Do You Know Why You Don't Believe? (beliefs, experience, atheist)

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by diemisus

well, the bible dictates that the earth is only 4,000 years old (which consequentially makes the universe only 4,000 years old), which means that dinosaurs couldn't have existed, which everybody knows is not true. And everybody knows the earth is not 4, 000 years old, try more like 4-5 billion years old. Stuff in the bible just doesn't add up.

Also, how exactly is the age of the earth tied in with the age of the universe?

Stuff in the bible doesn't add up? No, it doesn't, that's because it was written by idiots who couldn't figure out what caused the rain to fall.

[Tiberius]

So given that every holy text on the planet can be discounted because of that, what evidence is there to support the existence of God?

[s2a]

Hi SuperUniverse,

You said:

Critical thinking/logic should be throughout our species as a whole? No.

Each person has a unique set of personality elements. A mother might say that her child gets something from her and that the child gets some other thing from the father but this is not true. The child is human so it has a human personality set, naturally there are some similarity between the mother and father but each child's personality is unique, never seen before. The blend and strength of each personality element determines the child's primary nature. Environment then begins to play a role and actually becomes a greater effect.

*yawn*

The painfully obvious is now a part of the record...next?

And now you've hit upon the purpose of this thread. I want to know why you don't believe? What happened to you that won't allow you to believe in God?

You are dense, aren't you?

Not deep...just dense.

Dense, like granite. Hardened faith throughout, top to bottom. Some perceive such a trait as reflective of strength, solidity, and impermeability. I see it as a nice surface upon which to gut fish, and prepare dinner.

Just the same...answers abound.

People doubt for various reasons, something happened to them to cause it. You set your own rules for what you will come to believe.

That's crap. If you honestly and sincerely believe that rendered conclusion to be true...then you will NEVER come to understand or appreciate a skeptical perspective...or ever begin to even attempt to intellectually engage such a perspective.

We all have something "happening to us" (or around us) every millisecond of our existence. So what?

Some things "happen" (to us) that are a direct result of actions and phenomena that we manifest and control. When I exercise, I maintain my own physical fitness.

Some things "happen" (to us) that are utterly beyond our control to either manage or alter in any way (like gravity, or our planet orbiting the sun).

Whether or not I "believe" that I can (naturally; not artificially) fly, or breathe under water; or that planetary/stellar "alignments" (or "special" juxtapositions) quite literally affect me on a personal level; or that prayer can alter the ambiguous course of any given hurricane...for good or ill..."things happen" to us all==whether or not we might wish for a certain "something" to be the causal agent to either blame, or praise in dutiful worship.

I just want to know where you set them. Proof of God is the universe yet you refuse to accept it while believing in gravity which you have no proof of whatsoever.
You don't even know where it comes from.

I can measure gravity. The effects of gravity upon objects is predictable enough to allow complex robotic missions to planets and moons billions of miles from Earth (despite it's "unproven" and "theoretical" flaws of omission and "gaps"). I can predict *exactly* how fast (in terms of acceleration) you will fall from atop a forty-story building. The only "Proof of God" (as a condition of "belief") I require is that an existent "god" be subject to the same observational measures and objective tests that any other natural phenomena endures. Gravity (as a measured, testable, and objectively observable phenomena) "exists", despite any definitively burdened proofs that propose to answer (in the most compelling terms available) the "whereof" of an undeniably existent phenomena. "I don't know" remains one of the most "scientific" available answers to any (as yet) unexplained natural phenomena. What elements of reasonable doubt are permitted or energetically encouraged in matters of faith-based claims and beliefs?

[I might at this time wryly observe that you provide no explanation, nor "theory", as to where your favored deity "comes from". Despite that glaring omission on your part, the cosmos remains just the same. Funny that.

It's almost as if..."Proof of God" is utterly moot to any rational explanations of the observable cosmos. I can (and often do) directly observe (through my telescope) galaxies, stars, and stellar phenomena that existed millions and billions of years ago. I readily concede to you that I do not look for (or seek out) some interstellar billboard/roadsign that advertises: "God slept here", or; "Eat at God's Diner", or; "God's Promised Heaven--Exit 17, two galaxies ahead on the left". But believe me when I tell you..if I ever did see such a "sign", I'd share my sighting immediately, and reliably expect that every skeptic available would effort to either confirm or debunk my "vision" as being either credible or incredulous.]

