Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Sonofason]

However that is a subjective view of your own creation as you have already admitted.

To take it the next step, how do you know it is god?

edit:
And you dodged my hypothetical question. I actually wanted an answer. It wasn't simply rhetorical.

The real question is, How can you know? And the answer is, you can't, unless you experience God for yourself.

 

[Sonofason]

I have known people who date fossils, and lots of other stuff. They are not that hard to find. And while nobody was around 5 billion years, there are ways of infering the truth from what we can experience ourselves. These people are working with the single goal of using the best we have to determine what is true about the physical universe. I do not understand why you find your own opinion more credible, much less that of unsophisticated bronze age people. You don't know them either.
There is good reason to mistrust the Bible writers, at least when it comes to science. They had an agenda that wasn't about accurately describing nature.

I know lot's of people who have religious experiences like that. Hindus, Muslims, you name it. I have a friend who experienced God after climbing a small mountain, leaving behind everything(including water, food and clothes) and staying up there for two days.
I believe you (and most of them) are quite sincere. So, what that tells me is that there is nothing unique about Christianity. Had the human you decided to trust been a Muslim, you'd have experienced Allah.
Frankly, I'm inclined to believe God exists. But not that we know anything important on the subject. I honestly believe that most people can induce the illusion of a relationship such as you describe if they really want. It is when the "wish" in wishful thinking overcomes the "think".
I just find the folks like yourself too inclined to tell me things that are not credible.

I'm not really talking about lying, not usually. The people are telling me things that they truly believe. The Quran was delivered by an angel. Jesus rose from the dead. Moses parted the Red Sea. The earth is about 6000 years old. Nobody came forward to contradict the Gospels. Forward this email and you'll get lucky. .....

I don't doubt that you are honest with me, by your lights. But I still don't believe you. I am unable to believe you. What you say doesn't make sense. Or to rephrase that, there are better explanations for everything you have told me than religion being an accurate reflection of reality.

Tom

If you think scientists are honest, you've been completely misguided. There is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man any more honest than the next guy. Scientists are merely human beings, there is nothing special about even one of them.

 

[Sonofason]

This does not make a lot of logical sense.

My concern about what is written in John is the same concern you have for what is written in Qur'an. Why aren't you concerned about the claims of Islam? Your answer, is my answer.

For an atheist, fear of hell, or for some other unpleasant consequences for not believing in those tales, is the same sheer terror we feel when we are threatened with no presents next Christmas for not believing in Santa.

What logical reasons are there to be concerned about something you do not believe in? Or even know that it does not exist?

What do you think?

Ciao

- viole

Everything I say makes logical sense.
God saves those He chooses to save.
Truth is truth, regardless where it is found.

I assure you, my concerns with regard to Islam and the Quran are not the same concerns that you have with that which is written in John.

What makes you think I am not concerned with the Quran? I am quite concerned with the contents of this book. And just as am concerned how non-believers misconstrue the Bible, I am equally concerned with how non-believers misconstrue the Quran.

There is no single book with a monopoly on God's truth.

 

[McBell]

I believe in God based on evidence I have received that God exists. That is evidence that you cannot have, nor see. And so it doesn't surprise me that you would consider my evidence to be basically no evidence, as my evidence is not your evidence. That which I experience of God, you do not experience of God, and so my evidence is no evidence to you.

That which convinces me that something is true is evidence that something is true. You have not shown me any convincing scientific evidence that anything is true. Just show the evidence that convinces me, and I will believe.

Doesn't exist.
You have flat out rejected, dismissed, ignored, and denied that which you dislike as evidence.

Thus you reveal your double standard.

 

[McBell]

If you think scientists are honest, you've been completely misguided. There is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man any more honest than the next guy. Scientists are merely human beings, there is nothing special about even one of them.

If you think clergy are honest, you've been completely misguided. There is nothing about being clergy that makes a man any more honest than the next guy. Clergy are merely human beings, there is nothing special about even one of them.

 

[columbus]

If you think scientists are honest, you've been completely misguided. There is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man any more honest than the next guy. Scientists are merely human beings, there is nothing special about even one of them.

In a sense that is true. Scientists are human beings. But in a very important sense it is the sort of obviously wrong statement I have come to expect from religionists.

When it comes to regular stuff like romance, politics, religion, or money it is simply true. But when it comes to science in general and their field in particular, scientists are excruciatingly honest. They have to be. That is because their claims and results and everything they do gets scrutinized so closely by people who know what they are talking about. It is built into the system by which information is properly called "scientific". It is called "publishing" and it isn't just an essay for the local paper. Certain periodicals have a reputation for eliminating the errors before they get published, and they are read and critiqued widely. As a result the methods used to demonstrate you claims are very rigorous and must be reproducable.

This whole system is designed to catch and eliminate errors to the best of human ability. It is imperfect, but it is extremely effective. The results are the technology and information all around you, and that is the evidence that it works.

This system stands in stark contrast to the religious method. People just think things and make claims that cannot be investigated, much less falsified. Do you realize how different Christianity would be if Arius had made it to the Council of Nicea? Anybody can say anything about God and it is just as credible as any other claim about God.
The method of keeping scientists honest is different from nearly any other human endeavor. Not knowing that makes me question how much you know, not whether you sincerely believe.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Doesn't exist.
You have flat out rejected, dismissed, ignored, and denied that which you dislike as evidence.

Thus you reveal your double standard.

It's not a matter of me liking the evidence. The question is, is it convincing? Well ,that which you call evidence has not convinced me of anything.

