samtonga43
Well-Known Member
Jesus made the claim to be God in many different ways, and those who heard Him knew exactly what He was saying.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Legitimate reasons not to believe in God
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
TLK Valentine
Read the books that others would burn.
Fear keeps you obedient. Interesting.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Well, that is what you believe.
In fact, the gentile church insisted on this belief, and persecuted Jews, Jewish Christians and Arians.
Personally, I don't think that Jesus would approve of this.
Jesus' disciples were Jewish "Christians" .. they attended the temple in Jerusalem.
Jesus was known as "the King of the Jews" .. that cannot be God .. but it can be the promised Jewish Messiah.
29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand.
30 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’d?
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?
- John 10 -
Jesus did not say he was God, but the son of God.
In the Jewish faith, that means a prophet or a saint .. in this case, the promised Messiah.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You need not explain, I'm very much aware of that fallacy and it's not one I'm guilty of.
I asked a question, I didn't make an argument.
I didn't say "it's false because the majority doesn't believe it".
Instead, I asked "if it's true, why do only people who are already religious believe it and why are there so few of them?"
I think it's a perfectly reasonable question.
EVERY religion (or most at least) claims to have "remarkable prophecy".
If it's truly that remarkable, I would expect it to be picked up by at least the more scholarly and academic among us. But this is not the case at all.
In fact, the higher educated, the least credible people consider all these "prophecies".
I think that's very curious if one is going to insist on the prophecies being accurate.
So curious that it warrants its own explanation.
My explanation for why this is so, is quite simple. It's simply because there is no such thing as accurate prophecy and instead it is JUST part of the religious beliefs.
So the followers of the religions are going to believe those claims and defend them (and will be bending over backwards in doing so).
And explanation matches my observations.
It also explains why the more educated among us don't pay much attention to said "prophecy". Not even when they are religious themselves.
It's no different from how the very scientific illiterate and the ignorant will read the bible literally and believe in YEC nonsense, while the more sophisticated educated christian will consider it metaphorical or whatever.
To me, such is a very reasonable explanation.
Refutation: if the prophecies therein would be as remarkable as you say, then it would be brought to our attention by the same media that brings other remarkable things to our attention.
We shouldn't have to go hunt for it. Instead it will be given to us.
We also don't need to go hunt for remarkable scientific discoveries. Instead, those are simply reported through regular media channels.
It's the same with valid god evidence. If such a thing would exist, we wouldn't have to go hunt for it in dark dusty corners of the internet. Instead, it would be front page news.
...and they believe their own supposedly "remarkable prophecies" that come with those religions.
"prejudiced"?
What about just "unconvinced"?
Right. They are not convinced. They have no reason to believe.
Give them a reason and they will.
Which is irrelevant to supposed prophecies being accurate or not.
Dawkins' political views are irrelevant to his contributions to biology also.
Nobody rejects his contributions to biology because "they don't like his political views".
(just an example - I have no clue about his political views; just making a larger point here)
See this is the thing............................
Even if people would consider everything else about baha'i to be bs... every claim stands or falls on its own merrits. The rest of the religion is irrelevant to claims of accurate predictions about the future.
If a Spiderman movie would accurately predict, say, a mega tsunami at a specific time with the specific cause, location and the specific number of victims.... Then I would want to know how that is possible. I would find that remarkable and acknowledge it.
And I would have no need to also believe spiderman is real to acknowledge that.
Your entire case pretty much revolves around every individual person having to go study it themselves.
I'm here telling you that if there were really something to it, this wouldn't be required.
We would all know about it as something so remarkable would quickly become commonly known if it were actually true. Remarkable things have remarkable ways of spreading really fast.
Any belief not supported by sufficient evidence to justify belief according to the principles of critical thinking is unfounded belief.
I have told you what truth is to me and how it is determined.
This is the world in which we live and the only world we know of. I wouldn't be interested in anybody's opinion about metaphysical realms and spirits. It's free speculation untethered to evidence.
Haughty? You consider my standards for belief haughty? They are specific standards, but I don't see what is haughty about holding them. The entire critically thinking community has the same standard for belief.
I asked you to suggest other nonexistent things to compare gods to that wouldn't offend you. I got no reply. Isn't being offended the emotional response, not naming them? Would a different god be acceptable to you? Shall we compare the Abrahamic god to Zeus? I expect that you would be offended by that comparison as well.
