Do you believe; and why?

[*bfine32*]

(05-15-2019, 09:55 PM)Lucidus Wrote: For those that believe purely on faith, I would like to ask a few questions if you would indulge me?

Is it not the case that one could justify belief in any God based purely on faith?
Is it not the case that one could believe in any proposition based purely on faith?
Is it not the case that faith could lead one to both correct and incorrect conclusions?

If you answered yes to all three questions, then it seems that you would likely agree with me that "faith" is an extremely unreliable pathway to truth. If you do agree with that assessment, then why depend on it as a justification for your belief?

If you do not agree, do you apply the same standard of faith [in the religious sense, not the colloquial usage] to other aspects of your life? That is to say; do you believe other important things based purely on that version of faith?

Everyone that believes in the God of Abraham does so purely on faith. 

If you truly are searching I will respond to you endlessly. If you're just looking for a "gotcha" or an angle to make the believer seem irrational then go kick rocks. Much like your unnoticed interchanging of the words begging/asking only you know for sure; but I have my assumptions. 

But I'll most likely continue to respond anyway as long as it remains civil. Because: who knows? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-15-2019, 08:27 PM)Lucidus Wrote: When you say it's a "personal relationship" - may I ask in what ways? For example has God ever interacted with you in way that are actually demonstrable, or is it an intuition on your part? The reason I ask is because the personal aspect of the God - believer relationship seems to rather different than what we mean when talking about any other personal relationship in our lives. 


As I started in the OP; I rather enjoy exploring the "why" of things, and moreover, I find the conversations to be interesting and thought provoking on many occasions. This thread has gone very well in my opinion. People have shared opinion, exchanged ideas and asked questions -- and all in a very civil and respectful manner. I think it has been, and continues to be, an intriguing discussion. I'm not sure what your objection is to inquiry, as it is a most useful toll in all exchanges or dialogue.

If I ask someone why they believe and the answer is "faith" -- I feel obliged to follow up and delve into why that is and how they came to that reasoning. The same holds true when someone asked me why I don't believe and I answer that I currently see no good reason to do so. It would be perfectly acceptable for that person to wonder why that is the case and what led me to that decision. 

If conversations simply ended at initial "why" and "because" -- without any further dialogue, what deeper understanding would we ever gain about each other?


Thank you for the response. 

I agree that there is no empirical evidence, and I find that to be a huge problem for such audacious and extraordinary claims. I simply cannot place stock in testimony that is anecdotal and/or emotional in nature. It's simply too subjective (as you alluded to) and can be easily mistaken. I simply can't rationalize a belief in something for which there is no reliable or verifiable proof.

The "faith" thing has always been somewhat of a curiosity to me, as it pertains to religious context, not faith in the colloquial sense. I see it as the suspension of rationality in order to justify the wish / hope that it's true. 

My position has never been to declare that there is no God; only that I see no evidence to think it's the case or justify belief in it. For me personally, I see no reason to believe that a God exists until it can be demonstrated to be the case. Personally, if it can't be demonstrated, I feel non-belief in such a proposition is the justifiable default. 

And there it is. Before you asked for evidence you knew there wasn't evidence. Which is why I asked you why you're asking for something you know you're not going to get? You're smart enough to know the answer so what is your purpose? You're also smart enough to know Christianity is a faith based religion obviously in the religious context, not the colloquial context. Therefore the answer to why believers believe can be answered with a single word: faith. You're smart enough to know that. If you only believe in the demonstrable then you miss the entire point of faith. You're smart enough to know that, also. So I'm curious where you're going with this and why?

Furthermore, I haven't objected to anything. I rather enjoy the "why" of things, also. Which is why I'm inquiring into your inquiry especially after you demonstrated you already know the answer to your inquiries for evidence.

Lastly, can you demonstrate your non-belief to me so it is believable? I wanna believe that you don't believe, but how am I supposed to believe that? You could tell me you don't believe (again), but how do I know you don't secretly believe? So I think I'll have to default to non-belief in your non-belief since you can't demonstrate it.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-15-2019, 11:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Feeling ashamed of one's nudity is a greater form of knowledge of good and evil?  In my opinion, that's pretty basic. Same applies to disobedience. You were a toddler when you learned to understand the consequences of disobeying your parents. Yet, Adam and Eve didn't understand what you did when you were 2-3 years old. I'll bet your parents don't punish your kids for that time you disobeyed them when you were 1 year old and didn't know any better.

Oh really?

It's "pretty basic"? 

Tell me then how being ashamed of one's nudity translates with "pretty basic knowing of good and evil".

