Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[TLK Valentine]

I’m sorry, no offense intended.
So you don’t consider that the Bible is nonsense?
It seemed you did. My apologies.

It's not the book; it's the way one chooses to read it that determines whether it is nonsense or not.

I find the Bible to be quite fascinating and useful.

 

[Trailblazer]

Apparently never dying is another Biblical "mistranslation" we're no longer supposed to believe.

Not going to argue that, but if it turns out that the paradisiacal "Garden of Eden" was in fact more like a wild kingdom, with predators and prey doing what they do best, then God's decision to leave his favorite creations naked and unsupervised in it becomes even more irresponsible -- even without the serpent.

I believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a fictional story that has many spiritual meanings.

30: ADAM AND EVE

 

[Trailblazer]

Only asexuals escape being sinners.

I guess I am in pretty good shape then.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a fictional story that has many spiritual meanings.

And that makes a lot of sense.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, since Genesis 2:7 says Adam “became” a soul, I believe we ourselves *are* souls , not that we have one, or that we are given one.

I agree that we are souls and not bodies. The physical body is just a temporary place to house the soul while we are alive in a physical body.

And the Bible does say the soul dies. Ezekiel 18 4,20
And by using a Hebrew expository/interlinear, you’ll see the Bible mentions ‘dead souls’. Numbers 5:2; Numbers 6:6.

I do not believe that any soul ever dies because the soul is eternal. I believe that Bible verses that say the soul dies means that soul does not have eternal life.

I believe that all humans have a soul that continues to exist forever (is immortal) but that is not to be confused with eternal life, which is a state of the soul that is near to God, meaning that they know and love God. One way to know and love God is by recognizing Jesus so that is why believing in Jesus conferred eternal life.

Jesus referred to eternal life, but He was not referring to physical life of the body. He was referring a quality of life, loving God and being close to God, and we can have eternal life both in this world and in the next world (afterlife). It is a state of the soul that is near to God, so you get eternal life by being close to God.

John 3:16: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 John 5:13 I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

I believe that the soul (spirit) of man is immortal, so no matter what people believe or disbelieve no soul ever actually perishes, so perish in John 3:16 means not attaining eternal life, which is nearness to God which is attained through knowing and believing in Jesus.

Those people who are veiled from God, although their soul continues to exist in the spiritual world after their physical body dies, are as dead souls who are not on the Kingdom of God.

“In the same way, the souls who are veiled from God, although they exist in this world and in the world after death, are, in comparison with the holy existence of the children of the Kingdom of God, nonexisting and separated from God.”
Some Answered Questions, p. 243

 

[CG Didymus]

And that makes a lot of sense.

I agree with Baha'is that Adam and Eve and the rest of the creation story is fictional, but I don't agree with their interpretation of it. I think it is fiction but meant to be taken literally by the followers of both Judaism and Christianity. But especially Christianity, since I think Adam and Eve are written about as being historical and true in the New Testament.

 

[rational experiences]

Laws no man owns.

Laws his legal precedence for human survival on earth is his human memory. His control was his own legal system. He never controlled cosmos as just a man.

What theists self possession meant egotism of a human is out of control.

Theists think about cosmic terms to build machines to control reactions. On earth only as the human. Human is his God status in practice only humans man science.

But you don't control laws.

Religion was sciences healer update you were wrong. Why it involves scientific human quotes.

Hypocrite the scientist king men still rich and still hypocrites now his biggest mistake moment. Nothing changed except awareness science was wrong. Church founding.

Jesus a legal precedence stopping temple rebuild pyramid technology forbidden.

Men as brothers know they can agree on mutual governing. Science stopped. Because of testimonial review. It only supported mans old technology stopped status. Yes technology attacked mutated caused DNA genesis change...Jesus was the stigmata cell.

Proven. New disasters activated.

Yet leaders die. They are just men. And new leaders own their own ideas. Out of control brothers previous agreement changes.

Human behaviour is involved in any choice including science. Technology re sought.

Mother father ours weren't scientists ever. So we ask our brother who usurped natural law? He had. And why is it egotist that still today you pretend science is the answer only.

And not just live a natural life yourself?

As behaviours Include living in civilisation status ....Rich man is involved. Only reason. Why science is not correct. Natural everything is.

Still that basic advice gets ignored by behaviour.

So religious science used a human ability to be predictive. As knowing how evilly contriving sciences behaviours are did so for humans survival. As proof it was known to occur before it had.

Failed also as warning advice as now you use the predictions as if it's a new scientific thesis.

Hence men had to say one law meant God only. God given a legal entity status in human life...our rock planet.

God explained as all One of anything in its presence as it's owned highest greatest position..order just one.

Theists want to argue intent to only change. Thought to change is everything. So the title was given as anti. Men hadn't wanted natural to exist.

