Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

These issues are not like as you might think.
Namely, that this is not happening because God commands them.

But they believe (reason, not rational) that they are. This is literally the point of that explanation.

But this is politics, another topic. If you want to, I can talk with you about politics- but do you really want that?

If you like. There's many threads for that.

Your language is quite confusing to me, to be honest. English is neither my first nor third language. But from what I see, you merely analyse my reasoning, which seems to be a subjective thing, coming to the conclusion that I should be seeing things rather positively.

Oh. Then you're reading something incorrectly.

I'm pointing out that by creating such a big deal about how life is meaningless, you're attaching far more meaning to it that the "irreligious" that you deride - who don't really care whether there's a reason behind it or not. You seem to think that we should, but haven't explained why.

To me, you are simply evading my assertions, that life is meaningless, death is inevitable and there is no reason for life to exist, even though there should be.

Not at all - though your fourth point there is wildly speculative.

It's not really an answer to ignore things.

Nor is it an answer to make things up, attribute the made up things to a group of people and then use that to attack the group. You didn't really have a problem with that though.

So, you assert that life has no real purpose and death is the inevitable result. Now explain why that is so important that either one must become a nihilistic serial rapist or accept the existence of any random deity.

Nietzsche would probably argue otherwise.

Great. He's wrong.

And dead. Inevitably.

 

[niky]

I want to hear your position, because I am currently not defining my own position. I am simply arguing for the sake of disproving.

This is what's often called "strawman" tactics. Setting up an absurdist position to counterpoint against your own. We've all provided our own positions, it's best you address those positions rather than falling back on one that has already been addressed and dissected.

So? If God (s) would have been invented, belief in him would not have spread into every corner (:^)) of this world.

False. Santa Claus is an invention. And belief in him has spread into every corner of the world.

And living in the first place is inevitably meaningless, if I know that all life will come to an end, and when I know that there is no reason to live, and when I know that all of this has already been destined- by "nature" ;^)

Pure opinion.

Your mere existence validates the biological argument for the continuation of the human race. Whether you or others accept that our role is to ensure the survival of the species doesn't change the fact that we are here because generations of people have chosen to do this.... and that we are here despite the attempts of some to derail this.

You're confusing something here. The only thing I am not accepting is that life and existence is meaningless. The rest is open to debate.

And yet, you are one of the only ones in the current discussion who can't give an answer for what the meaning of life is, or what it should be.

-

When I mentioned "twelfth grade" before, it was because this Nietschian conundrum is one typically faced by teenagers and young adults... in that same period of time where they decide whether or not to become communists, activists, radicals, or even religious fundamentalists. The search for "meaning" is universal.

You can beat yourself up forever looking for an external meaning or an external author to give meaning to your life.

Or... you can simply decide for yourself what is valuable, and proceed from there.

-

I've already given you the one axiom that's necessary to build your own ethical compass from: Human life has value. If you don't believe that, then your own life has no value, and you might as well not be alive. End of discussion.

If you do believe life has value, then it's a question of whether other lives have value. If you don't believe they do, those other people can similarly disregard the value of your life. You're now dead. End of discussion.

If you believe the lives of others have value, then you can build your ethical/moral compass from there.

If you think this is all arbitrary, it's hardly anywhere near as arbitrary as believing in one version of God over another, simply because you were born to parents who believe in that version of God.

-

You ask: What about the Bangladeshis, then? What about the Afghans? That's a tricky question. Another tricky one is: Why aren't the religious of the world selling all their worldly possessions, dressing in sackcloths and sending all their money to Bangladesh?

You've already touched upon the idea that our influence is limited, because of the sheer number of humans. But that influence is there. Whatever your current financial/residential situation, you can already exert influence locally. And that influence counts. If you'd like to exert it internationally, there's a lot of charities that could use money and/or help.

In the end, a lot of people need help. Asking about those you cannot help without heping those you can is rather pointless.

 

[Joey D]

This isn't called moral or ethical compass; that's called survival instinct. Of course one would get punished for stealing or killing; ancient civilisation and primal groups depended on every single individual.
Today, this has changed though.