Why should it mean anything to me that you're a believer or to you that I'm not? Isn't this also a bit of an emotional reaction on your part.
You and I think very differently. We use different parts of our brains to decide what is true about reality. The believer is more guided by feelings (intuitions) - by what feels right - which is seated in subcortical structures. Pure symbolic reasoning seems to be seated in the human prefrontal cortex. One can learn to exclude emotions (inhibit lower centers) when analyzing. In fact, one needs to.
This is not to disparage the feeling brain. That's the part of conscious experience that makes life worth living. Loss of feelings (psychiatrists call it anhedonia, or the inability to experience pleasure) is often a lethal experience (suicide). But managing those feelings depends on understanding how reality works and how it affects one. Most of us seek love, beauty, comfort, leisure, respect, and purpose while seeking to minimize shame, guilt, regret, being disrespected and the other unpleasant feelings. To accomplish this, we need an accurate map of how our world actually works, and not a map that contains features that we wish are true. We need accurate knowledge of what results should be expected following various actions. Optimally, we use ONLY the analytical brain to decide what is true for us, and apply that knowledge to manage affect ("emotion that changes thoughts or actions").
I've got an acquaintance, also an American, who finds my forecasts for America's future gloomier than he likes. He calls himself more optimistic. I have explained to him that what he is is hopeful, not optimistic. Optimistic refers to expecting a good outcome, whereas hope is merely preferring it. I explain that he and I both hope for the best for America, but evidence forces me to conclude that the next few decades of America's future will likely be worse than the last few based on a variety of factors. I explained that it's like we went to a baseball game, and it's 10-0 against our team going into the final inning. I would be pessimistic for the team behind, but hopeful. He would say that he was optimistic, but that would be incorrect, wouldn't it? He's thinking with his feeling brain. I'm being analytical.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It is not that I'm offended, but that I find the attitude extreme.
OK, you have decided that God does not exist. You suggest that any "supernatural claim" must be verified physically, or it is irrational to believe it.
The consequence of this, is that you condemn billions of believers in God to be irrational.
I cannot believe for one moment that this is true .. whether God exists or not !
[ God must exist for me, as without God, nothing at all would exist ]
That is why your kind of atheism is extreme, imo.
A person who says they don't know for sure, but is nevertheless an atheist, does not consider belief irrational.
That might be true to an extent, but would vary from person to person.
Reality is determined from a number of things, which include our environment and experiences.
Belief is not a purely emotive experience for everybody.
It involves the intellect as well.
Why would you think and assume "spiritual" is immaterial? Immaterial is synonymous with imaginary.
We don't care that you believe in non-rational, religious ideas. We critical thinkers are explaining why it is not reasonable to believe in such ideas, yet theists believe for other, non-rational reasons.
Fear is a strong motivation for religious belief. Consider fear of th alternative to such belief. Believers believe as a means to conform and belong, and to feel meaning. These are non-rational motives, much of which is evolved and socially conitioned.
But also consider that some people eat spicy food that is painful. Athletes push themselves to a degree of extreme suffering and exhaustion. And there are cases of people who harm themselves, like cutting or others types of self-abuse. So we humans don't always seek comfort. The distress and inner turmoil that believers feel in these debate boards is something I have been about. I have concluded that some theists subject themselves to harsh criticism as a way to harden their faith. What better way to feel more devout and firm in your convictions than having to defend yourself and your beliefs against infidels who "just don't get it"? It certainly causes distress, but this is like gambling, it can trigger the reward system of the brain and despite the stress the euphoria of the hormones in the brain is worth it.
This isn't accurate since the logical default for any claim or proposition is that it isn't true until adequate evidence has been presented and explained in a coherent way. Religious claims routinely fail this standard. It doesn't matter how popular it is, or how prevalent it is, evidence and reason is required for sound judgment.
What we observe is a huge diversity of claims by theists, and often they contradict each other. You reject many religious claims, either deliberately or by just ignoring them, as we atheists do. So you understand what it means to reject religious claims that are not in support of your beliefs. Can you acknowledge this, that you reject religious claims that are not consistent with yours?
A supernatural claim is synonymous with imaginary since we mortals can't distinguish the supernatural from imaginary. We mortals can detect material existence, and that is what we acknowledge is real. Thus far believers claim a supernatural exists but can't explain why they think it's real.