Every validated scientific theory (whether it be "Gravity", "Big Bang", or "Evolution") presents not only testable evidences (which lead to scientific predictions of things yet undiscovered/"unproved"), but each and every theory (or premised hypothesis) presents a clear and compelling allowance for a falsifying component of compelling "disproof".

I accept "Gravitational Theory" as reasonably assertive "fact" (on the whole) as it it presented and understood today...predicated upon the overwhelming evidences and accurate predictions it provides within that understanding. Gravity "works" the same way (and predictably so) for everyone involved in it's grasp. It requires no requisite "leap of faith" to "believe" in gravity.

Still..."God (theories)" present(s) nothing but claims; and submit neither methods nor means by which to either test (by scientific methods) or falsify any attendant claims therein.

Conversely, I put to you for considered reply...
"What proof would you require/demand to utterly disbelieve in your claimed "god"?

What "evidence" would dispel (beyond all reasonable doubts) your faith in a deity?

What? Exactly? Specifically?

Can personal faith be measured or scaled for scientific comparisons?

What does your "god theory" accurately predict for subsequent, objectively observed, and independently obtained validation/falsification?

Is a personal and abiding faith (in god) comparable in ANY way, to ANY scientific method whatsoever?

After treading through your literary junkyard you have the gall to reply "Ummm, what?" Instead of attempting, and failing, to sound smart with your complicated word structure (you make it boring) maybe you should develop enough confidence in yourself to keep it simple. Making it complex doesn't make it better. No one is writing a science paper here. You're not impressing anyone except yourself, it's like a man who laughs at his own jokes that no one else gets.

I "predict" that you will not be the last of my many detractors to attach both pretense and obtuse intellectualism to my considered rebuttals. Just know that self-serving characterizations of either idiotic--or thoughtful--replies do not fruitfully lend compelling answer to any presented salient point put forward for reflexive commentary on your part. Rhetorical inquiries in rebuttal serve no less. If you are bored by my commentaries...move along.

Critical thinking does not deny the existence of God. See how simple and easy that was?

I concede that your statement is indeed facile, and unremarkable.

You claim you have no expectations from God? Except to prove Himself to you.

Nope.

Again, you seek to fashion the argument at large within your own comfortable (and constricting) boundaries.

I have presented you with the opportunity to address (and possibly understand or refute) my position on this very concept...by direct referenced link to my thread "How to prove God to an Atheist (no really)"...

...have at it, or don't.

Tribal man, in his struggle to understand nature, blamed God for every unknown thing: disease, meteors, floods, storms, drought, birth defects... Various cultures naturally gave the Creator different names just as there are many names for water, but I'm sure you think it's something completely different, after all, it's not called water so then it must be something else then.

You may consider your revisited metaphor compelling or relevant...but it's not (really).

Rational debate does not include insults but since you want to go that route I can easily accomodate you. Since you can't discuss this without getting your dandruff up maybe you should go back to your normal, failed, practice of impressing your students who are going farther in life than you are and leaving you behind.

Your informed and insightful counsel will be lent all the consideration it is due...I promise. I will leave others to arrive upon their own conclusions as to whom, betwixt us, is more "rational" in debate of the OP.

[s2a]

God never interferes with living things? Never, but that does not mean prayer isn't useful. You're not going to get any return or reward from God but you must might make yourself feel better and if that is not enough for you then you shouldn't be praying in the first place. It's like giving a small gift and expecting a bigger one in return.

I see...not unlike promising to be "good" (in obeying "God's rules"), in the expectant promise of...what "reward"? Does your god tender no promises of reward to the piously adherent and faithful? None?

Now, there are things that you don't understand about energy (not EMR energy, another type, think spiritual). This energy can be given away and received but not taken.

Indeed. I concede that I DON'T understand "spiritual energy". Is there a scientific methodology that allows anyone to both objectively observe and measure such an "energy"? Put another way...can "unbelievers" even hope to experience such "energy" in the absence of "faith"? Can "spiritual energy" be measured, observed, quantified, qualified, tested, or objectively defined? If so, then by what means/measures? Is an accepting/abiding faith requisite (or not) to any "understanding" of this alleged/claimed "spiritual energy"?