What bothers me is that there is no reason for people to continue to "abide by the rules" , because all of this has become irrelevant by now. There is nothing restraining me to commit the most heinous crimes, if nobody finds out.

Where do you think morals and ethics originated from? They are a human construct based on human need. And how hasn't this changed today? Killing or stealing in today's society still affects the group, albeit not the entire population but it's still going to negatively impact some group. And if you think there's no reason to abide by a moral compass now days, I strongly suggest you look at the world around you. If everyone start killing everyone else, our society would crumble pretty quick.

I'm honestly not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore since this doesn't really have anything to do with a supernatural being. And you are sounding more and more like a sociopath, and frankly that's a tad concerning.

 

[sammy neuman]

That the existence of god can be neither proved nor disproved does not mean that both possibilities are equally likely.

That's what you said the first time. A restatement is an answer, but it is not an answer that clarifies why both possibilities are not equally likely.

And a good afternoon to @Danoff and @Imari.

 

[niky]

I will leave now, and not come back. Have fun ignoring death.

If you're quite through creating new accounts to troll everyone with your Nietzchian fantasies, then:

Goodbye, sunshine.

 

[Imari]

That's what you said the first time. A restatement is an answer, but it is not an answer that clarifies why both possibilities are not equally likely.

And a good afternoon to @Danoff and @Imari.

The irony. It burns. It burns!

 

[huskeR32]

That's what you said the first time. A restatement is an answer, but it is not an answer that clarifies why both possibilities are not equally likely.

Quite right. Apologies.

Scenario 1:
There is no proof of God's existence because she doesn't actually exist.

Scenario 2:
There is no proof of God's existence because she's an extra-dimensional omnipotent being who violates every known law of physics and purposefully hides her existence from us.

Insert any other being (say the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) into God's place here, and I suspect you're happy to recognize the first scenario as far more likely. You could point to the fact that the first scenario makes far fewer unfounded assumptions (it makes none, in fact). You could point to the fact that the second scenario is burdened by making a positive claim that's supported by not a shred of physical evidence. I could go on.

When we put God back in there, suddenly you reverse course. You give God a free pass that you don't extend to any other being. Why?

 

[Danoff]

This isn't called moral or ethical compass; that's called survival instinct. Of course one would get punished for stealing or killing; ancient civilisation and primal groups depended on every single individual.
Today, this has changed though.

What bothers me is that there is no reason for people to continue to "abide by the rules" , because all of this has become irrelevant by now. There is nothing restraining me to commit the most heinous crimes, if nobody finds out.

As is the case under all scenarios. If there is no accounting for it, there is nothing preventing you from doing it. If your God doesn't find out, what's stopping you?

Morality, naturally, exists independent of religion. In fact most religions' "morality" is actually quite immoral. Many religions borrow their morality from existing morality. Christianity has a great example in the story of the good Samaritan. The good Samaritan was someone who had never heard of Jesus, and who was not following Jesus. He was just someone behaving in a way that Jesus felt should be shared with others (assuming any of them existed at all, which you have to if you're Christian). Here's an example of Jesus borrowing an existing moral behavior that did not require Christianity as a lesson for Christians to follow.

In reality, morality simply boils down to two frameworks. Objective and subjective. Some people adhere to subjective morals - such as "I do whatever I can get away with", which puts your ability to get away with things at a higher regard than, say, someone who has other talents but is not smart at getting away with things. Other morals such as "I think homosexualty/masturbation is a sin" are based on similarly subjective assumptions that such a thing is "unnatural" or doesn't feel right - without any objective basis in rationality.

Other morality is objective, such as choice to not steal. This moral decision represents the objective notion that stealing is force, and the initiation of force is necessarily an imposition of subjective values. Similarly the choice to uphold a contract is a lack of initiation of another kind of force and is objectively moral for the same reason. These notions of morality, like the subjective ones, are also intuitive and upheld by many religious and non-religious individuals.

Adhering to a subjective moral position leaves you (objectively) at the whim of other subjective moral codes. This next part gets a bit wordy... Adhering only to objectively moral positions removes the objectivity of the imposition of a subjective moral code. Why did I word it that way? Because you can be objective all you want, but no invisible hand will stop someone from pointing a gun at you and taking your possessions. All we know is that such a thing was not warranted by your own actions, and that objectively the person guilty of the theft is open to recourse.

