What would it take for you to NOT believe in God?

[Spirit of Light]

You seem to have this tendency of speaking in absolutes.

Ever heared the saying "never say never"?
You don't know what the future has in store for us.

That goes for myself, as well as you and everybody else.

Can I ask why you tell believers that they are wrong, or only claim something?
Belief is not claiming, belief is understanding of something, when understood it is no longer a belief it become wisdom from within one self.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I should not have said "nothing" because Imo the number of people who believe in God is an indicator that God most likely exists

That is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

, but that does not prove that God exists. As I said, it would be a fallacious argument to say that just because many or most people believe in God, God exists.

It's fallacious either way.
The number of people who believe has NOTHING to do with the probability of the claim being true. Nothing at all. It doesn't prove the claim, it doesn't support the claim, it doesn't make the claim more likely to be true in any way.

In other words, the number of people who believe in God does not prove that God exists, it is only am indicator

.

No, it's not.

It is an indicator because one would have to ask why that many people would believe in a nonexistent entity.

Superstition, ignorance, mistaken,....

Why did 100% of people one day believe in geocentrism?

To carry that a step further, there must be evidence for God's existence given that most people believe in God.

Euh.... consider every one of those people believes the god claims on FAITH, the exact opposite is true: there must be NO evidence - which is exactly why they require "faith".

The reason that nobody believes in the flying spaghetti monster is because there is is no evidence for him.

No. The actual reason why nobody believes in the FSM, is because it is satire and a parody of religion and everybody knows that.

People, even well educated ones, are very capable of believing the most incredible crazy nonsense... on "faith" you can believe anything. Go read the backstory of scientology for example.

To carry that a step further, atheists say they do not believe in God because there is no evidence, so why so all the believers see the evidence for God whereas the atheists don't see it?

There is no evidence. What some believers call "evidence", isn't evidence at all and instead just a bunch of fallacious reasoning errors... like circular reasoning, special pleading, argumentum ad populum, arguments from ignorance, etc.

Most believers admit there is no evidence and that that is why they take it all on faith.
Because faith is what you need to believe something for which there is no evidence.


And is there ANYTHING that you can't believe on faith? Nope. That makes faith worthless and not a pathway to truth.

I could believe on "faith" right now that an undetectable dragon is going to eat me at some point, unless I wrap myself in tinfoil. Show me wrong....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is fallacious about believing in God based upon the evidence believers have?

There is no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know what the burden of proof is, I just do not agree I bear that burden, namely because (a) I did not make a claim, I merely have a belief,

A belief is a belief in a claim
A claim is something being believed.

You can't have a belief without a claim that is being believed.
You can't have a claim without believing that claim.

Otherwise one would be a liar, by making claims they themselves don't even believe.

and (b) I am not trying to prove anything....

That does not matter. Positive claims have a burden of proof. That you don't wish to or have no interest in meeting that burden of proof, is your choice off course. But that doesn't change what the burden of proof is nore where it lies. All it ends up in, is that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can I ask why you tell believers that they are wrong, or only claim something?

Where have I done so?
I usually make sure to only call things "wrong", when they are demonstrably wrong.

Belief is not claiming, belief is understanding of something, when understood it is no longer a belief it become wisdom from within one self.

Beliefs and claims go hand in hand.
When you believe something, then you are accepting a claim as true.
When you make a claim, you are expressing a belief.
When you are expressing a belief, you are making claims.

You can't have one without the other.​

As @Joe W said earlier in this thread: being passive about it, doesn't change the fact that claims are being made.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Where have I done so?
I usually make sure to only call things "wrong", when they are demonstrably wrong.



Beliefs and claims go hand in hand.
When you believe something, then you are accepting a claim as true.
When you make a claim, you are expressing a belief.
When you are expressing a belief, you are making claims.

You can't have one without the other.​

As @Joe W said earlier in this thread: being passive about it, doesn't change the fact that claims are being made.

If you are a non practicing person who do not believe in any religious teaching, what make you think you are more correct in your claim about what is right or wrong in a religious teaching?

