Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Stevicus]

Hi all some questions for consideration for this OP....

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

No, it just means there's no evidence of a God. No one can really know for certain if there is a God, and even beyond that, no one can really say which God(s) (or which religion) is the correct one - if there is a correct one. It's all just imaginative speculation about concepts humans have been unable to define or truly comprehend in any meaningful way.

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

Well, within those narrowly defined parameters, I suppose a case could be made for that. I think when it comes to certain philosophical and political beliefs, people may not always rely on evidence, but also on their own set of principles and values.

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

As an agnostic, I may not qualify for this question, but I've heard it said "to thine own self, be true." That said, "I don't know if there's a God or not" is the most honest, truest answer I can give. I'd be more worried about jumping in to a religion and embracing a belief if it turns out to be the wrong belief. That would be like playing Russian roulette, so I choose not to play.

I sometimes think, what if Zeus, Apollo, Poseidon, etc. are the true gods?

What if religions which practiced human sacrifice were really the "true" religions and those who don't regularly practice human sacrifice are all going to hell? How do we know that's not the case? What evidence do we have either way?

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

I have "faith" that the world will still be here tomorrow when I wake up. The sun will still rise, the moon and the stars will still be out there. The basic physical laws of our existence will remain in place. That's just how it seems to work, and I have no reason to believe it won't keep working that way, keeping in mind that humans often face disasters and catastrophes. We also keep in mind that anything is possible and anything could happen at any time.

Whether there's some intelligent being or designer or some little old man behind a curtain we're not supposed to notice - who can really say? It's all just guessing, and as I see it, one guess is just as good as another.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Thanks for your thoughts...

I can't prove that God exists, nor can I prove that God doesn't exist. I also can't prove that God's judgments are not coming to this world, although I've observed a widespread phenomenon of humans judging each other, as well as the world as a whole.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Sure. But to explain it would take a book. You wouldn’t buy the information, so why waste bandwidth?

I'll take that as a resounding "NO", then. Thanks for playing.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

A theist said a similar thing.

You really should try to learn the difference between acceptance of God and belief in God.

All of this may just be semantics.

What difference? Since none of you theists have EVER produced ANY god to accept?

They are synonymous in usage: You cannot "accept" what you have no belief in.

Do YOU accept The Flying Spaghetti Monster as Your Lord and God?

If not-- why not?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It appears that he is trying to use a Tu Quoque fallacy. He probably realizes that faith is not rational so he wants to accuse others of what he is doing wrong as an excuse for his beliefs.

Indeed.

Why is it? Certain zealous Theists seem to recognize that "faith" is irrational. And so they are desperate to paint non-faith with the same brush--

-- it's as if they realize just how irrational unsupported faith truly is. Trying to "insult" atheists by claiming atheists have faith...

Or am I projecting too much intelligence in there? That is-- they do not realize what they are doing with respect to their own faith position?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You are looking at it the wrong way.
The whole "faith" thing for atheists or science
is a bit of equivocation for the purpose of trying
to drag everyone else down into the hole they are in.

Except of course they see it as that we are like them,
only we reject god and are lesser than they.

It has zero to do with logic, or proper word usage.

I know the intent is negative and all; though, addressing that is a foregone conclusion. If it doesn't make sense, it's hard to derive opinions on it outside my own personal opinion on the matter.

Do you understand it from the word usage point of view?

I don't think they get that you can't have faith god god does not exist when both parties can't prove god exist to begin with. Since god is based on faith, and faith is individual, why would an atheist even know what they don't have faith in? (Especially those of us not presented with the definition of god to begin with)

Outside of that. Their intent and all of that, I set aside. I need to understand what they're talking about.

 

[dfnj]

I can't prove that God exists, nor can I prove that God doesn't exist. I also can't prove that God's judgments are not coming to this world, although I've observed a widespread phenomenon of humans judging each other, as well as the world as a whole.

I can prove God exists. God is just a word. Nobody denies the existence of the word "God". What the word God represents is a choice.

The whole God judgments are coming can be thought of this way. God is word representing a particular Jungian Archetype of humanity. God's judgments exist as a collective expression of humanity with itself. This is the idea of an Archetype. Santa Claus exists in the expression of people carrying out Christmas traditions. God and Santa Claus do not exist in reality like objects but only exist in our culture, language, and expressions of behaviors. This is why the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist while God does exist.

