There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Polymath257]

According to the other atheist there is no reason. Therefore the questions have no answer for the atheist.

Not true. They have answers, but they are matters of opinion, not of fact.

Sort of like what happens with preferences in foods. I don't like tomatoes. So, for me, tomatoes are to be avoided. You may like them. But there isn't a 'truth' about whether tomatoes taste good.

Your answer may differ from mine.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, life with no purpose or reason is sad.

But atheists *do* have 'purpose and reason'. We just don't get it from some cosmic source nor do we expect to be told what we want. It is a journey to find out for ourselves what is good for us and those we care about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am here because my parents had sex. My purpose is decided by *me*, not by someone or something else. And things very much do matter, just not in a cosmic sense.

I can never understand the assumption that because your purpose is not his purpose means that you don't have one. Worse yet, if you ask him what his purpose is he would be apt to say "God's purpose" which only means that he has no purpose of his own.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. They have answers, but they are matters of opinion, not of fact.

Sort of like what happens with preferences in foods. I don't like tomatoes. So, for me, tomatoes are to be avoided. You may like them. But there isn't a 'truth' about whether tomatoes taste good.

Your answer may differ from mine.

What tomatoes are God's food. Pizza, spaghetti, Indian curries. I kid but you probably know how dependent many world cuisines are on the tomato. I would hate to go without them, but you are not the only person I know that detests that berry.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Just the facts, please. The main one promoting a fantasy as far as I can see are those promoting religion.

This has some truth, I hate religion except pure religion that the Bible explains:
“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
‭‭James‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Subduction Zone]

This has some truth, I hate religion except pure religion that the Bible explains:
“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
‭‭James‬ ‭1:27‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

Yet you refuse to check to see if you have a "defiled religion".

What makes a defiled religion defiled? Be specific please.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Yet you refuse to check to see if you have a "defiled religion".

What makes a defiled religion defiled? Be specific please.

I don’t have a defiled relationship with God and that is through Jesus Christ and confirmed when He gave me the Holy Spirit and I was born again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t have a defiled relationship with God and that is through Jesus Christ and confirmed when He gave me the Holy Spirit and I was born again.

The problem is that you only have a belief. Your cure could be due to the cumulative work that led up to your "come to Jesus" moment. Your belief probably helped you, but that is not evidence that is real. That is why I so often ask people "how would you test your beliefs" and trust me, Christians are not the only ones afraid to do that. And yet they all claimed to know even though if they were right other people on this forum who also never tested their beliefs had to be wrong.

One can not even begin to claim to know until one has properly tested one's beliefs. And a test that only involves confirmation bias is never proper. There has to be a clear and reasonable way that one's beliefs could fail.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The problem is that you only have a belief.

What you talking about? I only believe that when I prayed to God, He answered and delivered me I haven’t really been delivered these last 35 years I only believe I have?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you talking about? I only believe that when I prayed to God and He answered and delivered me I haven’t really been delivered these last 35 years I only believe I have?

Correct. Many people have that sort of belief. Your belief has not been properly tested.. People with very different religions from yours will have the same sort of belief and the same sort of experiences. Their belief is as strong as yours is. How do you decide which one is right, if any of them?

 

[ElishaElijah]

Correct. Many people have that sort of belief. Your belief has not been properly tested.. People with very different religions from yours will have the same sort of belief and the same sort of experiences. Their belief is as strong as yours is. How do you decide which one is right, if any of them?

I don’t think you know how to properly diagnose confirmation bias or properly test anyone’s spiritual life. Do you? If so how are you testing this? It is amazing that you believe you can properly test someone’s life like that. It’s more demonic than anything although I don’t think you’re giving out bad advice or counsel on purpose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t think you know how to properly diagnose confirmation bias or properly test anyone’s spiritual life. Do you? If so how are you testing this? It is amazing that you believe you can properly test someone’s life like that. It’s more demonic than anything although I don’t think you’re giving out bad advice or counsel on purpose.

I can diagnose confirmation bias rather accurately. As to "spiritual life" I doubt if you can even define it.

Why do you keep ducking the uncomfortable question that probably shows that you are wrong?

And there is nothing demonic about showing someone else is wrong. Why believe in demons in the first place? Do you believe in fairies? The Easter Bunny?

 

[PearlSeeker]

What do you think means to "render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs"?

It sounds like an alternative to theism.

In 1930 Einstein published a widely discussed essay in The New York Times Magazine about his beliefs.[37] With the title "Religion and Science," Einstein distinguished three human impulses which develop religious belief: fear, social or moral concerns, and a cosmic religious feeling. A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole."