 

[sammy neuman]

Quite right. Apologies.

Scenario 1:
There is no proof of God's existence because she doesn't actually exist.

Don't you wish you could prove that.

Scenario 2:
There is no proof of God's existence because she's an extra-dimensional omnipotent being who violates every known law of physics and purposefully hides her existence from us.

Yes on the EDOB; those violations would by definition be miracles ( Although I think she mostly lets the universe roll it's dice freely, but reserves the right to influence the roll); and she does not purposefully hide herself, but reveals herself in non verifiable ways to preserve our free will, allowing us to believe whatever we want.

Insert any other being (say the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Flying Spaghetti Monster) into God's place here, and I suspect you're happy to recognize the first scenario as far more likely.

Indeed. More below.

You could point to the fact that the first scenario makes far fewer unfounded assumptions (it makes none, in fact).

Not so. The first scenario runs into the scientific method itself, which is silent on the existence/non-existence of deity (no objective data either way), and also assumes that our reality-as-we-see-it is in correspondence with, and is indeed representative of the full spectrum of reality-as-it-is. We cannot know if this is true. Because we cannot know this, the GIGO (garbage in...) principle comes into it. We cannot even be certain what is garbage. The entire scenario is an unfounded assumption.

You could point to the fact that the second scenario is burdened by making a positive claim that's supported by not a shred of physical evidence.

I agree. However, God has witnesses. Many, including myself have had experiences which we believe are personal interactions with God. I do know this is subjective, but none the less, we are witnesses, and it is not hearsay evidence. I don't know if this has been investigated, but it seems like someone would have. I can make some predictions: there would be some similarities in the various experiences (repeatable), and ultimately, inconclusive (unverifiable).

I could go on.

Please do.

When we put God back in there, suddenly you reverse course. You give God a free pass that you don't extend to any other being. Why?

Because Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and those pesky Flying Jackal Demon Monkey things we were threatened with a while back don't have a comparable history of witnesses.

 

[niky]

comparable history of witnesses.

If we're talking witnesses:

Ghosts, vampires, werewolves, dragons, mermaids, Nessie...

 

[Imari]

...and also assumes that our reality-as-we-see-it is in correspondence with, and is indeed representative of the full spectrum of reality-as-it-is....

No, it really, REALLY doesn't.

Scientists are far more aware than you of how many things have been discovered out of what was previously assumed to be thin air.

There is no such assumption that what we can perceive is everything. In fact, we know full well that it isn't. Scientists are fairly sure that there's more stuff out there to be found that we haven't detected yet (say, gravitational waves), and no one would be terribly surprised to find something that wasn't expected either. That's why people do science, to learn things that are new.

Don't talk rubbish about science having some all-encompassing view of the universe as it is just because it fits your argument. It's not true.

 

[huskeR32]

Don't you wish you could prove that.

No, it wouldn't change anything for me, so I don't really care.

Yes on the EDOB; those violations would by definition be miracles

Which is yet another concept which has not been demonstrated to even exist; yet another layer of assumption that your viewpoint is built upon.

( Although I think she mostly lets the universe roll it's dice freely, but reserves the right to influence the roll);

An aside here - Then you don't believe in divine omniscience?

and she does not purposefully hide herself,

So she's hidden for reasons beyond her control? What happened to the whole omnipotent thing?

but reveals herself in non verifiable ways

Another layer of assumption.

to preserve our free will, allowing us to believe whatever we want.

More fodder for the omniscience question above. Have you ever given much thought about the contradiction between divine omniscience and human free will? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on that.

Not so.

So.

If there is no objective evidence for the existence of something, then refraining from believing in that something is the only way to proceed without making any assumptions.

The first scenario runs into the scientific method itself, which is silent on the existence/non-existence of deity (no objective data either way),

The scientific method is "silent" on everything. It's a method. Why do theists insist on anthropomorphizing it?