Can you admit you might be mistaken in your belief that a supernatural exists?
Critical thinkers do no such thing, we just make the observation. I haven't noticed any explanation by theists about what is rational about religious beliefs that lack evidence.The consequence of this, is that you condemn billions of believers in God to be irrational.
Studies using pet and fMRI scans show that religious thoughts light u pthe emotion and reward centers of the brain, and when asked about religious belief the subject explanations bypass the front lobes. Reason processes in the frontal lobes. This was reported in the book Emotional Intelligence by Dan Goleman. Very interesting work reported.
The word reality is like other words, like truth, and have dual meanings that often contradict. The reality of devout Hindus includes hundreds of gods that represent different aspects of life. That reality is not shared by western believers. Muslims will have a different reality from Christians, namely Jesus isn't God to Muslims. That's a pretty big difference. Contrast that to we observing what is reality, like an apple on a table.
I take it you are referring to religious belief. Belief can range from being completely irrational to being highly likely. Religious belief tends to be implausible. Can believers use their intellect to ponder religioius ideas? Of course. Does this mean there is adequate evidence for any of the many versions of God? No.
Last edited:
That's not quite correct. I have decided that I don't I have sufficient reason to believe in a god. I also apparently have no emotional need to believe that. since that is also a path to theism. It meets no unmet need in me.
Let me tell you how I came to theism at a time when I had great emotional need. I had always been a successful student and it was assumed by my parents that I was college bound - medicine or law. I had skipped two years of school, graduated high school two months short of 16 years old, and entered university that fall, where I fell flat on my face. I wasn't mature enough. Pot, girls, and gambling occupied my time, and I was forced to drop out just ahead of flunking out. I was distraught. I could see my dream (it had become my dream by then as well) flying away, and I felt powerless to get back on track.
So, looking for more structure and discipline and a chance to mature, I enlisted in the Army for three years, which was a smart move (later returned to university successfully), but increased my angst. Now, I was thousands of miles from home in an alien environment that I didn't fit into. I hated the Army. Now I had two reasons to be anxious. It was then I found Jesus. Do the math. Unmet need met. Eventually, I was discharged, returned to school, and got back on an academic track.
It is also where I first saw other congregations than my first, which had been pastored by a gifted and charismatic man who could whip the congregation into a euphoric state, which I mistook for the Holy Spirit. It was the half dozen or so congregations I visited after discharge that helped me see that no Holy Spirit was involved, as this would have followed me back to California. And so, with that evidence and a much more balanced emotional state, I returned to atheism and humanism.
I suggest that it is a logical error to believe anything that isn't sufficiently supported by evidence, supernatural or otherwise.
It's not a condemnation. It's human nature that people believe without sufficient evidence. It describes all children and most adults. One must study and train to learn another way of knowing. The belief is unsound, but holding it may meet some need.
That's an irrational belief. You cannot justify it. The universe may well be godless. We can't find a job for a god anymore except for a few gaps in knowledge that don't need supernatural explanations. Why does the universe require a god? It assembled itself without oversight and it runs without oversight. Abiogenesis can account for the evolution of chemicals to life, and we have no reason to believe that nature cannot assemble nonliving matter to into life as every cell does every day when it absorbs nonliving nutrients and assembles them into new living cells.
But none of that comports with your psychology. As you say, God MUST exist for you.
My kind of atheism? I'm an agnostic atheist, an empiricist, and a critical thinker. It's the commonest form of atheism. I am a person who says he doesn't know for sure that no gods exist, but is nevertheless an atheist, yet does not consider belief in gods irrational. Don't be offended by the word. It doesn't mean crazy. It means coming to conclusions side-stepping reason. It means believing by faith. Like I said, that is a much more common way for people to think than critically. Look at the mess with vaccine denial, loss of reproductive rights, racism, election denial, and climate denial - all beliefs based in faith. That's what people do. It's a minority capable of resisting that. It's a minority that know how.
Reality and its truths are only discovered through experience properly understood. With the senses and the use of reason applied to the evidence they reveal, one learns what exists and how it behaves. One learns to accurately anticipate the outcomes following various actions. Truth has no meaning to me if divorced from sensory experience or making decisions. The evolutionary value of belief resides in its ability to inform decisions and drive actions, which lead to events in the external world, which in turn lead to objective consequences evident to the senses. Take away any of these elements and "truth" immediately loses all relevance. The ultimate measure of a true or false proposition lies in its capacity to produce expected results.
