Do you believe; and why?

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 02:21 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Your obsession with me aside. Fred asked how he could do something and I provided him with a method he could use. No where did I mention whose right and whose wrong. I'd go so far as to say I've never said whose right and whose wrong in matters of religion and faith.

Hell, my wife and I have argued because I've said I'd rather my child be Muslim rather than atheist. Not to say there aren't those less open-minded to the concept than I. I had an uncle who had to convert to Catholicism to marry, he was never allowed in my Grandma's house again. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 02:46 PM)Lucidus Wrote: "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?

Let's just say this one is "my bad" as I consider asking and begging not to have the same meaning in this context.

[Lucidus]

(05-16-2019, 02:44 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Where did I write "entirely"?  Then you finish the paragraph talking about honesty and veracity while arguing against something I didn't write.

Indeed, you didn't. That was a mistake on my part, as I read it incorrectly.

Quote: 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.

This is where you are mistaking my stance - and maybe it's my fault for not explaining well enough - and perhaps it's causing some confusion in our exchanges. I don't hold the position that there "isn't a God". My position is that I have yet to find sufficient reason - from my perspective - to justify believing there is one.

There's a big difference between declaring X is not the case and having insufficient reasons to think X is the case.

Just because I currently think it seems unlikely that X is the case, it does not mean that X could not be the case.

Quote: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.

Are you offended in some way by the practice of exploring people's rationalizations, justifications and evidences (if they offer)? They are free to answer or not answer as they choose. I find the best conversations are those not restrained by limitations on what can and can't be asked.

Are you stating, that because I've yet to find any compelling evidences of any nature in past conversations and interactions, that I should therefore not continue to seek possible examples in the future discussions with different people?

Quote: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.

Your request for me to "demonstrate" non-belief would be a bit more applicable - although still nonsensical - if I had asked anyone to demonstrate the opposite.

If you told me that you have found insufficient reasons - to this point - to believe that Bigfoot exists, and I asked you to demonstrate your lack belief in Bigfoot, that would be rather silly on my part, wouldn't you say?

[Lucidus]

(05-16-2019, 03:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's just say this one is "my bad" as I consider asking and begging not to have the same meaning in this context.

Fair enough. I'll try to be more concise in the future with my word choice, to eliminate unneeded confusion.

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 12:26 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And which question can't I answer? You've asked so many I've lost track.

(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?

[fredtoast]

(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...

The matter and energy in the universe has always existed.  It has no beginning.

It is just as simple to believe the universe has always existed as it is to say God always existed.

If God existed before the universe then where was he?

And even if I did believe some "higher power" created the universe how do I get from there to your baby killing Christian God with talking snakes, a "chosen race", and the disgusting ritual of blood sacrifice?

You said you could not compare God to Santa Claus, but they both make the same amount of sense, and to be honest I would much rather Santa Claus be real than the guy demanding I worship him or suffer eternal torment.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-16-2019, 04:23 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Indeed, you didn't. That was a mistake on my part, as I read it incorrectly.


This is where you are mistaking my stance - and maybe it's my fault for not explaining well enough - and perhaps it's causing some confusion in our exchanges. I don't hold the position that there "isn't a God". My position is that I have yet to find sufficient reason - from my perspective - to justify believing there is one.

There's a big difference between declaring X is not the case and having insufficient reasons to think X is the case.

Just because I currently think it seems unlikely that X is the case, it does not mean that X could not be the case.

The difference between an agnostic atheist and an atheist is slight, not big.  It's just a spoonful of uncertainty to make the afterlife go down.  But, I was giving an example of a presupposition, not classifying your belief as I did just now.  Another example: there is no evidence to support a belief in god.  Restated as a presupposition: there is no god.

Quote:Are you offended in some way by the practice of exploring people's rationalizations, justifications and evidences (if they offer)? They are free to answer or not answer as they choose. I find the best conversations are those not restrained by limitations on what can and can't be asked.

What makes you think I'm offended by exploring your justifications?  No limits and all.

Quote:Are you stating, that because I've yet to find any compelling evidences of any nature in past conversations and interactions, that I should therefore not continue to seek possible examples in the future discussions with different people?

You've explored "countless" examples of evidence spanning the entire course of human history and have yet to encounter a single piece of convincing evidence.  As I stated before, if you're looking for evidence to make you believe then you miss the point.  I think you know that.  