And that there's no evidence either way is exactly my point. In the absence of evidence, refraining from belief is the only logical move to make.

and also assumes that our reality-as-we-see-it is in correspondence with, and is indeed representative of the full spectrum of reality-as-it-is.

@Imari Covered this quite adequately already.

We cannot know if this is true. Because we cannot know this, the GIGO (garbage in...) principle comes into it. We cannot even be certain what is garbage.

I'm not going to follow you down that tired old rabbit hole too far, just suffice it to say that the best thing that we can do is follow the evidence (or lack thereof) and act accordingly.

The entire scenario is an unfounded assumption.

No it's not. It can't be as assumption at all, because no claim is being made. Scenario 1 is simply refraining from believing anything at all. It's a lack of action of any kind.

I agree.

Then we're done here, right?

However,

Oh, I guess not.

God has witnesses.

No she doesn't. There are people who have witnessed events that they don't understand (perhaps often don't want to understand), and decided to attribute those events to her.

Many, including myself have had experiences which we believe are personal interactions with God.

Believe being a key word there.

I do know this is subjective, but none the less, we are witnesses,

Not to what you think you are.

and it is not hearsay evidence.

That's exactly what it is. You heard somebody say that unexplained things are God's work, and you then perpetuate that rumor by claiming the same. Pretty much the dictionary definition of hearsay.

I don't know if this has been investigated, but it seems like someone would have. I can make some predictions: there would be some similarities in the various experiences (repeatable),

Not really. I've asked countless Christians to provide me with the process to have my own date with God. She always stands me up.

and ultimately, inconclusive (unverifiable).

Most definitely.

Please do.

I don't really need to. You've done my job for me here (thanks!) and provided numerous examples of the assumptions baked into your viewpoint. As the opposing side makes no assumptions, we've established which scenario is, given the current evidence, the more likely.

Because Invisible Pink Unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, and those pesky Flying Jackal Demon Monkey things we were threatened with a while back don't have a comparable history of witnesses.

In fact they do - they've got the exact same number of witnesses as God.

 

[sammy neuman]

If we're talking witnesses:

Ghosts, vampires, werewolves, dragons, mermaids, Nessie...

Quite right, but I have no direct experience with any of these, so I have no opinion.

No, it really, REALLY doesn't.

Scientists are far more aware than you of how many things have been discovered out of what was previously assumed to be thin air.

There is no such assumption that what we can perceive is everything. In fact, we know full well that it isn't. Scientists are fairly sure that there's more stuff out there to be found that we haven't detected yet (say, gravitational waves), and no one would be terribly surprised to find something that wasn't expected either. That's why people do science, to learn things that are new.

Don't talk rubbish about science having some all-encompassing view of the universe as it is just because it fits your argument. It's not true.

I was not speaking rubbish, but I was not clear enough. The statement was in reference the scenario itself, not to science.

Which is yet another concept which has not been demonstrated to even exist; yet another layer of assumption that your viewpoint is built upon.

...and is also a concept which has not been demonstrated to not exist (that is to say, unverifiable), and I am aware of the assumptions inherent in my viewpoint.

An aside here - Then you don't believe in divine omniscience?

See below.

So she's hidden for reasons beyond her control? What happened to the whole omnipotent thing?

This is a dependent clause, why are you wasting my time?

Another layer of assumption.

Duh. Another time waster.

More fodder for the omniscience question above. Have you ever given much thought about the contradiction between divine omniscience and human free will? I'd be very interested in your thoughts on that.

IMO the contradiction is more of a concern to people what want to debate it than a concern to God, so I consider it not important.

If there is no objective evidence for the existence of something, then refraining from believing in that something is the only way to proceed without making any assumptions.

I agree. However, I do not refrain from believing.

And that there's no evidence either way is exactly my point. In the absence of evidence, refraining from belief is the only logical move to make.

And no evidence is also exactly my point. Because there is no objective evidence either way, belief or non-belief is a personal choice made subjectively. It cannot be logical, because there is ultimately no objective data on which to base a decision.

Then we're done here, right?

Yes, we are, as much of the rest depends upon point of view and personal opinion. Except this:

Not really. I've asked countless Christians to provide me with the process to have my own date with God. She always stands me up.