When I believe something spiritually, that is a personal belief, meaning if you believe something else that's not a problem. My understanding of the teaching is based upon study of the teaching. That does not mean my understanding is always correct, and in most of my thread answers or OP I make sure to say " in my understanding" that is not a claim of knowing the full truth. It is an answer to someones question or a question from something I believe. A claim is when you say " this is how it is meant, this is truth" then one claim to know the truth. If you say " in my understanding it means so and so" that is an explanation of something a persons understanding of the topic.

A belief is only an expression of what a person understand to be true, it is not a claim that the person know 100% that there can not be other answers to it. ( yes I know some Christians do say they know for a fact that Christianity is the only truth. ( I disagree with them)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you are a non practicing person who do not believe in any religious teaching, what make you think you are more correct in your claim about what is right or wrong in a religious teaching?

What claim?
As I said, I usually try to make sure I only call those things wrong when they are demonstrably wrong.
You seem to be confusing mere questioning and scepticism concerning certain claims, with actively claiming those things to be wrong.

When I believe something spiritually, that is a personal belief, meaning if you believe something else that's not a problem. My understanding of the teaching is based upon study of the teaching. That does not mean my understanding is always correct, and in most of my thread answers or OP I make sure to say " in my understanding" that is not a claim of knowing the full truth. It is an answer to someones question or a question from something I believe. A claim is when you say " this is how it is meant, this is truth" then one claim to know the truth. If you say " in my understanding it means so and so" that is an explanation of something a persons understanding of the topic.

You didn't come accross that way when you expressed that nothing would ever change your mind. To say "in my understanding, so and so", it implies that your understanding can change upon new insights or evidence. That is in direct contradiction with statements like "nothing will ever change my mind".

A belief is only an expression of what a person understand to be true, it is not a claim that the person know 100% that there can not be other answers to it. ( yes I know some Christians do say they know for a fact that Christianity is the only truth. ( I disagree with them)

When you believe something, you are accepting certain claims as true.
That's just how it is. There has to be a claim to be believed or rejected, before a belief can exist.

Beliefs and claims go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

What do you believe? The answer to that, will be the claim that is being believed.

 

[Spirit of Light]

What claim?
As I said, I usually try to make sure I only call those things wrong when they are demonstrably wrong.
You seem to be confusing mere questioning and scepticism concerning certain claims, with actively claiming those things to be wrong.



You didn't come accross that way when you expressed that nothing would ever change your mind. To say "in my understanding, so and so", it implies that your understanding can change upon new insights or evidence. That is in direct contradiction with statements like "nothing will ever change my mind".



When you believe something, you are accepting certain claims as true.
That's just how it is. There has to be a claim to be believed or rejected, before a belief can exist.

Beliefs and claims go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other.

What do you believe? The answer to that, will be the claim that is being believed.

I say I have no doubt in that there is countless Gods and Buddhas, that will not change, I have doubt in my self as a person but not in the spiritual teaching.
The reason I say " in my understanding" is because I know that I do not hold the full answer in spiritual practice, but I have my understanding of it from many years of practicing. And if I said that I knew for a fact that everything I realized through spiritual practice was the highest truth, that would be to tell lies. I do not know the highest truth. But I believe in my teacher and his teaching is the truth. So I personally chose to follow it. What others believe or not believe is up to them.

The reason do react to how you and other non believers tteaching spiritual teaching is because you do not understand the deeper knowledge within the teaching, and from your limited understanding you claim that God can not exist because you have not seen evidence of it. I can tell you that it takes years of practice to understand how to realize that Gods and Buddhas do exist. You have to practice a spiritual teaching to realize those things. It is not given freely to anyone. It is hard work to gain that wisdom.

But I guess you will " disprove" me once again because you do not believe what spiritual teaching can make people enlighten to.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and from your limited understanding you claim that God can not exist because you have not seen evidence of it.

I never once in my life have claimed that.

But I guess you will " disprove" me once again because you do not believe what spiritual teaching can make people enlighten to.

I only questioned your apparant dogmatism and absolute statements, that is all.

Next to that, I also say that I have no reason at all to believe religious claims and the "personal" arguments are not convincing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I never once in my life have claimed that.




I only questioned your apparant dogmatism and absolute statements, that is all.

Next to that, I also say that I have no reason at all to believe religious claims and the "personal" arguments are not convincing.

Ok

 

[Trailblazer]

But not tonight. I am going to bed. Sleep well when you get there, Trailblazer.