Quote:Your request for me to "demonstrate" non-belief would be a bit more applicable - although still nonsensical - if I had asked anyone to demonstrate the opposite.

If you told me that you have found insufficient reasons - to this point - to believe that Bigfoot exists, and I asked you to demonstrate your lack belief in Bigfoot, that would be rather silly on my part, wouldn't you say?

Others here have a belief.  You asked for evidence of their belief.  Your "non-belief" in their belief is a belief in and of itself.  I asked you for evidence of your belief.  There is no difference between my call for evidence and your call for evidence.  You were just confused by my use of "non-".  So can you demonstrate the evidence of your belief?  Your belief is based upon the same amount of evidence as their belief.  

You wrote, "Personally, if it can't be demonstrated, I feel non-belief in such a proposition is the justifiable default." Can you demonstrate there isn't a god or gods?  No, you can't.  Therefore, you believe in something even though it can't be demonstrated.  Does that mean you're going to default to non-belief in the proposition there is no reason to believe there is a god or gods?  Probably not.  Which means you believe in something which can't be demonstrated due to a lack of evidence.

Your lack of evidence won't convince them.  Their lack of evidence won't convince you.  Why? Because we all have the same evidence; none.  No one has any evidence about what happens after we die.  So we're are all going to believe what we are going to believe based upon a complete lack of evidence.  Including you.  You're not going to find enlightenment on a football message board.  Which brings me back full circle to where are you going with this and why?

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 05:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The matter and energy in the universe has always existed.  It has no beginning.

It is just as simple to believe the universe has always existed as it is to say God always existed.

If God existed before the universe then where was he?

Now you're getting it. Each takes a degree of belief. It's just up to you to determine which you believe. 

[fredtoast]

(05-16-2019, 06:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now you're getting it. Each takes a degree of belief. It's just up to you to determine which you believe. 

I believe in the universe because I can see it all around me.  That is pretty simple.

I was asking how I can make myself believe in your god.  I just don't see how it is possible for a person to believe something he does not believe.  

There is no choice for me.  I can't make myself do that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-16-2019, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I believe in the universe because I can see it all around me.  That is pretty simple.

I was asking how I can make myself believe in your god.  I just don't see how it is possible for a person to believe something he does not believe.  

There is no choice for me.  I can't make myself do that.

Of course we see the Universe. The $20 question is where it came from. My belief is from a supreme being and it happens to be one I consider the God of Abraham. 

You're belief is it came from nothing. I can't make myself believe that. There is no choice for me. 

As to how you can believe find a non-judgmental church that has open invitation and see if you're compelled in the least.  

[Lucidus]

(05-16-2019, 06:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The difference between an agnostic atheist and an atheist is slight, not big.  It's just a spoonful of uncertainty to make the afterlife go down.  But, I was giving an example of a presupposition, not classifying your belief as I did just now.

Agnosticism addresses knowledge, how can we know? Being agnostic is saying that you don't know, and aren't sure if you can know.

Atheism is a subset of agnosticism, simply means you lack a belief in a God or Gods. Within atheism there is "strong" atheism which proclaims there is no God, a stance I do not share. I am an agnostic atheist and feel that is the most honest position I could hold at the moment.

I'm not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

Quote:Another example: there is no evidence to support a belief in god.  Restated as a presupposition: there is no god.

No my friend, one does not necessarily follow from the other, especially since I've never claimed "there is NO evidence". As I've said a few times now, I've seen no evidence to date that would warrant a belief in a God. That does not mean no evidence exists. 

Even if one were to say "there is no evidence to support belief a in God" -  it doesn't necessarily follow that "there is no God". The could be no evidence, yet God may still exist.

X has not yet been proven does not mean X cannot be proven. The question is whether you should believe X sans proof / evidence.

Quote:You've explored "countless" examples of evidence spanning the entire course of human history and have yet to encounter a single piece of convincing evidence.  As I stated before, if you're looking for evidence to make you believe then you miss the point.  I think you know that.  

As to the bold, I can only assume you're being hyperbolic. If not, I'm concerned that you are not at all serious about this discussion. 

It seems you are choosing to ignore that not all Christians are operate on faith alone. Some believe they have proofs / evidences that God exists and that we should believe. There are many different factions of Christianity, with many different views and interpretations. 