Father's advice. As any type of gas is its coldest greatest each one is a God. A spirit any one a God. So CH like methane can kill a human yet as it's a God don't change it. The exact law. Cold is gods law...greatest as it saved presence.

Not a spirit any type is just burning.

Science themed cold gases burn...but it's not removal of its one status lied.

Was how the correct teaching was taught...as humans as scientists are just liars. All existed...one.

Basic human advice non arguable states why you lie and coerce by stories and human belief. You claim it fact as you apply number use claiming it time. Light...gas or mass burning.

Law heavens all gas spirits states no time even exists as 24 O light by two and 24 no light O cancelled out the use of light time.

In space law it does not exist as mother of God. Stated exact agreed also.

So you get men who try to tell us today you're mad for believing in man's chosen evils as terms of men....AI .....as humans brain chemistry is the disorder. Biological disorder only. Human sacrificed. Same story.

So then brother liar steps in. Okay how did they get changed. Who changed humans owning one basic living status highest...a human type?

Just happens he was the criminal self who caused it. Man scientist.

What lying for your cult involves.

Why the status AI was explained. By men of science before. Heavens mass changed only. The heavens as the mass protects biology one body.

Father said if you English European men hadn't invaded America. Fallout would not be considered by you as part of being human.

In your own nations your owned DNA father memory advised you correctly.

Father in America said his cloud father a man kept his life safe. Pretty basic all men knew what they had caused. Notice a human isn't a cloud? Natives said it was a cloud man only.

As no human is a reaction....it's the reason religious science legal stance was about no technology. As practicing conjuring power changed man's natural behaviours.

Sad part of the story Rich men only want to be rich.

Why human greed destroys life on earth as a pretty basic you're warned..
its about behaviour of men and always was.

Basic human egotists advice.

Space law owns why a Rock planet exists.

Rock isn't any beginning.

In human science all humans science products begin on earths base only. Rock his beginning human law practicing science.

Why theorising cosmic beginnings relating to humans sciences is the greatest con ever. As science of men is only rocks beginnings position to own his AI machine.

In biology a human owning healthy life says.....it seems earths heavens changed over a long period of time allowing biology of life on earth to change.

Just a story. He doesn't own any status as science why it changed.

In the past scientists said biology had healed.

As every first one observation any human egotist used today is any one first as its highest natural species living with him.

Is his first only and Im only correct as the science answer. Position one each species now..present.

Comparing one existence now to dead things or bodies you dig out of the ground is total life's destruction by a theist.

As previously aware men knew other men's bad behaviours.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Science doesn't claim to be foolproof..

It's a method that attempts to make conclusions on observations.

Science is vastly superior to religious beliefs, as you rely on for many assumptions about the universe.

That is your opinion.

I'm getting a sense you aren't familiar with how science works..

Well you are wrong.

Intelligence and awareness are characteristics of brains.

That is your opinion, based on observation and intuition.

Feel free to offer examples where this isn't the case. Use facts and cite science, not your subjective opinion.

What? You want me to show you evidence of an unseen phenomena?
Nobody is forcing you to believe in unseen phenomena.
If you think that your brain is the seat of awareness, and refuse to believe in something unless you "see it with your own eyes", then that is your choice.
I do not assume that the unseen does not exist, just because mankind has not been able to detect/prove that there are things that we do not know.

Scientist often say "we do not know" when it suits them
eg. we do not know what causes arthritis .. we do not know how life started etc.

..but when it comes to awareness, then you can be so sure??

Exlpain the facts and the coherent explanation as to why a rational mind would conclude the Quran is true? You failed to argue this thus far. Until you offer an argument no one cares what you believe..

A rational mind?
I could ask you why a rational mind would conclude the Qur'an is untrue?

Some folks need structure from outside influences and rules. I suspect this is learned depence for many believers, and once they are habituated to this behavior they can't see a way passed religious belief.

Some folks..
Religious belief is complex. It is partly intuition due to our nature, and partly tradition, and partly curiousity and study.
Furthermore, there are differing intentions behind what we say and do.

..So if humans and religions are all created by God then it is an incompeteent God..

All religions are clearly not all "created by God" .. although humans are.

I could do better. I certainly wouldn't create humans who would be so easily duped as the 9-11 hijackers, or ISIS.

You seem to be obcessed with evil doers who happen to be Muslims.

I would not create humans with birth defects or mental illnesses..

It is very easy to say what you wouldn't do..
Of course, you imply that the universe can just "be", and humans just evolved.
..so why did they evolve to be atheist or Muslims?
Let's just blame evolution instead of God, shall we?

Don't you think it should have known how things will evolve over time, or is your God blind to the future?

You know the answer .. God is omniscient.
..and our knowledge is like the head of pin, compared.
..so your arguments are effectively that of a naive infant.

Is that a moral act by God, letting atrocities happen?

I've already told you .. evolution must be to blame.