And again, your assumption that Adam and Eve "didn't know right from wrong" is based on your interpretation that the tree literally gave them knowledge of what is right and wrong . What's your basis for believing that interpretation so strongly that you use it as part of your foundation to criticize God?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 06:08 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Oh really?

It's "pretty basic"? 

Tell me then how being ashamed of one's nudity translates with "pretty basic knowing of good and evil".

Getting dressed for Christmas dinner vs. attending nude isn't a complicated moral or ethical dilemma requiring a lot of thought to determine what you believe is right or wrong.

Quote:And again, your assumption that Adam and Eve "didn't know right from wrong" is based on your interpretation that the tree literally gave them knowledge of what is right and wrong . What's your basis for believing that interpretation so strongly that you use it as part of your foundation to criticize God?

My basis? The Bible.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-16-2019, 08:10 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Getting dressed for Christmas dinner vs. attending nude isn't a complicated moral or ethical dilemma requiring a lot of thought to determine what you believe is right or wrong.

Huh?

We're specifically talking about Adam and Eve coming to know right and wrong by eating a piece of fruit, which is what you are claiming. You said they gained that through the Tree of Knowledge. I said they didn't because they didn't literally gain a basic of sense of right and wrong from the Tree of Knowledge. You then alluded to the fact that they "became ashamed of their nakedness" meaning they did gain the knowledge of right and wrong from the fruit because they were ashamed.

I'm asking you.... In what way does them becoming ashamed of their nakedness show that they gained the knowledge of right and wrong from the fruit?  You said "being ashamed of nakedness is basic knowledge". Basic knowledge of what? Right and wrong? How? How does them being ashamed of their nakedness mean they suddenly gained the basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?

Quote:My basis? The Bible.

What logical steps did you use to come to the conclusion that what you believe concerning Adam and Eve is true in regards to the story of them gaining the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong from the tree? 

[fredtoast]

(05-15-2019, 08:31 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure there is. Just get out of your way. 

How?

Tell me exactly how you could make yourself believe Santa Claus is real.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 09:08 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I'm asking you.... In what way does them becoming ashamed of their nakedness show that they gained the knowledge of right and wrong from the fruit?  You said "being ashamed of nakedness is basic knowledge". Basic knowledge of what? Right and wrong? How? How does them being ashamed of their nakedness mean they suddenly gained the basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?

What are you even trying to say?

Are you saying Adam and Eve NEVER gained the knowledge?

Are you saying they already had the knowledge?

Are you saying nothing changed even though the Bible clearly says something changed?

Instead of just playing this silly question game why don't you just explain your position so we all understand?  So far you are the only one who has not said wht he thinks happened and backed it up with logic.

[GMDino]

So just to help clarify positions here: (I didn't see where I could add a poll within the thread)

How literally do you take the bible?

Completely?
Partially?
Not at all?
Only the parts that support my interpretations?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 09:08 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Huh?

We're specifically talking about Adam and Eve coming to know right and wrong by eating a piece of fruit, which is what you are claiming. You said they gained that through the Tree of Knowledge. I said they didn't because they didn't literally gain a basic of sense of right and wrong from the Tree of Knowledge. You then alluded to the fact that they "became ashamed of their nakedness" meaning they did gain the knowledge of right and wrong from the fruit because they were ashamed.

I'm asking you.... In what way does them becoming ashamed of their nakedness show that they gained the knowledge of right and wrong from the fruit?  You said "being ashamed of nakedness is basic knowledge". Basic knowledge of what? Right and wrong? How? How does them being ashamed of their nakedness mean they suddenly gained the basic knowledge of what is right and what is wrong?

I don't know what other knowledge Adam and Eve would have received except the knowledge of good and evil from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The title is self-explanatory.

Quote:What logical steps did you use to come to the conclusion that what you believe concerning Adam and Eve is true in regards to the story of them gaining the knowledge of what is right and what is wrong from the tree? 

This is a story about a man made from dust, a woman made from a rib, and a talking serpent; and you want to talk logic?

The first step involves reading "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." From the name I deduce that particular tree involves the knowledge of good and evil. There is no logical reason why I would think it involves any knowledge other than the knowledge of good and evil which is nothing more than knowing the difference between right and wrong.

Immediately after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, Adam and Eve were immediately ashamed of their nakedness? Why? Because they thought it was wrong to be naked. Thus they were ashamed for being wrong. Where did they get their sense of right and wrong? From the tree of knowledge of good and evil they just ate from.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-16-2019, 10:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: What are you even trying to say?