It is possible to help other living things by praying for them but that does not mean you can always make a sick person well. The person's mindset controls their own energy and this has much more effect on their body.

I get it...now. Everyone deserves their own spiritual "Reading Room". Faith is empowered (prospectively...if applied piously and properly) to heal all medical ailments. No wonder most Republicans rail against proposals/concepts of "universal" health care (or federally-funded stem-cell research). Perhaps...only the "faithful" should be "delivered" from disease and debilitation.

"God only heals His 'true believers'! (assuming that their mindset is bent on healing, I suppose)".

Amen.

Define the purpose of the earth and universe? To learn.

To learn...WHAT?

EXACTLY?

SPECIFICALLY?

What?

Once that "purpose" is successfully attained/fulfilled...then what?

What am I doing? Try these:
Ryan's Well Foundation

Kiva.org - Loans that change lives

MSF-USA: HOMEPAGE

Cool. I wholeheartedly applaud your involved/engaged efforts. Really, I do.

You feel sympathy and pity for those who believe in God?

Pretty much...yep..

But even if God did not exist, what do they lose? Why do they still gain?

A false dilemma and excluded middle argument combined (kudos to you in tendering such a recipe)! If any "god" VERITABLY does NOT exist, then "believers" promote a cheap lie at best; and at worst...otherwise serve to substantiate/validate a warping delusion of unspeakable motivations and deeds...all steeped in superstition, myth, legend, rumor, and religiously-motivated claims of absolutism and inerrant "truth".

Which human trait is more "valuable"?

Confidence (of one's own convitcions), or curiosity? Is it "better" to be resolute and unwavering in what you "believe" to be true (or "truth")...or is it "better" to wonder, and ask, and explore...new/distant/undefined realms? Which seems more human?

The claimed "gains" of any faith-based belief can not begin to offset the harm and impact that such a belief can maliciously manifest within any free-thinking society.

Hmm, back to the insults again. What is it about you that requires you to have agreement?

I require compelling arguments predicated and founded upon evidenced burdens subject to reasonable doubt. What standards do you require?

Is that why you are a teacher? Because the books are already full of the right information found by others but you can preach it as if it's your discovery and the students are forced by law to listen to you?

[Bait acknowledged as inexpertly cast...but sighted nonetheless].

Law does not constrict nor limit the boundaries of whatever I choose to impart to prospective students as being either definitively informed insight or well-tested knowledge.

That's the "fun" (and rewarding) thing about "teaching". It's NOT about preaching conformity...nor in esposuing/validating some rote adherence to ANY particular set of "beliefs"...

..it's about teaching (young) people how to THINK for THEMSELVES...not about how an individual might readily accept (and ardently espouse) claims that neither require--nor provide--ANY burdened proofs as validation of any particular faith-based claims/beliefs/perspective.

Skepticism actually invites intellectual inquiry/exploration.
Religious faith seeks to reinforce dogmatic teachings, and/or otherwise ordained prescriptions of inalterable "truths".

There is nothing more dangerous, or hopeful...than a young mind both unleashed and informed; to ultimately think on it's own, of it's own motivations/interests/goals.

Jeremiah 5:21--seems to fit arguments both for and against intellectual or faith-based perceptions of any given/relevant "truth" (if that tome has any relevance or part in your faith-based beliefs).

"What happened to you that won't allow you to believe in God?"

My natural capacities for free thought and free will. You seem to "believe" that ONLY (your) "God" could bestow or grant such "natural" abilities of concerted and rational discernment/deliberation. If so, then I am fated--"designed' (if you like)--to yet remain a skeptic. IF something can be said to have "happened" to me, it would probably be attributed to my exposure to the processes of critical thinking (some call it "reason") itself..

If your god doesn't want me to believe in him, who are you to question His manifest "plan" or divine "Will"?

[Note: Your favored god is but one of literally thousands of claimed gods (or demi-gods, spirits, forces, or anthropomorphic entities) throughout the entirety of recorded human history...right up to the present day. Ask.. say...a Hindu, a Pagan, or a religious Taoist about their god beliefs, and they'd probably say "OK, which one (or particular) god do you want to discuss?". And I dare say that most would readily dismiss any comparisons/allusions suggesting that their god is any relation of yours.]