You can choose God and Santa Claus do not exist. But this is the point. It is just a choice. Since everything is meaningless on the cosmic timescale there is no objective way to determine which choices are better than any other choices. All "good" objectivity is chosen to be "good" by a subjective judgment. People choosing to believe in God and Santa Claus is a subjective choice. You may not like someone else's choices. But you can't prove why one choice is better than any other without making subjective judgments.

 

[sojourner]

That is as sorry a bs answer as ever i could ask for.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

 

[james bond]

Hi all some questions for consideration for this OP....

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Thanks for your thoughts...

The atheists will LIE with answer their no doubt.

If there is no God, then we should have evidence for it. What evidence do they have?

1. It would be a logical fallacy if someone said it was. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Yes. It also applies to their fake science of evolution. The believers are usually ready to give up their religion if there was the scientific method that showed otherwise. However, the scientific method backs up their evidence.

3. The best argument I've heard is Pascal's Wager. Even if you are a lazy, no good, big dumb atheist, what if you just believed?

Then, you're covered. It's like insurance. How many of you ever discussed how much money you could've save if you didn't have to buy insurance?

4. It has to do with science and the scientific method. The scientific method should back up your beliefs. Now, there is no scientific method for the existence of God just like there isn't for his non-existence. Thus, we go to what evidence do we have for creation. We go to what evidence do we have for evolution. We use rationalism or facts, reasoning, and historical truths as well as logical arguments. One of the most powerful is Kalam Cosmological Argument. What do you have?

As for the final judgement, we find that it comes after all eyes have seen. Thus, everything is settled on Earth. Afterward, comes the judgement in different locations. We all have a sense of fairness or justice and it seems to fit a final judgement, i.e. one after your life.

 

[sojourner]

Really? What repeatable, public method has been found for detection? One in which, if the detection fails, people will agree deities do not exist?

Meditative techniques. Not foolproof, but “public” and widespread enough for us To know that there is something beyond what we call “normal” experience which most of us call “Divinity.” “Deities” are metaphors. I’m not talking about a narrow, arbitrary definition of “God.”

 

[Audie]

I’m sorry you feel that way.

It is nothing about what I "feel".
If I feel anything in this context, it is that you
made no effort to say anything sensible here, or earlier.

 

[Audie]

Meditative techniques. Not foolproof, but “public” and widespread enough for us To know that there is something beyond what we call “normal” experience which most of us call “Divinity.” “Deities” are metaphors. I’m not talking about a narrow, arbitrary definition of “God.”

Meditation is not technology in any remote sense of the word.

And smoking dope is quicker and easier than meditation.

 

[Audie]

The atheists will LIE with answer their no doubt.

If there is no God, then we should have evidence for it. What evidence do they have?

1. It would be a logical fallacy if someone said it was. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

2. Yes. It also applies to their fake science of evolution. The believers are usually ready to give up their religion if there was the scientific method that showed otherwise. However, the scientific method backs up their evidence.

3. The best argument I've heard is Pascal's Wager. Even if you are a lazy, no good, big dumb atheist, what if you just believed?

View attachment 36673

Then, you're covered. It's like insurance. How many of you ever discussed how much money you could've save if you didn't have to buy insurance?

4. It has to do with science and the scientific method. The scientific method should back up your beliefs. Now, there is no scientific method for the existence of God just like there isn't for his non-existence. Thus, we go to what evidence do we have for creation. We go to what evidence do we have for evolution. We use rationalism or facts, reasoning, and historical truths as well as logical arguments. One of the most powerful is Kalam Cosmological Argument. What do you have?

As for the final judgement, we find that it comes after all eyes have seen. Thus, everything is settled on Earth. Afterward, comes the judgement in different locations. We all have a sense of fairness or justice and it seems to fit a final judgement, i.e. one after your life.

Such an abrupt change from your words to what you
cut 'n paste without attribution!


The atheists will LIE with answer their no doubt.

Show us you can write a grammatical sentence
if you know so much.

 

[sojourner]

That does not help, at all.

