Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[RichardParker]

Although there is no proof of his nonexistence.

Depends on what god you are talking about.
Most moderns gods are entities that want us to know that they exist. And they are usually all-powerfull or at least extremly powerfull.
So, given these two things, the absence of evidence FOR him is actually evidence AGAINST him.
Because if he wanted us to believe in him, there could be no reason why he wouldn't want to present us with some evidence.
Therefore we can rule out all the gods that want us to believe in them.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no proof of his existence. Although there is no proof of his nonexistence, I must base my belief absolutely on facts.

There is a problem with that idea, it is possible to prove existence, but quite impossible to prove nonexistence, so

My golden rule is the golden rule. Treat people as how I would like to be treated. Its so simple I only need a napkin to write this onto.

An excellent concept, but to have it work operationally everyone has to be on board.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The cutest animals in the world are actually evil

From the article:

Brian Switek, who wrote the Slate article, was careful to stress that we shouldn't judge animals by human standards.

How hypocritical. As if humans don't do those things. We're the worst species on this planet, by far.

 

[suncowiam]

There is a problem with that idea, it is possible to prove existence, but quite impossible to prove nonexistence, so

Most likely what you consider proof, I would not consider proof because I follow certain scientific guidelines concerning repeatability and unbiased observation. But that's just me or other scientists actually...

An excellent concept, but to have it work operationally everyone has to be on board.

I think your quote applies more to religion actually.

No, I don't agree with this if it applies to only the golden rule. I don't need other people to believe in this actually. I won't lie to strangers giving them a benefit of doubt that they won't lie to me initially. I definitely won't lie people I know and love but... I would lie to those that have lied or I know would lie to me. I have no qualms there and no guilt. Everything here is still defined by the golden rule. It's easy as making pancakes.

 

[suncowiam]

From the article:



How hypocritical. As if humans don't do those things. We're the worst species on this planet, by far.

Good and evil are man-made concepts. It's a bit unfair to intersect man-made concepts with animals. Are we next going to say the dolphin is going to hell because it doesn't believe in God?

Just say it's animal behavior or specific behaviors like dolphin behavior. Why get caught up in all this other than finding it as something else to read? Just my 2 cents.

 

[suncowiam]

Depends on what god you are talking about.
Most moderns gods are entities that want us to know that they exist. And they are usually all-powerfull or at least extremly powerfull.
So, given these two things, the absence of evidence FOR him is actually evidence AGAINST him.
Because if he wanted us to believe in him, there could be no reason why he wouldn't want to present us with some evidence.
Therefore we can rule out all the gods that want us to believe in them.

I think you're projecting what man would do here in place of an all-powerful god. But in the end, it's still speculation? I personally can't project what an all-powerful god would want to do with us. For all I know, he would think we're like bacteria to him so why even consider it? I don't know. I'm just throwing other plausible stuff out there? Is that plausible?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good and evil are man-made concepts. It's a bit unfair to intersect man-made concepts with animals.

Um...yeah. I know.

 

[Whiterain]

It's the modern understanding of logic. The lack of faith is based on the lack of
satisfying evidence and non-experience with a divinity. Then those that come forward
to compete with the argument that divinities do exist and the proof is acceptable
are berated as mentally ill regarding their super natural experience and that the proof
is sufficient.

It's just two different mind sets.

Think if the argument based on one party with the presumption deities are not real and one with the assumption that deities are real.

Your experiences with the super natural will not take you far, they're not tangible to the
argument unless you have bonafide proof, and that will go into ridicule.

 

[suncowiam]

Um...yeah. I know.

=) Just saying. Wasn't trying to label you or anything.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

=) Just saying. Wasn't trying to label you or anything.

I was pointing out how hypocritical it is when humans act aghast or judge Nature by our hypocritical standards which we even fail to abide by.

 

[suncowiam]

It's the modern understanding of logic. The lack of faith is based on the lack of
satisfying evidence and non-experience with a divinity. Then those that come forward
to compete with the argument that divinities do not exist and the proof is unacceptable
are berated as mental ill regarding their super natural experience and that the proof
is not sufficient.

It's just two different mind sets.

Think if the argument based on one party with the presumption deities are not real and one with the assumption that deities are real.

Your experiences with the super natural will not take you far, they're not tangible to the
argument unless you have bonafide proof, and that will go into ridicule.

It's two very opposing mind sets. I'm not trying to berate those that choose to believe in super natural experience but there are real-world situations where this could be very serious to those that need solutions...

An example: Religious scientists that shun modern medicine. Concerning them, I say do what-ever you like and continue your beliefs. However, if their children are critically ill, man I really wish the parents would choose modern medicine. It is these types of gray situations that is so very difficult for me to accept... Do you see where I'm coming from? I really don't want to step on other peoples shoes but when you have two opposing views that clearly define what is right and wrong, at some point in time it really matters to go with the view point that is absolutely right...

 

[suncowiam]

I was pointing out how hypocritical it is when humans act aghast or judge Nature by our hypocritical standards which we even fail to abide by.

Oh my bad then. I was saying the same in a way. Thanks...