Perhaps you should modify your inquiry to suit your own expectations and preconceived notions, and ask instead:
"What happened to you that won't allow you to believe in MY God?"
[This is where you could specify just which god is "the" GOD (either by attributed name, or as an otherwise supreme deity, as referenced within some authoritative religious text/story/mythology that serves as foundation of your beliefs).]

I have done you the courtesy of lending specific answer to your OP, and addressing other points/rebuttals you have offered up in reply.

I conclude that you either can not (in lacking adequate skills of comprehension), or will not (in obstructive and rigid faith) accept my answer(s) as earnest, informed, and genuine. I am neither preternaturally inclined, nor remotely motivated to delve further as to which condition predominates your evident mindset, and persistently myopic rebuttals.

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by s2a

Hi SuperUniverse,

You said:
*yawn*

The painfully obvious is now a part of the record...next?

You are dense, aren't you?

Not deep...just dense.

Dense, like granite. Hardened faith throughout, top to bottom. Some perceive such a trait as reflective of strength, solidity, and impermeability. I see it as a nice surface upon which to gut fish, and prepare dinner.

Just the same...answers abound.

That's crap. If you honestly and sincerely believe that rendered conclusion to be true...then you will NEVER come to understand or appreciate a skeptical perspective...or ever begin to even attempt to intellectually engage such a perspective.

We all have something "happening to us" (or around us) every millisecond of our existence. So what?

Some things "happen" (to us) that are a direct result of actions and phenomena that we manifest and control. When I exercise, I maintain my own physical fitness.

Some things "happen" (to us) that are utterly beyond our control to either manage or alter in any way (like gravity, or our planet orbiting the sun).

Whether or not I "believe" that I can (naturally; not artificially) fly, or breathe under water; or that planetary/stellar "alignments" (or "special" juxtapositions) quite literally affect me on a personal level; or that prayer can alter the ambiguous course of any given hurricane...for good or ill..."things happen" to us all==whether or not we might wish for a certain "something" to be the causal agent to either blame, or praise in dutiful worship.

I can measure gravity. The effects of gravity upon objects is predictable enough to allow complex robotic missions to planets and moons billions of miles from Earth (despite it's "unproven" and "theoretical" flaws of omission and "gaps"). I can predict *exactly* how fast (in terms of acceleration) you will fall from atop a forty-story building. The only "Proof of God" (as a condition of "belief") I require is that an existent "god" be subject to the same observational measures and objective tests that any other natural phenomena endures. Gravity (as a measured, testable, and objectively observable phenomena) "exists", despite any definitively burdened proofs that propose to answer (in the most compelling terms available) the "whereof" of an undeniably existent phenomena. "I don't know" remains one of the most "scientific" available answers to any (as yet) unexplained natural phenomena. What elements of reasonable doubt are permitted or energetically encouraged in matters of faith-based claims and beliefs?

[I might at this time wryly observe that you provide no explanation, nor "theory", as to where your favored deity "comes from". Despite that glaring omission on your part, the cosmos remains just the same. Funny that.

It's almost as if..."Proof of God" is utterly moot to any rational explanations of the observable cosmos. I can (and often do) directly observe (through my telescope) galaxies, stars, and stellar phenomena that existed millions and billions of years ago. I readily concede to you that I do not look for (or seek out) some interstellar billboard/roadsign that advertises: "God slept here", or; "Eat at God's Diner", or; "God's Promised Heaven--Exit 17, two galaxies ahead on the left". But believe me when I tell you..if I ever did see such a "sign", I'd share my sighting immediately, and reliably expect that every skeptic available would effort to either confirm or debunk my "vision" as being either credible or incredulous.]

Every validated scientific theory (whether it be "Gravity", "Big Bang", or "Evolution") presents not only testable evidences (which lead to scientific predictions of things yet undiscovered/"unproved"), but each and every theory (or premised hypothesis) presents a clear and compelling allowance for a falsifying component of compelling "disproof".

I accept "Gravitational Theory" as reasonably assertive "fact" (on the whole) as it it presented and understood today...predicated upon the overwhelming evidences and accurate predictions it provides within that understanding. Gravity "works" the same way (and predictably so) for everyone involved in it's grasp. It requires no requisite "leap of faith" to "believe" in gravity.