Source: Wiki

Once you strip God of personhood, whatever it is you are talking about should be called that. Look at the mess Einstein made with his injudicious use of the word to refer to the laws of nature. That name is good enough if that's what you are referring to. Or call it nature. Or even Mother Nature, a term which doesn't refer to a sentient entity and would never lead to an argument about what that phrase meant. My definition of a god is a sentient creator of universes, and I only use the word when referring to such an idea to avoid this kind of ambiguity.

It's evident from the context which definition was meant.

 

[samtonga43]

Not true. They have answers, but they are matters of opinion, not of fact.

Sort of like what happens with preferences in foods. I don't like tomatoes. So, for me, tomatoes are to be avoided. You may like them. But there isn't a 'truth' about whether tomatoes taste good.

Your answer may differ from mine.

Tomatoes do exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Tomatoes do exist.

Well, yes. But what you believe tomatoes really are, is an opinion. The same with me. I just have a different opinion.

 

[Sheldon]

Not only that but on a forum in a thread with the title "There is no evidence for God so why do you believe? " As I just explained, such beliefs need to be supported by evidence in a thread like this.

Over the years it has struck me, how many times I have encountered religious apologists who think unevidenced assertions can be lined up in tandem to support each other, as if the sheer number of them builds a case. I've even encountered apologists who when confronted, admitted they believed this was a sound rationale.

Weak or irrational arguments, and unevidenced subjective anecdotes, don't have a cumulative value.

 

[Sheldon]

A lot of things in life that used to baffle me and were mysteries are clear to me now. Just because people haven’t experienced God before and cannot discern spiritual things doesn’t mean others have not. Unless of course you believe your testing and reason are all there is.

You are misunderstanding, your claim to have experienced something might be something you can consider as evidence, even sufficient evidence, though I would disagree with that prima facie. However it can't rationally be offered to others as evidence to support your belief, otherwise one would inevitably have to accept contradictory claims, which violates a basic principle of logic. Ipso facto your reasoning is not a sound argument for me to believe your claim, as it will demonstrably set a standard that is irrational.

This also does not address the fact, then when pressed to explain the claim, they have no explanatory powers, as was the case here. They just circle back to claim something spiritual exists. It is an appeal to mystery, and appeals to mystery have no explanatory powers. Just like miracles, which are defined as inexplicable events. If these mysteries were "clear to you now" then you would be able to give clear explanations that are not appeals to mystery, not to just to others who share the subjective belief, but to those who don't, and are trying to subject it to objective scrutiny.

You have failed to do this, obviously. Thus I am dubious about your claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, yes. But what you believe tomatoes really are, is an opinion. The same with me. I just have a different opinion.

They are my favorite berry for when I make berry smoothies. I usually have about five different varieties of berries when I make mine.

 

[Sheldon]

Love you bro! You have no idea how much joy you bring to the conversation.
By the way, we put down some sod this morning and thought we were going to have to water all the grass by ourselves but it started raining just as we were finishing up. So, that’s the difference between someone using will power to overcome or when God intervenes and delivers someone. Personally, I’m going to ask God for help, his ways are way better and higher than mine.

Do you know what a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is? If your reasoning or claims are based on known logical fallacies, they are irrational by definition. You can claim not to care you're being irrational of course, but others who have a basic understanding of informal logic and recognise such common logical fallacies, will see how weak this makes the claim.

We know what causes rain, science can explain it without your appeal to mystery and superstition used here, so you might also want to look up and understand what Occam's razor rationally means for your claim here. Your adding unevidenced assumption, and where nothing more is needed to understand why it has rained in the first place.

 

[Sheldon]

Answers that I have gained through spiritual practice only answer personal issues, so no matter what, what it is told to others, they can not see it or realize it without actually practice the teaching too.

This is a pretty obvious no true Scotsman fallacy, and unlike your appeal to mystery here, anyone can understand informal logic, and it is not open to subjective interpretations, as it is a method of reasoning that must adhere to strict principles of validation. One of its most basic principles, is that nothing that contains or uses a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.

Example: in my search i realized that what we see as truth on earth, may ve far off what truth actually is to God.

You are simply repeating your claim for a personal experience, if I claimed I could fly unaided to the moon, but only when no one could detect it, how credible would that sound to you?

Explaing that to a bon beliver is like smacking my head in the wall....it just going to fail, because the non believer will not understand other than the physical world.

Nor do you understand it, else you could explain it to anyone, even those who have not experienced it. Unless of course it is as I keep pointing out an appeal to mystery. Appeals to mystery are not compelling argument, because they can obviously be used to proffer contradictory arguments or claims. In logic there is the law of non-contradiction, it states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Notice how this can be explained to anyone.

Now there are other theists and apologists who make identical claims as yours here, but for a different religion and deity. Do you really not see the problem there?