Are you saying Adam and Eve NEVER gained the knowledge?

Are you saying they already had the knowledge?

Are you saying nothing changed even though the Bible clearly says something changed?

Instead of just playing this silly question game why don't you just explain your position so we all understand?  So far you are the only one who has not said wht he thinks happened and backed it up with logic.

Playing a silly question game? I can ask as many questions as I want when someone hasn't actually answered my question. If that bothers you, that's you're problem. You seem to ask a lot of questions yourself.

And who says I have to take a position? Can you not refute a claim without having to claim something else?

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-16-2019, 10:16 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't know what other knowledge Adam and Eve would have received except the knowledge of good and evil from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The title is self-explanatory.

No..... the title isn't self explanatory, as I already explained with my Tree of Life example. 

Quote:This is a story about a man made from dust, a woman made from a rib, and a talking serpent; and you want to talk logic?

The first step involves reading "the tree of knowledge of good and evil." From the name I deduce that particular tree involves the knowledge of good and evil. There is no logical reason why I would think it involves any knowledge other than the knowledge of good and evil which is nothing more than knowing the difference between right and wrong. 

You can think logically about a story even if you believe that story is fake. Is that not what you're trying to do right now? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing without reason?

The fact that you are so sure of what it meant to "Know good and evil" as meaning "learn right and wrong for the first time ever" is what I don't understand given that there isn't much information given in regards as to what "knowing good and evil" might actually mean.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 10:25 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Playing a silly question game? I can ask as many questions as I want when someone hasn't actually answered my question. If that bothers you, that's you're problem. You seem to ask a lot of questions yourself.

And who says I have to take a position? Can you not refute a claim without having to claim something else?

Actually all if your questions have been answered and you can not say a position is wrong if you can't say what is right. 

Otherwise you are just playing a silly question game.

Obviously you can't answer mine.

[Matt_Crimson]

(05-16-2019, 12:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually all if your questions have been answered and you can not say a position is wrong if you can't say what is right. 

Actually, yes you can if you provide an argument for why you don't believe a certain interpretation, which I did..

Quote:Otherwise you are just playing a silly question game.


Obviously you can't answer mine.

You call it silly question games, I call it wanting calrification because clearly something has not been understood. Is that a crime? I didn't know you were the argument police.

And which question can't I answer? You've asked so many I've lost track.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 09:58 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How?

Tell me exactly how you could make yourself believe Santa Claus is real.

Go to a shopping mall around Christmas.


But let's not compare the concept of a supreme being/creator to Santa Claus. Just look around and ask yourself; How do all of this get here and be open to all answers that you come up with. Big Bang Theory requires a degree of belief. And say you do believe in the BBT, how did it happen/ What was there before it/ ect...

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 10:58 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: No..... the title isn't self explanatory, as I already explained with my Tree of Life example. 

I disagree with your explanation.  Living forever isn't a "greater" form of life, it's life.  Just longer.  Do you think it should have been called the tree of forever life or the tree of continuing life?  If you were alive on a day you should should be dead then you've been given life; literally.

Quote:You can think logically about a story even if you believe that story is fake. Is that not what you're trying to do right now? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing without reason?

The fact that you are so sure of what it meant to "Know good and evil" as meaning "learn right and wrong for the first time ever" is what I don't understand given that there isn't much information given in regards as to what "knowing good and evil" might actually mean.

You're right we don't have much information so let's look at the information we do have and think of it logically.

1 From the word tree I deduce the Bible is referring to a tree.

2 From the word knowledge I deduce the Bible is referring to knowledge.

3 From the word good I deduce the Bible is referring to good.

4 From the word evil I deduce the Bible is referring to evil.

5 From the term tree of knowledge of good and evil I deduce the Bible is referring to the knowledge or understanding of what is good and what is evil.  What is good and evil, but right and wrong?  The whole Bible is about good and evil, right and wrong, morality and immorality.

6 In Genesis 2 God forbid Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  In Genesis 3 Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  From this narrative I deduce this is the first time Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

7 Genesis 2:25 states Adam and Eve were naked and not ashamed.  From this I deduce they were naked.  Also, I deduce they weren't ashamed.  I deduce they weren't ashamed because they have no idea, understanding, or knowledge of anything like . . . good or evil, right or wrong, morality or immorality . . . that would make them feel ashamed.  Because they haven't yet learned they knowledge or gained the understanding of why or what they should be ashamed about.

8 Genesis 3:6-9 states Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Then they knew they were naked, clothed themselves, and hid.