Still..."God (theories)" present(s) nothing but claims; and submit neither methods nor means by which to either test (by scientific methods) or falsify any attendant claims therein.

Conversely, I put to you for considered reply...
"What proof would you require/demand to utterly disbelieve in your claimed "god"?

What "evidence" would dispel (beyond all reasonable doubts) your faith in a deity?

What? Exactly? Specifically?

Can personal faith be measured or scaled for scientific comparisons?

What does your "god theory" accurately predict for subsequent, objectively observed, and independently obtained validation/falsification?

Is a personal and abiding faith (in god) comparable in ANY way, to ANY scientific method whatsoever?

I "predict" that you will not be the last of my many detractors to attach both pretense and obtuse intellectualism to my considered rebuttals. Just know that self-serving characterizations of either idiotic--or thoughtful--replies do not fruitfully lend compelling answer to any presented salient point put forward for reflexive commentary on your part. Rhetorical inquiries in rebuttal serve no less. If you are bored by my commentaries...move along.

I concede that your statement is indeed facile, and unremarkable.

Nope.

Again, you seek to fashion the argument at large within your own comfortable (and constricting) boundaries.

I have presented you with the opportunity to address (and possibly understand or refute) my position on this very concept...by direct referenced link to my thread "How to prove God to an Atheist (no really)"...

...have at it, or don't.

You may consider your revisited metaphor compelling or relevant...but it's not (really).

Your informed and insightful counsel will be lent all the consideration it is due...I promise. I will leave others to arrive upon their own conclusions as to whom, betwixt us, is more "rational" in debate of the OP.

Hardened faith? Actually I am a man of little faith. I trust bridges and buildings because I have to. I trust people like the police and firemen and doctors because I have to. As for God and the universe, faith never comes into it. I know.

Maybe next time, instead of your tired old rant that avoids answering the question (you remember the OP don't you?) you could just say "I'd rather not answer it at this time". You're not impressing anyone with your insults and you are never going to intimidate me. Ever.

We all have something happening to us every millisecond of our existence? Yes we do but we don't all handle it the same way. Some men cower in battle, others charge ahead. It's the same battle.

You can measure gravity? It seems you need to be able to predict something in order to believe in it. You need to understand it to a level that you feel is acceptable. So, since you don't understand God, since you can't comprehend how or why, you refuse to believe.

Glaring omission? Sigh... I posted where God came from long ago in this thread. You make claims without even attempting to find the answers. Something made you very stubborn, so much that you have to be provided everything, you can't and won't find or discover anything yourself.

Now you want me to answer questions when you refuse to answer the OP? I'll give you an example instead: A mother loses her young son in a terrible accident. There is nothing she could have done to prevent it yet she still feels guilty. A year later she is still having trouble dealing with her loss and a foolish man tells her "He's gone. Just forget about the boy like he never existed". Do you think it is possible for her to forget about something she knows absolutely positively without a doubt? If so, then you are the foolish man.

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by s2a

I see...not unlike promising to be "good" (in obeying "God's rules"), in the expectant promise of...what "reward"? Does your god tender no promises of reward to the piously adherent and faithful? None?

Indeed. I concede that I DON'T understand "spiritual energy". Is there a scientific methodology that allows anyone to both objectively observe and measure such an "energy"? Put another way...can "unbelievers" even hope to experience such "energy" in the absence of "faith"? Can "spiritual energy" be measured, observed, quantified, qualified, tested, or objectively defined? If so, then by what means/measures? Is an accepting/abiding faith requisite (or not) to any "understanding" of this alleged/claimed "spiritual energy"?

I get it...now. Everyone deserves their own spiritual "Reading Room". Faith is empowered (prospectively...if applied piously and properly) to heal all medical ailments. No wonder most Republicans rail against proposals/concepts of "universal" health care (or federally-funded stem-cell research). Perhaps...only the "faithful" should be "delivered" from disease and debilitation.

"God only heals His 'true believers'! (assuming that their mindset is bent on healing, I suppose)".

Amen.

To learn...WHAT?

EXACTLY?

SPECIFICALLY?

What?

Once that "purpose" is successfully attained/fulfilled...then what?

Cool. I wholeheartedly applaud your involved/engaged efforts. Really, I do.

Pretty much...yep..

