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

[Kcnorwood]

I got one when those who call themselves Christians fight among themselves over what docterine is right & what this or that word means why should anyone else believe them?

[UnTheist]

Wow, this is still going on?

And since when was a person required to "provide evidence supporting their disbelief", when evidence to the contrary hasn't been provided in the first place?

[Super Universe]

Originally Posted by UnTheist

Wow, this is still going on?

And since when was a person required to "provide evidence supporting their disbelief", when evidence to the contrary hasn't been provided in the first place?

You're not required to do anything.

Whatever a person believes, they do so for a reason. Things begin to add up and faith builds. There is nothing that is absolute, we just have lesser degrees of doubt.

[UnTheist]

But it isn't a belief system.

[Runt]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

We as humans use our senses to create a useful construct of what is actually there. God however can not be sensed by any of the 5 senses. It is purely memetic and a story or idea passed down from one aeon to the next.

...

People may justify why they cant or wont do those things but that will never change that god can not be percieved by any means humans currently have of perceiving. His story, works, a preachers words and tales are what people derive this belief from.

And yet there have been many mystics and religious individuals who claim to have had experiences---both sensory and supersensory---of God. Some of the more interesting examples include textual accounts such as the hierophanies and theophanies of Moses and Ezekiel in the Bible (burning bush and God upon the throne-chariot) and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita, Christian and Muslim love mysticism---particularly with certain forms of Sufism---and the "consolations" experienced by Teresa de Avila and many Catholic women, both in Teresa's time as well as today. who read her treatise on prayer. Most simply, the sense that the Holy Ghost, God or Christ is speaking to one during prayer or even everyday tasks is a common example of the kinds of sensory and supersensory experiences people claim to have today.

It is only when we try to repeat these experiences, to subject the idea of God to scientific testing---that people fail to produce tangible evidence for the existence of a divine reality. While I'm certainly not about to argue that the experiences religious individuals claim to have had are genuine---I'll be honest and say that while I believe they have indeed had experiences, I'm an atheist and don't believe those experiences were actually of the divine---I do recognize that claims have been made, and some people truly believe that they had the experience they claim to have had.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Some claim to sense god, or that he answers their prayers, or that they actually hear god. I perceive that in the same fashion as some people can taste shapes, have split personalites or believe in vampires.

On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree with you. On the other, if mystical experiences are delusions, they're pretty impressive and widespread ones, since so many people claim, at the very least, to have had their prayers answered.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I'm not being derogatory its just how I reason their claims. If god is talking to them perhaps they should ask him to reveal himself and if he is answering their prayers perhaps they should pray everyone be enlightened with his purpose or for world peace.

Come now, you and I both know how religious individuals respond to this very criticism. Some feel God HAS revealed himself---to everyone---and that people who disagree are just in denial. Others argue that God is helping everyone become enlightened but some just aren't ready yet or aren't listening. Yet others argue that God cannot or will not force world peace upon the humanity because that either interferes with our free will or because even conflict and suffering are a part of God's great, mysterious plan.

My main criticism to the above is:
1) If God has a plan, to enact that plan either necessitates manipulating humanity into playing our parts in that plan, or it's possible that God's plan can fail, which suggests God is not perfect or even omnipotent.
2) If God is helping everyone become enlightened, but some people die before they have reached that point, then God has failed to enlighten a person and therefore, again, is not perfect, omnipotent, or quite possibly even beneficent.
3)If God has revealed himself, but it is possible to be in denial about his existence, then he hasn't revealed himself thoroughly enough. We should be compelled to accept his existence; denial should not even be possible, although defiance may be.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Now to each their own, people can believe whatever they want to believe within the confines of their own personal freedoms. You can be catholic, baptist, hindu, UU or whatever... I can accept that. I do ponder though, like Dawkins argues in the "God Delusion" whether religion is more harmful to a person and society then it is helpful.

This is a question I've always been curious about, as well. I wish someone would figure out a way to measure the amount of demonstrable benefit and harm religion has done to individuals and society over history and compare the two to determine which is more significant. I'd also be interested in comparing the above figures to those of various secular ideologies, to see how religion compares to capitalism, to communism, to democracy, to fascism, to humanism, and so on and so forth. It would be quite a task, however, to untangle religious from political or motivations in any of the above categories.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Super Universe

Whatever a person believes, they do so for a reason. Things begin to add up and faith builds. There is nothing that is absolute, we just have lesser degrees of doubt.

And I suppose that this is absolutely true?

[s2a]

Hiya SuperUniverse,

You said:

What's left to settle? What do you still want to debate? You don't have to believe. Get over it.

What's left?

I KNOW I don't have to believe. Do you KNOW that you don't "have to" too?

I "instigated" this thread? Hehe... So that is an instigation now?

Ummm...yes.

instigate, verb:
[to] set in motion, get underway, get off the ground, start, commence, begin, initiate, launch, institute, set up, inaugurate, establish, organize; actuate, generate, bring about; start the ball rolling on, kick off."

Is this definition somehow unclear, or otherwise incomprehensible to you?

From what I remember, no one answered the question sufficiently. All I got was "I see no reason to believe" as if you need absolute proof for everything when there are so many things that you trust (cars, homes, bridges, airplanes, gravity, food, people...) without knowing the full background of.

What?

You specifically asked, "Do you know why you don't believe?"

In the manner that the question is specifically put, a simple "yes" or "no" reply satisfactorily fulfills the demands of an expectant response.

Perhaps you would like to ask (instead), "Would you care to explain or justify why you don't believe [that particular faith-based claims are either true, or are "unbelievable")?

Certainly, any respondent is welcomed to present any "proofs" of any kind to either preface or legitimize their replies in whatever manner or tendered argument they choose.

I would be a sorry sort if I felt that I had to validate myself to you.

Which, of course, was not an expressed expectation of mine to be fulfilled by you, or anyone else.

In the grand scheme of things, who are you? In the ungrand scheme of things, who are you? Zero is still zero regardless of the changing weather.

Deflect much?

Again...this ain't about me, or whatever "scheme" you perceive myself to either supposedly support or defend.

I note that the question itself remains valid (and perhaps interesting to others), regardless of whom may put it forward for invited reply.

[gnostic]

I know this is an old topic, but this is the 1st time I have come across it. But since someone has bump up this topic, I would like to address the earlier posts, between Super Universe and Buttercup.

Originally Posted by super universe

You need reasonable proof? Sure, that's it. But you set your standard of what you consider reasonable proof. Your standard may be very different from another's standard, certainly, your statement of requiring God to come over and introduce Himself is quite strict.

Buttercup is more than reasonable in wanting evidence. Heck, I would like to see some evidences for myself. I don't see anything wrong with her "standard", as you've put it, as being reasonable proof. And I don't believe her ego have anything to do with it.

Your way thinking that she shouldn't have proof is far more egotistic and unreasonable.