 

[Whiterain]

It's two very opposing mind sets. I'm not trying to berate those that choose to believe in super natural experience but there are real-world situations where this could be very serious to those that need solutions...

An example: Religious scientists that shun modern medicine. Concerning them, I say do what-ever you like and continue your beliefs. However, if their children are critically ill, man I really wish the parents would choose modern medicine. It is these types of gray situations that is so very difficult for me to accept... Do you see where I'm coming from? I really don't want to step on other peoples shoes but when you have two opposing views that clearly define what is right and wrong, at some point in time it really matters to go with the view point that is absolutely right...

I agree completely with most of modern science unless it is in moral and ethetical argument. Cloning for instance, but there is nothing wrong with medicine.

I don't have an issue with Atheism, they're making an overly reasonable
argument with religion. I do not appreciate blasphemy and would like to
see Atheist not stoop to the level of childish games when arguing with
theists. Dawkins "God Delusion" is fantastic but recording people paying
their respects, particularly to the Virgin Mother of Christ, was rude and
I'm afraid I would have lost my mind.

As far as evilution, I am crazy about abiogenesis but I still believe in the
Laird. I do not accept primate to human evilution quite yet, I think Man
was born as Man is and only changed through cross-breeding and
interbreed..

 

[suncowiam]

I agree completely with most of modern science unless it is in moral and ethetical argument. Cloning for instance, but there is nothing wrong with medicine.

I don't have an issue with Atheism, they're making an overly reasonable
argument with religion. I do not appreciate blasphemy and would like to
see Atheist not stoop to the level of childish games when arguing with
theists. Dawkins "God Delusion" is fantastic but recording people paying
their respects, particularly to the Virgin Mother of Christ, was rude and
I'm afraid I would have lost my mind.

As far as evilution, I am crazy about abiogenesis but I still believe in the
Laird. I do not accept primate to human evilution quite yet, I think Man
was born as Man is and only changed through cross-breeding and
interbreed..

Just to share with you my view points. I'm firmly in the science area so I base my view on the work that I believe went through the scientific method. I don't double check everything but admittedly make assumptions of what the scientific community is putting out. The main thing is that I'm not stuck to an idea unless it never gets disproven...

 

[Desert Snake]

Just to share with you my view points. I'm firmly in the science area so I base my view on the work that I believe went through the scientific method. I don't double check everything but admittedly make assumptions of what the scientific community is putting out. The main thing is that I'm not stuck to an idea unless it never gets disproven...

That's why you cant compare science to religion. Science has this 'out' that is not available to faiths with Doctrines, science can literally say '"hey, we were completely wrong yesterday but its cool cause that's the scientific method!" Religion and science is apples and oranges.

 

[suncowiam]

That's why you cant compare science to religion. Science has this 'out' that is not available to faiths with Doctrines, science can literally say '"hey, we were completely wrong yesterday but its cool cause that's the scientific method!" Religion and science is apples and oranges.

Scientific method is not an out. It is not an excuse if that is what you are implying. Billions of dollars, vast amounts of resources, the brightest of our kin are put into scientific methods to ensure that the result is as close to being right if not right. If that says nothing to you then we can end it there and you can continue your belief.

Let me ask you this then, how does religion change? How does it admit fault?

 

[Sapiens]

Let me ask you this then, how does religion change? How does it admit fault?

It doesn't until it gets so far out of step with the masses that a sudden revelation has to occur, like the LDS and black priests. Brazil was the issue, too many people, too many of them other than white, couldn't pass up that rice bowl ... so: "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord." Wow ... is that ever thick?

 

[Desert Snake]

Scientific method is not an out. It is not an excuse if that is what you are implying. Billions of dollars, vast amounts of resources, the brightest of our kin are put into scientific methods to ensure that the result is as close to being right if not right. If that says nothing to you then we can end it there and you can continue your belief.

Let me ask you this then, how does religion change? How does it admit fault?

It is an 'out' though, of course it is. You are talking about the semantics I'm talking about the general principle.

Religion can and does morph, change, etc., however it has to, in cases of Doctrinal truths, and theories, have to rationalize new ideas or adherence, have you read the 'trinity' arguments? There are "better" arguments (from Scripture), than others yes but you still have to 'prove' your point, if scince discovers something concrete, that's it, it can change opinion overnight, totally different.

 

[outhouse]

I do not accept primate to human evilution quite yet

..

You sound like POE


Either way your factually wrong, and science cares little if you accept its facts.

but there is nothing wrong with medicine

Thanks for letting modern civilization thrive without interference.

 

[outhouse]

It's if their children are critically ill, man I really wish the parents would choose modern medicine. It is these types of gray situations that is so very difficult for me to accept... Do you see where I'm coming from? I really don't want to step on other peoples shoes but when you have two opposing views that clearly define what is right and wrong, at some point in time it really matters to go with the view point that is absolutely right...

Which shows you respect their religious freedom, and still face science with an open mind.

Nothing wrong with that. More generous then I am with people who live fanaticism and fundamentalism.

They have more of an impact then you think as they fight education and knowledge politically which makes them dangerous to my childs education.