as in human jealousy .. He is God .. He is far beyond such impure emotion.
Same with "hell-fire" and so on .. it conveys meaning, that we are all able to appreciate.
Consequences for giving ultimate authority to other than God, and wicked behaviour have consequences .. something bad we won't like !
Not because God is spiteful .. on the contrary, He does not wish us to suffer due to our own weakness and pride.
He warns us, but how many take heed?

For those who interpret the Noah Flood myth as real, that is a criminal God given the many innocent people killed..

That's a foolish argument.
Many people suggest that God "is a criminal" because He created human beings, with independent thought.
How can a mortal human completely understand something so great, that never sleeps, and constantly upholds all physical laws?

Do you condemn Muslim governments that torture and execute people for minor infractions? Do you think these Muslims are guided by God? If not, why do you think they justify their beliefs and actions?

I often find that arguments involving extreme behaviour has an element of more than one party being in the wrong.
I am not a political spokesman.

As it is we see many theists just keep repeating claims and fail to offer any factual justification for their claims, so what does that accomplish except to disrespect the process and intent of debate?

..but atheists repeatedly want to discuss empirical proof..
They steer the conversation to this area time and again.
Nobody has anything to learn in such converstions.
It is merely ego boosting.

Either one is genuinely interested why people believe, or they are not, and claim to know all the answers.
..nothing to learn like that.

Repeating beliefs seems to assert they are to be accepted by all, and goes agaisnt what you say above. If I am wrong in this suspicion feel free to expain why you repeat claims and don't offer an explanation..

What claims??
That the Qur'an is the literal word of God?
You know why I say it .. but you don't believe it.
Nothing I say really seems to interest you .. you are more concerned with the fact that I can't show you God ..
..all participants and watchers of this thread know that .. so ??

..but they are still human beings with their own agency, and they are accountable for what they believe, and how they behave..

Who is claiming otherwise?

This hasn't stopped you from citing "billions of believers" as evidence that some idea or text is correct..

I haven't claimed anything of the sort.
However, it is evidence of something, and you and I are unlikely agree on what.
I do not believe the underlying reason is purely a social one, for example. A lot of people have some knowledge of what their faith teaches them.

The social sciences have explained why the human brin evolve to believe in religions..

There you go .. making your assertions about "brains evolving", and not giving proper meaning to the beliefs of others.
Assuming you are right to be an atheist, and dismissing believers as "in need/deficient" and so on..

This knowledge is not popular with believers because it undercuts the assumptions and decisioons they have made for their personal meaning and purpose..

Each to their own.

It is about why non-believers don't believe. And thesist are trying to argue for why it is rational to believe in their religious framework..

I'm just having a conversation with you .. replying to your posts in some sort of fashion..

 

[samtonga43]

Well this is a new one. Christians insist a different interpretation. More inconsistency among the Abrahamics.

What interpretation do you believe Christians insist upon, F1fan? Please tell me it's not the one with the old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud...

 

[F1fan]

What interpretation do you believe Christians insist upon, F1fan? Please tell me it's not the one with the old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud...

Even you Christians were excluded in muhammad_isa's post where he was explaining his interpretation. Christians tyically interpret "man made in God's image" as a material form. Of course this is absurd when it's pointed out that God is immaterial according to believers. These are usually Christians who believe humans were a special creation made as is from dirt and breath from God's nostrils. Do you follow me here, an immaterial God has nostrils. Christians believed it. Literally. Some still do.

A rational mind would read these texts and understand it was how ancient people saw the universe. There is no reason to assume any of the storiies represent reality.

 

[F1fan]

With non-physical concepts, such as mind, we are able to convey some kind of simile for emotions and awareness etc. .. yes.

I already expalined that the mind is not immaterial. The word mind is a set of functions that materials brains perform. No working brain, no mind. Do you understand this?

I think it's a case of remembering the wrath of God mentioned in the OT, that you find hard to understand, but not remembering the Merciful side of God, which nobody seems to have a problem with.