 

[Sonofason]

If you think clergy are honest, you've been completely misguided. There is nothing about being clergy that makes a man any more honest than the next guy. Clergy are merely human beings, there is nothing special about even one of them.

Then I would suggest you do not consult with the clergy when desiring to know about God.

 

[Sonofason]

In a sense that is true. Scientists are human beings. But in a very important sense it is the sort of obviously wrong statement I have come to expect from religionists.

When it comes to regular stuff like romance, politics, religion, or money it is simply true. But when it comes to science in general and their field in particular, scientists are excruciatingly honest. They have to be. That is because their claims and results and everything they do gets scrutinized so closely by people who know what they are talking about. It is built into the system by which information is properly called "scientific". It is called "publishing" and it isn't just an essay for the local paper. Certain periodicals have a reputation for eliminating the errors before they get published, and they are read and critiqued widely. As a result the methods used to demonstrate you claims are very rigorous and must be reproducable.

This whole system is designed to catch and eliminate errors to the best of human ability. It is imperfect, but it is extremely effective. The results are the technology and information all around you, and that is the evidence that it works.

This system stands in stark contrast to the religious method. People just think things and make claims that cannot be investigated, much less falsified. Do you realize how different Christianity would be if Arius had made it to the Council of Nicea? Anybody can say anything about God and it is just as credible as any other claim about God.
The method of keeping scientists honest is different from nearly any other human endeavor. Not knowing that makes me question how much you know, not whether you sincerely believe.

Tom

I know so very little, I would never expect you to count on me. I only know enough about God to believe that what the scriptures tell us about God is true.

 

[columbus]

I know so very little, I would never expect you to count on me.

Yet you make statements like: "There is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man any more honest than the next guy." which is not true. There is something about scientists giving them credibility. It is their method of ascertaining what is true and what is error.

I only know enough about God to believe that what the scriptures tell us about God is true.

You do not have this credibility that scientists have. Nothing personal, neither do any of the other religious folks who regularly tell me things that are wrong. Why would I believe someone who I know sincerely believes things that are demonstrably wrong?
Especially since scripture tells us all sorts of self-contradictory stuff about God.
You would be more honest to say "I believe what I want to about God and back it up with the scriptures that agree with me, and ignore the rest.". Nothing personal, religionists all do that.

Tom

 

[McBell]

Then I would suggest you do not consult with the clergy when desiring to know about God.

are you missing the point on purpose or are you merely to ignorant to comprehend it?

 

[Sonofason]

Yet you make statements like: "There is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man any more honest than the next guy." which is not true. There is something about scientists giving them credibility. It is their method of ascertaining what is true and what is error.


You do not have this credibility that scientists have. Nothing personal, neither do any of the other religious folks who regularly tell me things that are wrong. Why would I believe someone who I know sincerely believes things that are demonstrably wrong?
Especially since scripture tells us all sorts of self-contradictory stuff about God.
You would be more honest to say "I believe what I want to about God and back it up with the scriptures that agree with me, and ignore the rest.". Nothing personal, religionists all do that.

Tom

The fact is, there is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man more honest than the next guy, but you are free to believe what you want to believe.

And I don't need you to believe me, though it would do you well, in my opinion.

 

[columbus]

The fact is, there is nothing about being a scientist that makes a man more honest than the next guy, but you are free to believe what you want to believe.

Yes there is and I described it to you.

And I don't need you to believe me, though it would do you well, in my opinion.

People like you, telling me stuff I know isn't true, are not the kind of people who could possibly be representing God.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

are you missing the point on purpose or are you merely to ignorant to comprehend it?

Apparently I'm too ignorant to comprehend it.

Are you suggesting that one must not be ignorant in order to understand your point? How does that work?

 

[columbus]

Maybe if I phrased it this way it would make sense.

I believe science is the study of God by studying His Creation. Religion is the study of humans and what they believe. Science is from God, religion is from man.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

Maybe if I phrased it this way it would make sense.

I believe science is the study of God by studying His Creation. Religion is the study of humans and what they believe. Science is from God, religion is from man.

Tom

I believe your first statement could be no further from the truth. You do not believe that science is the study of God, and you do not believe God has a creation. However, your second statement is potentially completely true.

 

[McBell]

Apparently I'm too ignorant to comprehend it.

Enough said on it then.

Are you suggesting that one must not be ignorant in order to understand your point? How does that work?

If that is the spin you wish to put on it in order to feel better about yourself, by all means, continue.

 

[McBell]

I believe your first statement could be no further from the truth. You do not believe that science is the study of God, and you do not believe God has a creation. However, your second statement is potentially completely true.

Now you are dictating to others what they do and do not believe?

 

[Sonofason]

Now you are dictating to others what they do and do not believe?

I agree. I ought not put words in his mouth. It is seems to me that Columbus does believe in a god of sorts. It is apparent to me however, that He does not believe in My God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I believe in God based on evidence I have received that God exists. That is evidence that you cannot have, nor see.

In that case, it simply does not exist to me, isn't that just about right?

And so it doesn't surprise me that you would consider my evidence to be basically no evidence, as my evidence is not your evidence.

It is odd that you talk about evidence for God while doubting the evidence for Evolution. Particularly given your complaints about "going by other people's claims".

That which I experience of God, you do not experience of God, and so my evidence is no evidence to you.

That which convinces me that something is true is evidence that something is true. You have not shown me any convincing scientific evidence that anything is true. Just show the evidence that convinces me, and I will believe.

Are you attempting to joke?