9 Why would they cloth themselves and hide?  Because they were ashamed.

10 Why were they ashamed of their nakedness after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?  Because they thought their nudity was wrong or immoral.  Why would they think nudity was immoral?  Because they just ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil for the very first time which 'opened their eyes' because now, for the first time, they understood good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral.

11 We live in a country in which conservative Christians lost their collective shit when they saw just ONE of Janet Jackson's nipples for 3/10ths of a second during a Super Bowl halftime show.  A country where women are shamed for breast feeding in public when you can't even see their nipple and even when they cover the baby with a blanket.  Women are shamed and called names like "slut" for showing too much cleavage, for skirts that are too short, and for yoga pants when they are worn outside of yoga class. Why? Because Christians associated nudity or how one dresses with immorality.  It's partially responsible for rating systems for TV programs and movies at the cinema.  If you don't understand my claim that Adam and Eve's shame of their own nudity for the first time is a manifestation of their new found and "basic" knowledge of right and wrong; go to church this Sunday completely butt-naked and tell me what happens.

[Lucidus]

(05-16-2019, 12:11 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And there it is. Before you asked for evidence you knew there wasn't evidence. Which is why I asked you why you're asking for something you know you're not going to get?  You're smart enough to know the answer so what is your purpose?  You're also smart enough to know Christianity is a faith based religion obviously in the religious context, not the colloquial context. Therefore the answer to why believers believe can be answered with a single word: faith. You're smart enough to know that. If you only believe in the demonstrable then you miss the entire point of faith. You're smart enough to know that, also. So I'm curious where you're going with this and why?  

It is most definitely my opinion that there is currently no "evidence" available that would justify belief in any deity. However, I feel you are incorrect to to say that Christians are entirely faith based. While faith is a huge part of the equation. I've been presented with many examples of different types of evidences over the year from Christians, that they use to rationalize their faith. While not empirical in nature, they aren't reliant on merely anecdote or personal testimony either, so they must be evaluated honestly and examined as to their possible veracity. 

While God himself may not be demonstrable in any verifiable / detectable way, there have been countless attempts to establish - by way of proposed evidences - that there are also non-faith justifications that help support and strengthen the belief that there is indeed a God. While I haven't yet been convinced by any of these evidences, as they all tend to fall well short of their intended goal, it doesn't mean there are no possible evidences that I could not find intriguing and compelling if presented with. One should not close their mind to future possibilities based on current conclusions. 

It may be the case that my inquires only prove to solidify my position that there is no rational reason to believe in a deity of any sort. However, it could also be the case that, at some point in time, I'm presented with an evidence or argument which causes me to doubt my previous conclusions. I know some religious people who feel much the same way. While their current conclusions suggest a God does exist and their faith is justified, they do not discount the possibility of changing their minds based on what they may learn or be presented with in the future.

Quote:Furthermore, I haven't objected to anything. I rather enjoy the "why" of things, also. Which is why I'm inquiring into your inquiry especially after you demonstrated you already know the answer to your inquiries for evidence.

You seem to be implying that a question shouldn't be asked if one presupposes the answer. How can we ever learn anything new or find out if we're wrong in our assumptions if we avoid questions that we presume we already have the answer to?

Quote:Lastly, can you demonstrate your non-belief to me so it is believable? I wanna believe that you don't believe, but how am I supposed to believe that? You could tell me you don't believe (again), but how do I know you don't secretly believe? So I think I'll have to default to non-belief in your non-belief since you can't demonstrate it.

I have never asked anyone to prove they "believe" - as I always work under the assumption that they actually do, so I'm not sure what the purposely fallacious response is about.

I ask people if they believe in general, in what they believe specifically and what reasons they have for believing. From those inquiries, I venture into areas of possible evidences, rationales and justifications. 

Nowhere in that equation is there a request for one to "prove' that they believe. 


.

[GMDino]

(05-15-2019, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: Because people created a "god" to answer question they had no answers for.

Every group of humans has done it.

A couple of them got REALLY big and spread.

Now we kill each other over which story is "true" when none of them are.

They are stories to make us feel better and used by people to control the behavior of others.  Period.

So someone on a message board in 2019 can claim THEY are right and YOU are wrong because...god.

That's it.

And let me add I'm ok with people wanting to feel good about things they don't understand.   I'm okay with people believing what they want to make them live their lives a little easier/better.  Just stop trying to force everyone else to do it YOUR way.

(05-16-2019, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Go to a shopping mall around Christmas.