When someone says to me they are a Christian, I usually try to understand what they mean by that, because if you were to interview 1,000 Christians, I promise you will get a myriad of responses as to what being a Christian entails and what beliefs are correct. 

When interacting with Christians of different denominations, they will often use the "No True Scotsman" card when offering why another denomination has it wrong. This is why I try to avoid assuming what they believe, and instead ask what they believe and why.

Quote:Your "non-belief" in their belief is a belief in and of itself.  I asked you for evidence of your belief.  

Except it isn't. Non-belief is the absence or lack or a belief in something. This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake. 

If you say you believe X and I say I don't believe X, only one of us has an active belief. The fact that I don't believe X doesn't mean that I believe [not] X. Therefore, what would I be offering evidence for exactly?

Quote:There is no difference between my call for evidence and your call for evidence.  

I'm asking for any proof that X is actually the case, and why people should believe X is the case at all.

You stated that my "non-belief" in X is a belief in and of itself. However, I would only have a burden of proof if I were claiming that my non-belief was correct or true in some way, even if I'm using "faith" to make that assumption. In that case, it would be a belief. However I have never held that position. 

Quote:You wrote, "Personally, if it can't be demonstrated, I feel non-belief in such a proposition is the justifiable default." Can you demonstrate there isn't a god or gods?  No, you can't.  

Correct, which is why I don't make that claim that I can, and why I think the natural default should be non-belief. It seems reasonable that non-belief would be the initial default with any claim. If you tell me you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage - I can't know 100% if that's the case or not. However, I would take the position of non-belief until it was shown to be the case that you did have said dragon, at which time I would then justifiably believe.

Quote:Does that mean you're going to default to non-belief in the proposition there is no reason to believe there is a god or gods?  Probably not.

If the proposition is "there is no reason to believe in a God or God's" - then yes, the default would be non-belief for me. People can present a million "reasons" to believe.

Quote:Your lack of evidence won't convince them.  Their lack of evidence won't convince you.  Why? Because we all have the same evidence; none.  No one has any evidence about what happens after we die.  So we're are all going to believe what we are going to believe based upon a complete lack of evidence.  Including you.

Except, people have changed their minds on both sides. They have been compelled to re-think what they believe. These topics and discussions are quite interesting in my opinion. I think they give some insight to who we are, what we desire, where we find common ground and what we are conflicted about. I dare say an existence without dialogue, inquiry and the exchanging of ideas would be the true definition of meaningless in my book. Luckily, we have these tools and they should be enjoyed and utilized as often as possible.

Quote:You're not going to find enlightenment on a football message board.  Which brings me back full circle to where are you going with this and why?

I'm not sure how you can claim to know where enlightenment can be found? Enlightenment can come in many different forms my friend and can sometimes be found where least expected.

[GMDino]

(05-16-2019, 03:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Your obsession with me aside. Fred asked how he could do something and I provided him with a method he could use. No where did I mention whose right and whose wrong. I'd go so far as to say I've never said whose right and whose wrong in matters of religion and faith.

Hell, my wife and I have argued because I've said I'd rather my child be Muslim rather than atheist. Not to say there aren't those less open-minded to the concept than I. I had an uncle who had to convert to Catholicism to marry, he was never allowed in my Grandma's house again. 

No, no, no.

Your post that I quoted just reinforced what I said about humans creating a god to explain things they didn't understand.  (Much as you didn't understand my post.  )

Nothing new about it.

Also I am TOTALLY SURE you don't think someone is right or wrong or you wouldn't still be arguing about it. 

Especially if you'd rather they not be an atheist.  

[*bfine32*]

(05-17-2019, 12:35 AM)GMDino Wrote: No, no, no.

Your post that I quoted just reinforced what I said about humans creating a god to explain things they didn't understand.  (Much as you didn't understand my post.  )

Nothing new about it.

Also I am TOTALLY SURE you don't think someone is right or wrong or you wouldn't still be arguing about it. 

Especially if you'd rather they not be an atheist.  

I can only go by what you bolded in the posts you quoted. 

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. One person tried to turn it into an argument and I ceased the back and forth. Just like I will do with you because you are free to stalk/troll in this forum. 

So because I'd rather someone do something; I'm calling someone wrong? 

I have 0 idea how the mods in this forum can look themselves in the mirror. 