A false dilemma and excluded middle argument combined (kudos to you in tendering such a recipe)! If any "god" VERITABLY does NOT exist, then "believers" promote a cheap lie at best; and at worst...otherwise serve to substantiate/validate a warping delusion of unspeakable motivations and deeds...all steeped in superstition, myth, legend, rumor, and religiously-motivated claims of absolutism and inerrant "truth".

Which human trait is more "valuable"?

Confidence (of one's own convitcions), or curiosity? Is it "better" to be resolute and unwavering in what you "believe" to be true (or "truth")...or is it "better" to wonder, and ask, and explore...new/distant/undefined realms? Which seems more human?

The claimed "gains" of any faith-based belief can not begin to offset the harm and impact that such a belief can maliciously manifest within any free-thinking society.

I require compelling arguments predicated and founded upon evidenced burdens subject to reasonable doubt. What standards do you require?

[Bait acknowledged as inexpertly cast...but sighted nonetheless].

Law does not constrict nor limit the boundaries of whatever I choose to impart to prospective students as being either definitively informed insight or well-tested knowledge.

That's the "fun" (and rewarding) thing about "teaching". It's NOT about preaching conformity...nor in esposuing/validating some rote adherence to ANY particular set of "beliefs"...

..it's about teaching (young) people how to THINK for THEMSELVES...not about how an individual might readily accept (and ardently espouse) claims that neither require--nor provide--ANY burdened proofs as validation of any particular faith-based claims/beliefs/perspective.

Skepticism actually invites intellectual inquiry/exploration.
Religious faith seeks to reinforce dogmatic teachings, and/or otherwise ordained prescriptions of inalterable "truths".

There is nothing more dangerous, or hopeful...than a young mind both unleashed and informed; to ultimately think on it's own, of it's own motivations/interests/goals.

Jeremiah 5:21--seems to fit arguments both for and against intellectual or faith-based perceptions of any given/relevant "truth" (if that tome has any relevance or part in your faith-based beliefs).

My natural capacities for free thought and free will. You seem to "believe" that ONLY (your) "God" could bestow or grant such "natural" abilities of concerted and rational discernment/deliberation. If so, then I am fated--"designed' (if you like)--to yet remain a skeptic. IF something can be said to have "happened" to me, it would probably be attributed to my exposure to the processes of critical thinking (some call it "reason") itself..

If your god doesn't want me to believe in him, who are you to question His manifest "plan" or divine "Will"?

[Note: Your favored god is but one of literally thousands of claimed gods (or demi-gods, spirits, forces, or anthropomorphic entities) throughout the entirety of recorded human history...right up to the present day. Ask.. say...a Hindu, a Pagan, or a religious Taoist about their god beliefs, and they'd probably say "OK, which one (or particular) god do you want to discuss?". And I dare say that most would readily dismiss any comparisons/allusions suggesting that their god is any relation of yours.]

Perhaps you should modify your inquiry to suit your own expectations and preconceived notions, and ask instead:
"What happened to you that won't allow you to believe in MY God?"
[This is where you could specify just which god is "the" GOD (either by attributed name, or as an otherwise supreme deity, as referenced within some authoritative religious text/story/mythology that serves as foundation of your beliefs).]

I have done you the courtesy of lending specific answer to your OP, and addressing other points/rebuttals you have offered up in reply.

I conclude that you either can not (in lacking adequate skills of comprehension), or will not (in obstructive and rigid faith) accept my answer(s) as earnest, informed, and genuine. I am neither preternaturally inclined, nor remotely motivated to delve further as to which condition predominates your evident mindset, and persistently myopic rebuttals.

God promises nothing. If you don't like it, tough... build your own universe then.
Is there scientific method to detect spiritual energy? You're not there yet, give it another 80 years or so.

Can unbelievers experience this energy? Just as everyone else, we all experience it we just don't realize it. Why do you think people crave power? Having control over others gives them a boost.

You intentionally misunderstood. God does not heal anyone, people give their energy to others when they pray for them. PEOPLE! Not God. I also said you cannot always make others well and you chose to read it as saying that faith can heal all ailments. Now why would you twist it around like that? What would you be afraid of? You are afraid of that which you do not understand so you don't believe in those things and it makes you feel safe.

To learn what? All there is to learn. Think of yourself as God. You are supreme in the void. Just you and nothingness