But let's not compare the concept of a supreme being/creator to Santa Claus. Just look around and ask yourself; How do all of this get here and be open to all answers that you come up with. Big Bang Theory requires a degree of belief. And say you do believe in the BBT, how did it happen/ What was there before it/ ect...

[treee]

If any of you have ever heard of the podcast "Hidden Brain", they just recently did an episode on religion. 

It focused on one possible perspective of the role religions played in society as civilizations grew and progressed over time. It looks at religion in the same way one might look at an organism over time: How it evolves, what characteristics give it the best chance of growing and surviving. 

Here is a link if that sounds interesting to any of you. It contains a synopsis of the podcast, as well as a link to it. This particular episode is around 50 minutes long

I hope one of you finds it as interesting as I did.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 02:02 PM)Lucidus Wrote: It is most definitely my opinion that there is currently no "evidence" available that would justify belief in any deity. However, I feel you are incorrect to to say that Christians are entirely faith based. While faith is a huge part of the equation. I've been presented with many examples of different types of evidences over the year from Christians, that they use to rationalize their faith. While not empirical in nature, they aren't reliant on merely anecdote or personal testimony either, so they must be evaluated honestly and examined as to their possible veracity. 

While God himself may not be demonstrable in any verifiable / detectable way, there have been countless attempts to establish - by way of proposed evidences - that there are also non-faith justifications that help support and strengthen the belief that there is indeed a God. While I haven't yet been convinced by any of these evidences, as they all tend to fall well short of their intended goal, it doesn't mean there are no possible evidences that I could not find intriguing and compelling if presented with. One should not close their mind to future possibilities based on current conclusions. 

It may be the case that my inquires only prove to solidify my position that there is no rational reason to believe in a deity of any sort. However, it could also be the case that, at some point in time, I'm presented with an evidence or argument which causes me to doubt my previous conclusions. I know some religious people who feel much the same way. While their current conclusions suggest a God does exist and their faith is justified, they do not discount the possibility of changing their minds based on what they may learn or be presented with in the future.

Where did I write "entirely"?  Then you finish the paragraph talking about honesty and veracity while arguing against something I didn't write.

Quote:You seem to be implying that a question shouldn't be asked if one presupposes the answer. How can we ever learn anything new or find out if we're wrong in our assumptions if we avoid questions that we presume we already have the answer to?

Asking for more evidence is not a presupposition.  Believing there isn't a god before you review their evidence is a presupposition.  I would suggest you're smart enough to know that, too.  You're a smart guy.

Quote:I have never asked anyone to prove they "believe" - as I always work under the assumption that they actually do, so I'm not sure what the purposely fallacious response is about.

I ask people if they believe in general, in what they believe specifically and what reasons they have for believing. From those inquiries, I venture into areas of possible evidences, rationales and justifications. 

Nowhere in that equation is there a request for one to "prove' that they believe. 


.

Fallacious response? I didn't state a belief.  I asked you to demonstrate something.  So what belief (which I didn't state) was mistaken?

How do we "prove" a hypothesis until it becomes an accepted theory?  By accumulating a mountain of overwhelming evidence that suggests it is true and other competing hypotheses are incorrect until the evidence suggests another hypothesis is correct.  You never used the word "prove" verbatim, but let's be honest with each other, that's exactly what you're doing with your calls for more evidence after you have dismissed "countless" attempts.

I didn't ask you to prove anything.  I asked you to demonstrate something.  Basically, show me some evidence.  I wanted you to demonstrate something so I could believe in it. Because how can I believe in something if it can't be demonstrated?  Think about it.

[Lucidus]

(05-15-2019, 11:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Everyone that believes in the God of Abraham does so purely on faith. 

If you truly are searching I will respond to you endlessly. If you're just looking for a "gotcha" or an angle to make the believer seem irrational then go kick rocks. Much like your unnoticed interchanging of the words begging/asking only you know for sure; but I have my assumptions. 

But I'll most likely continue to respond anyway as long as it remains civil. Because: who knows? 

"Gotcha's" are utterly useless in an honest dialogue, as they tend to undermine the the discussion. 

In much the same way, placing undo importance on things like trivial semantics, can sometimes have the same effect. However the use of the words ask and beg seem to be an issue for you in our dialogue, may I ask why the focus? To ask is to request an answer. To beg is to make an urgent request. While beg might be a bit more hyperbolic in this context, I see no real importance to the overall point in terms of requesting forgiveness. 

Whether one asks for forgiveness, or begs for forgiveness, is not the intended goal exactly the same - to be granted forgiveness?