If an idea is true or correct, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is its capacity to successfully inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences. By this method, one accumulates demonstrably correct ideas - one's fund of knowledge - and generates a mental map of reality that corresponds with the features of reality the way a literal map corresponds to actual geographic features one might encounter. If your map is wrong, you won't reach your desired location, and the only way to have a correct map is to survey the landscape it intends to map.
If this is not one's definition of truth, then whatever it is he is calling truth has no value navigating reality. One's religious beliefs may comfort him, but to the extent that faith-based beliefs inform his decisions, they range from useless to harmful. If you believe in angels in heaven, then you hold an idea with no practical value. If you believe they protect you when driving and drink intoxicated for that reason - that is, if this belief actually informs a decision - it can lead to harm.
It can, but the application of reason to unsound premises is unsound conclusions. Consider the dating of the world done by Ussher using biblical genealogy to estimate the age of the earth. It was all intellect after the initial assumption that the genealogy was accurate, and that Adam and Eve were created in or very near the beginning. But these premises were false beliefs, and the conclusion drawn from them was incorrect however valid the reasoning applied to them.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Yes.
Yes, due to evidence and reason.
Yes, I could be mistaken, but I have no good reason to think that I am capable of knowing "all that is".
Like you, I have a criteria for deciding what is mere superstition and what is not.
The difference is that you think that it is possible for all that we see to have no "author" .. some kind of cosmic accident without a source. I do not.
Like I said, our worldview is determined through our environment and experiences.
The Divinity of Jesus was being contested long before Muhammad was born.
eg. the so-called Arians
That is your opinion.
I find the study of the Bible and Qur'an to be enlightening in this respect.
Is what Jesus and Muhammad taught real?
For me, the evidence is adequate.
Do I understand why nature seems so cruel?
Not entirely, no.
I just cannot dismiss my religion, without an alternative hypothesis.
I have yet to find one that has more answers than Islam.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
That's good. I'm pleased for you.
Mmm .. there are many denominations, and some are far from orthodox.
Yes, many people follow tradition with little knowledge.
..so one needs to examine any evidence available to know which belief is more rational .. or none.
You might find that a rational possibility .. I do not.
It requires us to think that everything is all coincidence .. hmm .. I can't believe that.
..the "real world"?
We all have different experiences and truth is not limited only to scientific fact.
There are many academic disciplines, and they all have something to contribute, while not being precisely defined.
I wouldn't disagree.
That is one example of falsehood.
It does not follow that applying our intellect to religious belief in general is falsehood.
..unless of course, you have already decided that all religious belief is bunkum.
The diverse structures of living organisms, and life itself.
There’s your evidence.
Hebrews 3:4
There’s your evidence.
Hebrews 3:4
OK. Submit an example of a religion that you reject as true (despite its believers insisting it is true) because it lack’s evidence. And then contrast this to your religious beliefs that you consider true via evidence and reason.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes indeed, there is a conflict. But I know God is All-Loving and I am wrong when I "feel" He isn't. It is just an emotional reaction, I know that.
“Thy loving providence hath encompassed all created things in the heavens and on the earth, and Thy forgiveness hath surpassed the whole creation. Thine is sovereignty; in Thy hand are the Kingdoms of Creation and Revelation; in Thy right hand Thou holdest all created things and within Thy grasp are the assigned measures of forgiveness. Thou forgivest whomsoever among Thy servants Thou pleasest. Verily Thou art the Ever-Forgiving, the All-Loving. Nothing whatsoever escapeth Thy knowledge, and naught is there which is hidden from Thee.”
Selections From the Writings of the Báb, p. 178
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, I was wrong. I am often wrong about things since I am fallible, not infallible, like God.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
What does it mean to “fear” God?
When the Bible refers to the “fear of the Lord,” it means having a deep respect, reverence and awe for God’s power and authority. Rather than causing someone to be afraid of God, a proper “fear of the Lord” leads one to love Him.
What Does the Fear of the Lord Mean?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Yes, it tends to keep me obedient because I am aware of God's power so I know what can happen if I am not obedient.
What does it mean to “fear” God?