As usual, I did not get enough sleep, but here I am again, and here you are again.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know that Jesus said or did anything. Including live.

For whoever gave that post a WINNER, they are going against all the scholars who agree that Jesus did in fact exist.

Jesus Christ may be the most famous man who ever lived. But how do we know he did?

Most theological historians, Christian and non-Christian alike, believe that Jesus really did walk the Earth. They draw that conclusion from textual evidence in the Bible, however, rather than from the odd assortment of relics parading as physical evidence in churches all over Europe.

That's because, from fragments of text written on bits of parchment to overly abundant chips of wood allegedly salvaged from his crucifix, none of the physical evidence of Jesus' life and death hold up to scientific scrutiny. [Who Was Jesus, the Man?]

Was Jesus a Real Person? | Live Science
​

However, that does not mean Jesus did all that was attributed to Him in the New Testament. For example, there is no evidence that Jesus ever rose from the dead. Stories men wrote long after Jesus lived are not evidence of a bodily resurrection. A story is not evidence that the story is true, that is circular. Alleged eyewitnesses written into the story are not evidence that anyone ever witnessed anything.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I'll deal with that the day I find out. I'll happily change my views then to accomodate for those new insights. Until then....

Free will expires as soon as we die so you won't be able to change your views when you find out there is MORE than just this world.... Of course that is just my belief so you do not have to believe me.

 

[Trailblazer]

3. Among those people, necessarily the vast majority must be incorrect as they all believe mutually exclusive things, which goes to show just how bad "faith" is in getting answers right.

They might have religions that are not fully correct but that does not mean they are not partly correct and that does not mean they are incorrect about the existence of God.

No. It rather makes more sense that this shows that humans have a tendency to hold superstitious beliefs. Which is actually a fact in the field of psychology. And this fact isn't just a fact for humans - it's a fact for a LOT of animals. Even pidgeons are superstitious.

Just because some religious people hold superstitious beliefs that does not mean all religious people do, and that is a fact of logic.

If you mean objective verifiable evidence of God's existence there is no such evidence and never will be.

...as is the case with any other entity that is claimed to exist, but doesn't actually exist.

But that does not mean God does not exist. That is the sorry argument atheists always give but it is illogical.
God is Spirit so there can never be any objective verifiable evidence for God. God sends Messengers as evidence of His existence because God cannot show up since this is a material world. It is all very logical.

Evidence does not make anything exist, things either exist or not. A man might have murdered his wife and even if there is no evidence that can be found that proves that, so he cannot be proven guilty, the reality is that he murdered his wife and there is evidence somewhere. Likewise, there is evidence for God’s existence so just because atheists do not accept the evidence for God’s existence that does not mean God does not exist.

Logic 101.

It means that your god can not be distinguished from entities that don't exist.
It puts your god in the same category as undetectable interdimensional unicorns.

No, sorry, because there is evidence for God’s existence, but there is no evidence for interdimensional unicorns. God is detectable through His Messengers.

There are many things that I would like to be true, but which I don't believe because there is no evidence for it.

Messengers of God are evidence for God’s existence. You do not like that because you do not consider them to be evidence. Been there, done that, with atheists for seven years, so there is no reason to go around the same block again.

 

[Trailblazer]

Religions are the claims that are being believed.
Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

Of course claims are not evidence. They are claims.

Religions make claims based upon the claims of the Messengers of God.

The Messengers of God provide the evidence that support their claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

In other words, how many or how little people believe claim X, is completely irrelevant to the correctness of claim X.

That is true. For example, whenever a new Messenger of God appears, He is the narrow gate by which we can attain eternal life.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

But very few people recognize this new Messenger and there are many reasons why only a few people recognize the new Messenger when He appears on earth. The main reason is because most people are steeped in religious tradition or attached to what they already believe. Secondly, if they do not have a religion, most people are suspicious of the new religion and the new Messenger. Thirdly, if they are atheists they do not like the idea of Messengers of God or they think they are all phonies. You are a case in point.

It is difficult to get through the narrow gate because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not normally embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow the broad road that is easiest for them to travel.

In that case we can only wonder why you brought it up.