Maybe she just doesn't want to talk to you.

No apology, you asked for it. I couldn't resist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...and is also a concept (verifiable miracles) which has not been demonstrated to not exist (that is to say, unverifiable), and I am aware of the assumptions inherent in my viewpoint.

Oh, that should be an easy one.

Now you just need to list some verifiable/verified miracles, please.

 

[huskeR32]

...and is also a concept which has not been demonstrated to not exist (that is to say, unverifiable), and I am aware of the assumptions inherent in my viewpoint.

Again, this does not make the existence of miracles a 50/50 chance. When there's a lack of evidence that something exists, despite many people trying really hard to find some, it almost certainly does not.

This is a dependent clause, why are you wasting my time?

Baloney. If you want to run away from the question, just say so.

IMO the contradiction is more of a concern to people what want to debate it than a concern to God, so I consider it not important.

There's an inherent contradiction between two of the most fundamental claimed properties of your god, and you don't think it's worth considering?

I agree. However, I do not refrain from believing.

So you acknowledge that your view is based on multiple assumptions. This doesn't give you pause?

And no evidence is also exactly my point. Because there is no objective evidence either way

Not. Equal.

belief or non-belief is a personal choice made subjectively.

Good thing those aren't the only two options then, isn't it? My lack of belief (and similar lack of non-belief) is entirely objective.

It cannot be logical, because there is ultimately no objective data on which to base a decision.

Declining to believe in something for which there is no objective evidence is completely logical.

Yes, we are, as much of the rest depends upon point of view and personal opinion

What part of "I lack belief in god(s) because there is no objective evidence that indicates they exist" is an opinion?

Maybe she just doesn't want to talk to you.

Joke all you want, but that's a very real issue. Christians always put the onus on nonbelievers; "if you've never had a personal experience with god, it's because you're not looking."

That's baloney. I personally have made very real attempts to "find" God. Other atheists in this thread have said similar things. Apparently, she really doesn't want to know all of us. How does that fit into your belief system?

No apology, you asked for it.

I did. And your choice to just joke at it instead of making a serious attempt to answer it is part of a pattern that I'm starting to see.

I'm getting a the very distinct impression that you don't want to examine any of your beliefs very deeply at all. If we throw out the jokes, the snark, the "duh"s, and the "wasting my time"s, you offered up very little of substance here.

 

[Danoff]

@sammy neuman

Declining to believe in something for which there is no objective evidence is completely logical.

...and in fact is the only logical position. There is no objective evidence for an infinite number of potential beliefs, one cannot believe them all. In fact, believing any of them is the definition of irrational (and irrationality is required by faith). How you determine to believe in one of the things you should not believe in from among the infinite number of choices is beyond me.

Once again, lack of evidence for something's existence should result in a lack of belief in something's existence. Lack of evidence for something's non-existence is true of an infinite number of things and CANNOT result in belief of those infinite number of contradictory things.

To make this concrete, there is no evidence that Yahweh exists. There is also no evidence that Zeus, or Ra, or the great turtle exists. One cannot believe that Yahweh exists and simultaneously believe the Zeus, RA and the great turtle exist. Their mythologies are contradictory. There are an infinite number of mythologies for which there is no evidence of lack of existence. Belief in any of them because of the lack of falsifiability is irrational.

 

[DCP]

Oh, that should be an easy one.

Now you just need to list some verifiable/verified miracles, please.

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

 

[CodeRedR51]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

Speaking of verification, that requires factual proof does it not? Something severely lacking when it comes to an invisible all knowing sky daddy.

 

[Imari]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

Of course. Nobody could possibly be interested in the truth. That would be inconceivable. People are just ignoring your totally valid and factual evidence for divine miracles.

Which are what, exactly?

 

[Touring Mars]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

But if they can be verified, then belief is unnecessary.

The problem non-theists (and many others besides) have with simply believing something to be real is that without evidence such things cannot be distinguished from stuff that is just made up - it's as simple as that. Everyone (believers included) necessarily has to be able to distinguish between real and imaginary, truth from lies, fact from fiction every day - it doesn't get much more important in day-to-day life than to be able to do that. Ask anyone who has been wrongly accused of a crime or some other action they didn't do and you can appreciate the importance of evidence. Imagine if our legal and judicial system relied on what a judge believed and not what he could establish through evidence?