Do you ever get the feeling that this God you believe in might not exist as you imagine it?

No. Almighty God knows all. He does not favour those who plot iniquities, whatever their proclaimed beliefs.

One day, life on earth will cease, and the sequel is for those who avoid evil deeds.
..and Almighty God forgives whomsoever He wills, and punishes whomsoever He wills.
..and nobody will be wronged in the least. We are the cause of our own downfall.
We can be loved by others, or we can be mistrusted by others.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..how cruel to be a conscious tree. If either of us were magically made that, it would be torture..

Many human beings find life torturous .. I can't say how a tree would feel .. I simply don't know. I know that it is alive for a given time, and then dies as we do.

it's not an uncaused universe that gives you pause, but a godless one.

Absolutely. I cannot imagine that intelligence has no source .. has no cosmic significance.
I do not say that God is a "person in the cosmos" .. I simply don't know. God could be the sum total of all souls or some such?

Isn't this a statement that your beliefs are based in psychological need rather than pure reason?

Yes, both. I am not ashamed of having such a need.
I employ reason to determine creed, as well as trusting in God to guide me.

My answer would be that we are unaware of disembodied consciousness existing, and yes, it is based in observation. We have no way to experience consciousness other than our own directly, and the presumed consciousness recognized indirectly through the behavior of others behaving as we do because of our consciousness.

That's right. We cannot scientifically observe awareness of something in a definite manner.
We can assume that something without a brain can not experience awareness, but we cannot know for sure.

 

[muhammad_isa]

False, we observe awareness and intelligence only from organisms with working brains..

Yes .. we experience awareness and intelligence.
That is how we can make a conclusion about anything at all.
Many of us assume that brains are the seat of awareness, but that conclusion could well be fatally flawed.
..and I have good reason to believe that it is.
However, even if brains are needed for something to be aware, it changes nothing about a possible life after death.
We have a brain now, and there is nothing to say that it can't happen again.

We understand some theists have a motive to assume there is a consciousnes in the universe..

..and what motive is that?

We can't be certain, but trees don't have brains, nor exhibit consciousness, so we dismiss Jim's proposal. It's not bias. The idea is improbable. We need evidence for propositions to be taken seriously.

A tree lives and dies as we do. It is not that far-fetched.
The main reason why you dismiss it, is due to a hypothesis that brains are necessary for something to be aware.
This is an assumption based on intuition and apparent observation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I guess I am in pretty good shape then.

It would not matter for you if you were sexual or asexual, because you have accepted the 19th Century uneducated Iranian, Bahaollah, as the latest manifestation of Allah. You will get your 'divine' body.

 

[rational experiences]

What I've learnt a wo...man not a man and human man's historic abuse of all things not his own.

Man builds machine said I'm machine man. Feeling powerful as human theist builder machine is now by thought machine body....a conscious extension of his own body.

He uses it to hurt everything claiming I'm part man part machine.

His I confess of Sion.

As Sion outlawed before was about was fusion.

Men took earths fusion alchemists AI changed it. Alchemy then fis Sion.

Man plus machine AI man.

Notice however he's not inside machine where he puts earths dust converting them.

To proclaim human you are now my dust. I'm machine god man. Theist about dusts human man.

Machine god man.

As he built machine to take the place of his natural human woman life partner. At his side human in law.

Put machine body there.

Today built robots to have sex with.

Is Mr I'm part machine man let me and my possessed science sister...his mind too inherited via homosexual criminal brain changes....destroy you all. Science...con is science not consciousness at all.

Says all movie warnings.

Machine humans destroy life on earth. Machine humans machine bodies keep coming back to end life. History says yes it's true human behaviour.

Pretty basic very evil nasty minded criminal human behaviour.

So where's the legal stance today?

Historic Rich man technology owner never owned nor used any legal stance first.

Only after he nearly destroyed all life on earth was legal implemented.

Why those men today claim they are above any human law in behaviour.

All by mind memory.

 

[F1fan]

It's a method that attempts to make conclusions on observations.

Attempts? You don't think science succeeds at making conclusions?

You keep writing inaccurate statements that are known to be false.

[Thats your opinion.

False. Science demonstrates its superiority over religious belief consistently.

Well you are wrong.

Your false and biased beliefs about science suggests I am correct that you lack knowledge of science. You have made no comments that suggest you have any knowledge of science or how it works. Notice you only disagreed with me, and made no effort to prove I was wrong.

That is your opinion, based on observation and intuition.

False. Consciousness and awareness is only observed in working brains. You have offered no evidence to the contrary. Your disagreement with what we observe is irrelevant.

What? You want me to show you evidence of an unseen phenomena?

Haha. Then how did you come to believe it yourself?

Nobody is forcing you to believe in unseen phenomena.

You believe there is consciousness outside of brains. You admit there is no evidence. So why?