I must have gotten distracted by that global flood that killed, oh how many was it?? Oh yeah, all but 7 people. Awesome mercy at work there. I'm glad you brought it up.

"jealous God" does not do the Hebrew word(s) with full meaning.
God is not "jealous" as in human jealousy .. He is God .. He is far beyond such impure emotion.
Same with "hell-fire" and so on .. it conveys meaning, that we are all able to appreciate.
Consequences for giving ultimate authority to other than God, and wicked behaviour have consequences .. something bad we won't like !
Not because God is spiteful .. on the contrary, He does not wish us to suffer due to our own weakness and pride.
He warns us, but how many take heed?

More damage control. Jealousy is what the book says, and now you want to edit it? If the book didn't mean jealous it shouldn't have said jealous, but you don't like what it says, as God's word.

Or is God's word full of language errors that you just happen to know how to fix it? Could it be that it was written by men who wanted the people to be obedient and follow the one God the leadres wrote about?

That's a foolish argument.
Many people suggest that God "is a criminal" because He created human beings, with independent thought.
How can a mortal human completely understand something so great, that never sleeps, and constantly upholds all physical laws?

You didn't explain how it was a foolish argument that God is a criminal for killing all but 7 humans on the planet.

Are you going with the the suggestion that God created us, so God can just kill us? No rhyme of reason, just do it?

Remember these are stories written by people over 2000 years ago, and these are not history books that are sticklers for facts.

I often find that arguments involving extreme behaviour has an element of more than one party being in the wrong.
I am not a political spokesman.

In science you have to account for all the data gathered, you don't get to pick the good data and ignore the bad data. Of course you want to ignore the Muslims who go against what you think is moral, including theocracies that torture and kill citizens for minor infractions. You've gone on about how there are divine sources, and God guides believers, but when confronted with acts by your fellow Muslims that are immoral you waffle and have no answers. If you can't answer questions about beliefs you hold perhaps you should make the claims.

I suggest Muslims behave according to their cultural norms and what they can get away with, not because there is a God guiding their behavior. This is defendable. Muslims in secular nations can't get away with torture and killing bevcause it is against secular laws.

..but atheists repeatedly want to discuss empirical proof..
They steer the conversation to this area time and again.
Nobody has anything to learn in such converstions.
It is merely ego boosting.

This is debate. When you make claims you need to be prepared to explain how they are rational and likely true. This isn't Muslim fellowship.

Either one is genuinely interested why people believe, or they are not, and claim to know all the answers.
..nothing to learn like that.

These debates give you the opportunity to be asked questions you haven't asked yourself. We see theists often state their beliefs, but then can't explain why they believe them. The pattern is that theists just believe for the sake of having a framework of meaning, but this also tends to have many dubious beliefs about how things are. These deebates expose this flawed thinking.

What claims??
That the Qur'an is the literal word of God?
You know why I say it .. but you don't believe it.
Nothing I say really seems to interest you .. you are more concerned with the fact that I can't show you God ..
..all participants and watchers of this thread know that .. so ??

If you make a claim in debate you need to be prepared to justify it to the standrds of normal reason. If you can't, then it gets exposed as irrational.

I haven't claimed anything of the sort.
However, it is evidence of something, and you and I are unlikely agree on what.
I do not believe the underlying reason is purely a social one, for example. A lot of people have some knowledge of what their faith teaches them.

Religions don't teach knowledge, they teach a dogma that believers feel motivated to accept without question. These debates ask the questions that believers should ask themselves before they commit to a religious framework. Notice you never present any evidence of "something".

There you go .. making your assertions about "brains evolving", and not giving proper meaning to the beliefs of others.