[Dill]

(05-16-2019, 10:35 PM)Lucidus Wrote: Agnosticism addresses knowledge, how can we know? Being agnostic is saying that you don't know, and aren't sure if you can know.

Atheism is a subset of agnosticism, simply means you lack a belief in a God or Gods. Within atheism there is "strong" atheism which proclaims there is no God, a stance I do not share. I am an agnostic atheist and feel that is the most honest position I could hold at the moment.

I'm not sure how someone could be anything other than agnostic (whether theistic or atheistic).

No my friend, one does not necessarily follow from the other, especially since I've never claimed "there is NO evidence". As I've said a few times now, I've seen no evidence to date that would warrant a belief in a God. That does not mean no evidence exists. 

Even if one were to say "there is no evidence to support belief a in God" -  it doesn't necessarily follow that "there is no God". The could be no evidence, yet God may still exist.

X has not yet been proven does not mean X cannot be proven. The question is whether you should believe X sans proof / evidence.

As to the bold, I can only assume you're being hyperbolic. If not, I'm concerned that you are not at all serious about this discussion. 

It seems you are choosing to ignore that not all Christians are operate on faith alone. Some believe they have proofs / evidences that God exists and that we should believe. There are many different factions of Christianity, with many different views and interpretations. 

When someone says to me they are a Christian, I usually try to understand what they mean by that, because if you were to interview 1,000 Christians, I promise you will get a myriad of responses as to what being a Christian entails and what beliefs are correct. 

When interacting with Christians of different denominations, they will often use the "No True Scotsman" card when offering why another denomination has it wrong. This is why I try to avoid assuming what they believe, and instead ask what they believe and why.

Except it isn't. Non-belief is the absence or lack or a belief in something. This is a very common, oft-repeated mistake. 

If you say you believe X and I say I don't believe X, only one of us has an active belief. The fact that I don't believe X doesn't mean that I believe [not] X. Therefore, what would I be offering evidence for exactly?

I'm asking for any proof that X is actually the case, and why people should believe X is the case at all.

You stated that my "non-belief" in X is a belief in and of itself. However, I would only have a burden of proof if I were claiming that my non-belief was correct or true. In that case, it would be a belief. However I have never held that position.

Correct, which is why I don't make that claim that I can, and why I think the natural default should be non-belief. It seems reasonable that non-belief would be the initial default with any claim. If you tell me you have a fire breathing dragon in your garage - I can't know 100% if that's the case or not. However, I would take the position of non-belief until it was shown to be the case that you did have said dragon, at which time I would then justifiably believe.

If the proposition is "there is no reason to believe in a God or God's" - then yes, the default would be non-belief for me. People can present a million "reasons" to believe.

Except, people have changed their minds on both sides. They have been compelled to re-think what they believe. These topics and discussions are quite interesting in my opinion. I think they give some insight to who we are, what we desire, where we find common ground and what we are conflicted about. I dare say an existence with dialogue, inquiry and the exchanging of ideas would be the true definition of meaningless in my book. Luckily, we have these tools and they should be enjoyed and utilized as often as possible.

LOL maybe somebody had some philosophy courses.  But why would existence "with dialogue" etc be meaningless? Or did the spell check crop your "without"?

I agree with much of what you say here, although I am a "strong atheist," not an agnostic. I would say there is quite a bit of evidence to support a belief there is no god, not simply a lack of evidence that there is one. It's not a draw.

I think if someone says he/she is a Christian, then he/she has picked out a narrow band on the broad spectrum of human beliefs where one finds people who think Jesus is 1) the way to heaven or 2) at least the supreme ethical guide.  Muslims would be people who think jesus a prophet and Mohammed the final one--for the same god.

[GMDino]

(05-17-2019, 12:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I can only go by what you bolded in the posts you quoted. 

I'm not arguing, I'm discussing. One person tried to turn it into an argument and I ceased the back and forth. Just like I will do with you because you are free to stalk/troll in this forum. 

So because I'd rather someone do something; I'm calling someone wrong? 

I have 0 idea how the mods in this forum can look themselves in the mirror. 

Yes, the bold pointed out that people use "god" to explain what they do not understand and that they will never* admit that to the point of arguing/discussing for days on end ona message board that god exists because god said he exists.











































*never = There are probably outliers that can admit it but they are statistically insignificant.