When the Bible refers to the “fear of the Lord,” it means having a deep respect, reverence and awe for God’s power and authority. Rather than causing someone to be afraid of God, a proper “fear of the Lord” leads one to love Him.
What Does the Fear of the Lord Mean?
As Christ, Jesus was all we could know of God. Yet that statement is the same for Muhammad, the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Krishna and Zoroaster, Buddha, Abraham and Moses to name but a few.
If those who heard Jesus, understood that, then yes indeed, they did know exactly what Jesus offerd, that the flesh amounts to nothing, and that it is the spirit which is the light and Life.
The Messengers are One, given of our One God, to the one human race.
Regards Tony
This has stuck with me since I read it and I felt I should offer a further reply.
One of the first things a Baha'i would study, is this aspect of faith and come to an understanding as to how to reconcile this subject, I know it is one of the first things I would discuss with a person who has just chosen to be a Baha'i, and I know it was discussed early in deepenings when I became a Baha'i.
Abdul'baha explains the topic in very Logical terms and the Baha'i Writings has an uncountable amount of writings on this topic.
So why did this stick with me, well it is all about unity as a Baha'i.
Baha'u'llah offered that to spread unity, we must be the first to embrace unity and be the example of it.
When we struggle with concepts of faith, we can embrace this unity by listening to what others can offer, or better still immerse oneself in the study of that specific element until the light of understanding permeates our soul. This is one of the hardest things to do when we have conflict within our own self, yet the most satisfying when we make this effort of change.
Maybe vocalising of a frustration of the very faith one is associated with, to a wide and diverse audience can find change?
Personally I find silent contemplation with my inner demons has a more desirable outcome, especially where unity with others is concerned.
I offer that only in Love. Regards Tony
You have decided you are capable of concluding a God exists, yes? That seems quite extraordinary to critical thinkers. Critical thinkers are highly skeptical of religious concepts, yet believers are quite confortable asserting their beliefs, despite a lack of evidence of the religions and versions of gods you reject.
I don't think I've seen you articulate this standard you use. Given your beliefs it's clearly not as robust as we critical thinkers. Or there is evidence and reason that you have yet to present that would convince critical thinkers.
I defer to reason, evidence and science. Until experts in science reveal a supernatural exists as a cause, or even a phenomenon, I surely have no reason to believe there is. I am aware that believers base their assumptions of an "author" on ancient religious books, not science, not evidence, not reasson, just a tradition of belief. That is inadequate to make the judgments you hold firm to.
It does passively. I was exposed to various forms of Christianity all through my childhood. I just never found it credible. Something never added up even though I was a child. Some of it may have been watching my Catholic and Baptist sides of the family have ongoing conflicts over religion. My grandmother tried to keep the peace, but it never worked, and I wondered why these people were Christian at all when they couldn't get along. I have been the only atheist in my extended family and I have observed the religious beliefs of my family cause more trouble than brought us together. Oddly some religious members came to me since I was a more independent and objective person.
Yet Christians believe he was divine, or still is, whatever version of Christianity you're looking at. They believe what they do because of their tradition of belief, and I suspect you do as well.
This statement "Does this mean there is adequate evidence for any of the many versions of God? No" is not an opinion given no theists have ever provided adequate evidence for any gods, it is a fact. You may dispute "adequate" by using a low standard, but that is not what critical thinkers use. Critical thinkers use a high standard of evidence, just like the courts and science requires. If any theists have ever presented adequate evdience of their god existing it would spread like wildfire and repeted by theists everywhere. They don't.
Adoting a religious tradition through a passive social experience will require a low standard for evidence to help the person maintain their belief, especially for those who engage in open debate. We inevitably read how theists default to faith to justify their belief. That means they want to believe what they believe regardless of the lack of evidence. And of course believer will apply a high standard against religions they don't believe in. Ask Christians about Islam and you hear all sort of critical analysis that they don't apply to Christianity. Aren't you doing the same by questioning the divinity of Jesus?
A moral author would surely not create cruelty if it was capable, don't you think? Would you create a world with flesh eating bacteria that kills humans? Or would you consider that a sort of random torture as I do?
This illustrates the trap religions have on people's minds and ego. Believers can't examine their own beliefs because if they discovered they are flawed or wrong, what is the alternative for the ego? Atheists get along fine, we are free from religion. Theists? Religion is a mental dependency.