Do you know why? Because science is credible and religious bliefs are not. Science does work via facts and data, and religion does not. The social sciencex explain why religious people believe what they do, and it is not justified the way believers try to justify their beliefs. Theists have shown contempt for science and the explanations, and that is because religions function with assumptions that are not fact-based. There is no rational basis for religious belief, and when this is exposed believers feel distress. Theists would rather believe in their framework of belief than understand WHY they believe it. This is not freedom, this is the trap of religion on the minds of committed believers.

At least believers who understand the biology, culture, and social influence that leads to their religious belief can make a decision to reject or hold their beliefs, but those who remain ignorant of the expalations because they ar emotionally dependent on the illuion are trapped. They don;t have the freedom to leave a religion and have mind free of the dogma.

Assuming you are right to be an atheist, and dismissing believers as "in need/deficient" and so on..

I'm examining religious frameworks and beliefs for their credibility to a rational mind. Theists can't explain how their beliefs are rational, nor xvresent adequate evidence that their beleifs are true or likely true. That isn't the problem of rational minds, that is the problem of theists who engage in debate and can't succeed. Remember, in logic and debate the default of any claim is that it is NOT TRUE. The truth of claims and propositions is determined IN DEBATE. If a claimant can't present valid and adequate evidence that their claims are true, or even likely true, then they lose.

As I noted, this is not fellowship where religious assumptions are by default accepted.

I'm just having a conversation with you .. replying to your posts in some sort of fashion..

This is debate, and debate has rules. You don;t seem interested in the rules of debate. You seem to think this is fellowship where beliefs are shared. This discussion is about why not believing in God is a legitimate position for a rational mind. You should be attempting to persuade non-believers that religious belief IS rational, and that requires valid evidence and a coherent expanation.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I already expalined that the mind is not immaterial. The word mind is a set of functions that materials brains perform. No working brain, no mind. Do you understand this?

It doesn't make any difference .. the concept itself, is non-physical.
You can claim that all workings of the mind can be reduced to chemicals and neurons .. but that is counter-intuitive .. diseases of the mind cannot be attributed purely to "faults" in the physical brain.
Our intention and actions effect our lives, and that is not just down to good, healthy brain / bad brain.

I must have gotten distracted by that global flood that killed, oh how many was it??

I don't know how many .. I also don't know how widespread the flood was .. but assume it couldn't have covered the whole globe.
Most people of old did not even know the meaning of "global", so some ancient text in a Bible is not authoritative to me, I do not know who wrote these texts.
It doesn't mean that it didn't occur in a more local sense.
..and how can the Creator of all be "a criminal", if he decides that planet earth will be destroyed by collision by another planet tomorrow?
Pointless rhetoric !

More damage control. Jealousy is what the book says, and now you want to edit it?

Come back when you have a degree in ancient Hebrew or Arabic .. and then continue to argue your case.

These debates give you the opportunity to be asked questions you haven't asked yourself..

I have no problem with that at all .. I've been around for 70 years, but still have much to learn.

Religions don't teach knowledge..

That's total nonsense.
The knowledge might not be true or accurate .. but it is knowledge.
The more knowledge one has about religions and creeds, the more likely it is that they can discuss the subject with the discipline it deserves.

There is no rational basis for religious belief, and when this is exposed believers feel distress..

I find that really amusing.
People with "sure knowledge" do not believe that satan [or evil intention of others] can do any lasting damage to the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe, and all it contains.

At least believers who understand the biology, culture, and social influence that leads to their religious belief can make a decision to reject or hold their beliefs..

Educated people don't "pick and choose" what they consider to be knowledge, and have an interest in most academic pursuits.
Don't assume that all believers are ignorant.

You don't seem interested in the rules of debate..

I'm interested in the rules of the Forum.
I like to participate, and I accept the judgement of those that have responsibility.

 

[joelr]

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of Idaho

Not wealthy, eh?
Richard Dawkins is a University Professor too.
..another wealthy one.

Not wealthy. Upper middle class is not "wealthy"

Dawkins is a successful author and is doing very well. How much he earns on sales has no impact on the truth of his knowledge. It's a non-issue here. Is being poor a qualification in historical studies?