[Beaker]

I am nearly certain that no god exists in the ways put forward by most religions. But I do believe there is a source of everything beyond this physical existence. Maybe I have to think this way because I simply cannot comprehend anything existing without a source. But I am sure the stories of vengeance and punishment were creations of humans used to control and subjugate other humans.

[Dill]

(05-17-2019, 09:28 AM)Beaker Wrote: I am nearly certain that no god exists in the ways put forward by most religions. But I do believe there is a source of everything beyond this physical existence. Maybe I have to think this way because I simply cannot comprehend anything existing without a source. But I am sure the stories of vengeance and punishment were creations of humans used to control and subjugate other humans.

That was Kant's view. Human brains/minds are formed to require "purposes" and purposeful creation to make sense of things. But there is no  reason to suppose "nature" is actually purposeful, or must have an "origin," just because humans have this need or limitation.

[Lucidus]

(05-17-2019, 03:00 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL maybe somebody had some philosophy courses.  But why would existence "with dialogue" etc be meaningless? Or did the spell check crop your "without"?

I agree with much of what you say here, although I am a "strong atheist," not an agnostic. I would say there is quite a bit of evidence to support a belief there is no god, not simply a lack of evidence that there is one.  It's not a draw.

I think if someone says he/she is a Christian, then he/she has picked out a narrow band on the broad spectrum of human beliefs where one finds people who think Jesus is 1) the way to heaven or 2) at least the supreme ethical guide.  Muslims would be people who think jesus a prophet and Mohammed the final one--for the same god.

Thank you for catching that. Unfortunately, I can't blame it on spell check, as I simply left out the "out".

When you say you are not agnostic, that would imply that you think it can be "known" that there is or isn't a God. I'm curious as to how we can have knowledge beyond the phenomena of our experience within reality? That is to say, how can we "know" anything about the supernatural if we can't observe, examine or evaluate it? It would seem to me that we can't. If it can't be known or is yet to be known, it would seem that agnosticism would be your parent category, with atheism as the the chosen subset. Unless you're asserting that there is, or can be, knowledge of the supernatural that we can access to determine whether a God exists?

I would agree that there are certain evidences that seem to demonstrate a God is not necessary, and others that suggest that the actual concept of God is highly unlikely to be possible. However, I would not go as far as to say there is any  evidences that prove a God doesn't exist or can't exist. 

[GMDino]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7040793/Cyclops-calf-born-one-eye-hailed-miracle-God-Indian-village.html

Quote:'Cyclops' calf born with one eye is hailed as a 'miracle of God' in Indian village

• Villagers have flocked to see the calf born with the odd deformity in West Bengal
• The calf's owner says locals believe it is the avatar of Hindu creator god Brahma 
• But vets say it is a natural birth defect and such calves only survive a few weeks
  

This calf born with a single central eye and no nose has been hailed as a 'miracle' by Indian villagers.



Locals have flocked to the village in the Ranaghat area of West Bengal state where the 'cyclops' calf was born. 


'Everything is fine until the neck, it is just the head that is bizarre,' one villager is heard to say in Bengali.




+4


People have flocked to a village in the Ranaghat area of India's West Bengal state to worship this one-eyed calf as an incarnation of the Hindu god Brahma

+4



+4



'We all think this is a miracle of God and we think this is Lord Brahma who has taken birth in our home in the avatar of the cow,' said the calf's owner 

'I have never heard of or seen anything like this in my life,' another woman adds.

'The people from the neighbouring village have now flocked to our home and are asking us if they can worship it,' said the calf's owner, who declined to be identified.

'We all think this is a miracle of God and we think this is Lord Brahma [creator god in Hinduism] who has taken birth in our home in the avatar of the cow.'

It's 2019.

[Lucidus]

(05-17-2019, 09:28 AM)Beaker Wrote: I am nearly certain that no god exists in the ways put forward by most religions. But I do believe there is a source of everything beyond this physical existence. Maybe I have to think this way because I simply cannot comprehend anything existing without a source. But I am sure the stories of vengeance and punishment were creations of humans used to control and subjugate other humans.

I watched an interesting discussion some time back that posed the question to non-believers, "What if it was proven, with 100% certainty, that the Christian God does in fact exist; would you worship him?"

After pondering the question for a bit - if the God of the Bible were proven to be real - I don't think I could bring myself to worship him, as I feel I would have to compromise my own morality to do so.