The fact that most people in the world believe in God does not prove God exists because most people could be wrong, but it is highly unlikely that most people would be wrong about something as important as God and that atheists who constitute only 7% of the population are the only ones who are right. Moreover, there must be some evidence that God exists in order for that many people to believe in God, as people do not believe in God on faith alone; that is a misconception atheists have because they do not think there is any evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Euh.... consider every one of those people believes the god claims on FAITH, the exact opposite is true: there must be NO evidence - which is exactly why they require "faith".

You call me illogical but you are completely illogical, and I love pointing out when atheists are illogical.
To believe in God one must have faith because God is not visible and verifiable, but that does not mean that believers do not also have evidence.

People, even well educated ones, are very capable of believing the most incredible crazy nonsense... on "faith" you can believe anything. Go read the backstory of scientology for example.

That's true, but that does not mean that nothing we have faith in is true.

There is no evidence. What some believers call "evidence", isn't evidence at all and instead just a bunch of fallacious reasoning errors... like circular reasoning, special pleading, argumentum ad populum, arguments from ignorance, etc.

The evidence that God exists is the Messengers of God because that is what God provided as evidence. Take it or leave it, it is no skin off God's nose because God does not need the belief of anyone.

Most believers admit there is no evidence and that that is why they take it all on faith.
Because faith is what you need to believe something for which there is no evidence.

I am not most believers. The ONLY reason I believe in God is because of the evidence. I do not even want to believe in God. My husband will testify to how many times he has heard me say I wish God did not exist.

And is there ANYTHING that you can't believe on faith? Nope. That makes faith worthless and not a pathway to truth.

Faith alone is worthless as a pathway to truth. That is why God provided evidence. It would be terribly unjust for God to expect us to believe on faith alone. One reason that God gave us innate intelligence is so we could recognize the evidence of His existence. Once we recognize it, that evidence becomes proof to us that God exists and we know God exists.

“I have perfected in every one of you My creation, so that the excellence of My handiwork may be fully revealed unto men. It follows, therefore, that every man hath been, and will continue to be, able of himself to appreciate the Beauty of God, the Glorified. Had he not been endowed with such a capacity, how could he be called to account for his failure?”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 143

 

[Trailblazer]

There is no evidence.

There is no proof that God exists but there is evidence.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

There is no verifiable evidence that God exists because verifiable evidence is proof:

Something is scientifically verifiable if it can be tested and proven to be true. Verifiable comes from the verb verify, "authenticate" or "prove," from the Old French verifier, "find out the truth about." The Latin root is verus, or "true." Definitions of verifiable.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/verifiable

 

[Trailblazer]

A belief is a belief in a claim
A claim is something being believed.

You can't have a belief without a claim that is being believed.
You can't have a claim without believing that claim.

Otherwise one would be a liar, by making claims they themselves don't even believe.

I did not make any claims. Baha'u'llah made the claim to be a Messenger of God.
Baha'u'llah believed in what He was claiming; otherwise He would not have made that claim.
I believe what He claimed is true but I am not making a claim that it is true.

That does not matter. Positive claims have a burden of proof. That you don't wish to or have no interest in meeting that burden of proof, is your choice off course. But that doesn't change what the burden of proof is nore where it lies. All it ends up in, is that the burden of proof hasn't been met.

It is not my burden because I am not the one who made the claim.
Baha'u'llah made the claim, so it was His burden to back up His claim with evidence, and He did just that.

 

[ppp]

For whoever gave that post a WINNER, they are going against all the scholars who agree that Jesus did in fact exist.

They are indeed going against the weight of historical scholarship. Yet while I have no problem with the idea that he existed, I do not see the justification for any significantly positive position that he did. Jesus appears to have about the same weight of evidence for his existence as does Odysseus, who, unlike Jesus, is relegated to the status of mythical figure. Which makes me suspect that part of that Jesus scholarship is a combination of tradition and the cultural force that Christianity has exerted, and to a large extent, still does.

However, that does not mean Jesus did all that was attributed to Him in the New Testament. For example, there is no evidence that Jesus ever rose from the dead. Stories men wrote long after Jesus lived are not evidence of a bodily resurrection. A story is not evidence that the story is true, that is circular. Alleged eyewitnesses written into the story are not evidence that anyone ever witnessed anything.

There is not only no evidence for the miracle claims, there is no evidence for the mundane words and deeds attributed to Jesus.