 

[BobK]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

That's an insult to everybody who tries to do any independent thinking.

 

[DQuaN]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

There are none.

There are only instances of something strange happening that you cannot explain so you attribute to God with no basis or reason.

 

[DCP]

Rather God than the spinning period that magically designed everything by chance.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are only instances of something strange happening that you cannot explain so you attribute to God with no basis or reason.

Rather God than the spinning period that magically designed everything by chance.

Big numbers are hard, we all know that. How many individual lives (plankton, dogs, fleas, humans) do you think have been and gone since the first life on Earth? How many trillions and trillions of tiny per-generation changes do you think there have been? The best ones stay alive, the worst ones aren't suitable and die.

I really don't see why the concept is so difficult or why people would believe that an imaginary sort-of-human man in the sky (who we can't see) just made it all one "day".

 

[Famine]

There are plenty. You just don't want them to be verified, or better, believe that it is real.

Ah, this again. You know it's bollocks, right?

We've repeatedly asked for objective methods to reveal the presence of a deity - these are never forthcoming. We've repeatedly asked for objective experiments to reveal the presence of a deity - these are never forthcoming. We've repeatedly asked for objective evidence to reveal the presence of a deity - these are never forthcoming.

As far as non-believers are concerned, you're saying you have knowledge that we don't and the scientific method is dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. We seek this knowledge. We want that knowledge. But all we ever get is a runaround - subjectivity and insults.

We learn and acquire knowledge by proving ourselves wrong. We want to be proven wrong and we try our hardest to prove ourselves wrong over and over again.

We'd love nothing more than to find anything about any deity - any deity at all - that proves us wrong.

So bring us your verified miracles.

 

[Dennisch]

So bring us your verified miracles.

Praise Jesus!

 

[Danoff]

Rather God than the spinning period that magically designed everything by chance.

A) God magically designed everything right?
B) There's nothing magical about rolling the dice a billion times and getting snake eyes every once in a while. There's not even much chance in it. When you have a 99.99999999999% chance of getting that outcome, is it chance? It's inevitable.

 

[DQuaN]

Wait, what is the "spinning period"?

I'd ask Vic but I'm kind of afraid to...

 

[CodeRedR51]

Rather God than the spinning period that magically designed everything by chance.

"I don't know, therefore God".

Where have we heard this before?

 

[DCP]

1. Many people desire miracles from God. They want God to perform miracles to “prove” Himself to them. “If only God would perform a miracle, sign, or wonder, then I would believe!” This idea, though, is contradicted by Scripture. When God performed amazing and powerful miracles for the Israelites, did that cause them to obey Him? No, the Israelites constantly disobeyed and rebelled against God even though they saw all the miracles. The same people who saw God part the Red Sea later doubted whether God was able to conquer the inhabitants of the Promised Land. This truth is explained in Luke 16:19-31. In the story, a man in hell asks Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers. Abraham informed the man, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31).
   
   Jesus performed countless miracles, yet the vast majority of people did not believe in Him. If God performed miracles today as He did in the past, the result would be the same. People would be amazed and would believe in God for a short time. That faith would be shallow and would disappear the moment something unexpected or frightening occurred. A faith based on miracles is not a mature faith. God performed the greatest “God miracle” of all time in coming to earth as the Man Jesus Christ to die on the cross for our sins (Romans 5:
   
   so that we could be saved (John 3:16). God does still perform miracles—many of them simply go unnoticed or are denied. However, we do not need more miracles. What we need is to believe in the miracle of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.
   
   https://www.google.co.za/?gfe_rd=cr&...+today&tbm=vid
   
   
   As I said, if you choose a rejecting heart, why would you believe anything of God?
   That's why He says, every knee shall bow when He returns. They would all know immediately who He is.

@Danoff No, is wasn't magical. He Spoke everything into existence. He condemns magic, as you can imagine how many people think magicians are god like today.