I’m sorry you feel that way.

as for your claim that a whole book is needed,
and the insult about how my mind is closed so its no use
to try to educate me

I didn’t say that. YOU took it that way. You’re a skeptic; I get it. You’ve historically dismissed every experience that has been thrown at you here. I have no reason to think this particular incident would be any different. I don’t believe you really want to know; if you did, you wouldn’t ask the question on a forum, you’d seek out a mentor. I think all you want to do is lump me in with every other religious wack job and poke fun. I choose not to go there. If you choose to call that “close-minded,” you’re welcome to do so. But don’t accuse ME of saying it.

People who actually understand their topic are people
who can find a way to explain it in direct terms that lay
people can understand.
Anyone who cannot really does not know what he is talking
about

I’m sorry you feel that way. This is important to me, to my career, to my identity, and it’s complicated. It has taken me nearly 60 years to come to grips with it. You’ll pardon me if I don’t want to diminish it to “Jesus loves me, this I know.”

 

[sojourner]

Then find a method of reliable detection. We've done this for all sorts of other things (radio waves, infrared, ultrasound, neutrinos, etc).

Consider that the Divine isn’t a radio wave or a neutrino.

If *all* descriptions are metaphor, then none is valid

False. Different people have different perspectives an different cultural images that carry meaning for them.

But for things that really exist, metaphor isn't required (although it can clarify some difficult points to understand).

Of course it is, otherwise metaphor wouldn’t exist.

 

[sojourner]

I hear it is in a book that you wont believe if you read it.
What is the name of the book I wonder.

Case in point to my previous reply to you. What you hear is incorrect.

 

[Audie]

Case in point to my previous reply to you. What you hear is incorrect.

Ah, it would TAKE a book. is this a distinction without a difference?

 

[sojourner]

So. God, deliberately and with malice, created people who cannot perceive? Yet it feels the need to punish us for failing to do what we cannot actually do

No. God created us with free will, and we simply don’t perceive.

THAT is your description of "god", here

That’s NOT my description of God. You’re making an invalid assumption. When did I ever say that God punishes us for not perceiving? Ever? God! I’m so sick and tired of you people assuming that just because I’m Christian, I must be a wacko fundigelical.

The ... ahem... "metaphors" directly contradict the other .... "metaphors

Not always. I might say not in most cases.

And that'd be fine-- except that proponents of "metaphor 1" are always going to war because proponents of "metaphor 2" think their metaphor is superior, and worse-- alternative "metaphors" should never have existed in the first place

That’s not the fault of the metaphors, themselves.

... meanwhile, the source of these "metaphors" sits back and watches the world burn...

As I said: Malice. Evil. Malevolent. Or simply Not At Home in the first place

A faulty conclusion that follows from a faulty premise.

 

[sojourner]

Ah, it would TAKE a book. is this a distinction without a difference?

We both know what book you were referring to.

 

[Audie]

I’m sorry you feel that way.


I didn’t say that. YOU took it that way. You’re a skeptic; I get it. You’ve historically dismissed every experience that has been thrown at you here. I have no reason to think this particular incident would be any different. I don’t believe you really want to know; if you did, you wouldn’t ask the question on a forum, you’d seek out a mentor. I think all you want to do is lump me in with every other religious wack job and poke fun. I choose not to go there. If you choose to call that “close-minded,” you’re welcome to do so. But don’t accuse ME of saying it.


I’m sorry you feel that way. This is important to me, to my career, to my identity, and it’s complicated. It has taken me nearly 60 years to come to grips with it. You’ll pardon me if I don’t want to diminish it to “Jesus loves me, this I know.”

There may be a middle ground between "take a book" and
a children's song.

Or they may not be.

I hold that anyone who understands their topic can find
that middle ground, in normally comprehensible words.

And has no need for making statements of fact not in evidence.

 

[sojourner]

And the "deities" in question sit idly by as the world burns do to Detection Method #1 crowd going to war against Detection #3 crowd, who's "results" directly contradict Method #1.

If deities exist? They are viciously malevolent.

Why are you talking about “deities?” That’s not where I’m at, at all. And why blame the metaphors for what people are doing? Case in point, I’m the one holding a metaphor, and you’re the one making wild assumptions and arguing about nothing. How is some ephemeral “deity” I’m not even talking about remotely responsible for that?