If you think that your brain is the seat of awareness, and refuse to believe in something unless you "see it with your own eyes", then that is your choice.

Awareness is due to working brains. When brains die, awareness ceases. You have admitted to having no evdience to the contrary.

I do not assume that the unseen does not exist, just because mankind has not been able to detect/prove that there are things that we do not know.

You are guessing and you think it trumps facts and reason. Sorry, that isn't what a rational mind does.

Scientist often say "we do not know" when it suits them
eg. we do not know what causes arthritis .. we do not know how life started etc.

Do you think it is responsible for a scientist to claim something they aren't sure about? You seem to have a problem with scientists being honorable and truthful.

A rational mind?
I could ask you why a rational mind would conclude the Qur'an is untrue?

Because it has elements that are fiction at best. There is no known supernaural existing, so when it refers to religious ideas, like a God, it can't be accepted as ture. It lacks facts, so not believable.

Some folks..
Religious belief is complex. It is partly intuition due to our nature, and partly tradition, and partly curiousity and study.
Furthermore, there are differing intentions behind what we say and do.

The psychology of religion is doing excellent work examining why humans behave this way. Our brains evolved to be tribal and conform to group norms, so religions arising is quite a natural result. We see human history not always fare well under religious rule, so we have no reason to assume religions are true at face value. Even modern governments have realized secular processes are superior over theocratic frameworks.

All religions are clearly not all "created by God" .. although humans are.

Ask any believer and it will be their religion, and not yours. Funny how subjective it is, and no God coming forth to set humans straight.

You seem to be obcessed with evil doers who happen to be Muslims.

Muslims do offer the world excellent examples of how religion fails. It's probably due to there being no secular rule in the Middle East keeing religions in line and tolerant of each other.

It is very easy to say what you wouldn't do..
Of course, you imply that the universe can just "be", and humans just evolved.
..so why did they evolve to be atheist or Muslims?
Let's just blame evolution instead of God, shall we?

There is a phenomenon called "wired for God" which is about 85% of all humans, and these folks have a brain that is inclined to be attracted to, and absorbed in, religion. The other 15% are typically atheists, agnostic, or religious in a minor degree. This is a result of how the human brain evolved over the last several hundred thousand years. This trait, to be tribal, offered early humans an advantage in survival, as they were more likely to be trusted and cooperate. We can see the example of how tribalism is consistent with religious extremism in the American conservative base, who are laregly evangelicals, and terrorist groups like ISIS. The tribalism goes to an extreme, and other humans, or groups of people, are seen as enemies.

You know the answer .. God is omniscient.
..and our knowledge is like the head of pin, compared.
..so your arguments are effectively that of a naive infant.

None of this is factual.

I've already told you .. evolution must be to blame.

Your God didn't evolve, did it? Your God allows atrocities, birth defects, child cancers, earthquakes, bacterial infections, viral pandemics, asteroid strikes on earth, etc. If it exists then it does not care about this planet.

No. Almighty God knows all. He does not favour those who plot iniquities, whatever their proclaimed beliefs.

This is not factual. There are no Gods known to exist.

One day, life on earth will cease, and the sequel is for those who avoid evil deeds.
..and Almighty God forgives whomsoever He wills, and punishes whomsoever He wills.
..and nobody will be wronged in the least. We are the cause of our own downfall.
We can be loved by others, or we can be mistrusted by others.

This is just a set of claims that aren't supported by evidence. Making claims is not a valid argument. You need to provide evidence and a coherent explanation of the evidence.

Yes .. we experience awareness and intelligence.

Right. It’s because we have working brains.

That is how we can make a conclusion about anything at all.
Many of us assume that brains are the seat of awareness, but that conclusion could well be fatally flawed.
..and I have good reason to believe that it is.

It’s an observation, it’s neither an assumption, nor a conclusion, nor a belief.

However, even if brains are needed for something to be aware, it changes nothing about a possible life after death.

Irrelevant. What we observe is that awareness only exists in organisms with brains. And the list of possibilities of any arbitrary religious idea is endless. That is because there are no facts or data, just human imagination.

We have a brain now, and there is nothing to say that it can't happen again.

This makes no sense.

..and what motive is that?

Religions that include the idea of afterlife has to be defended by believers since it is what they adopted as “truth”. But it is also a very effective idea to gain adherents because it appeals to very basic human fear: death. This idea has been used by many Christians manipulatively, and I find that immoral and repugnant, because it takes advantage of gullible people who have invested trust in these leaders.

A tree lives and dies as we do. It is not that far-fetched.

So what? Trees don’t have brains. Why do you keep pushing this issue? Just accept that consciousness isn’t observed in anything that doesn’t have a brain.

The main reason why you dismiss it, is due to a hypothesis that brains are necessary for something to be aware.

False. You keep trying to minimize that we observe consciousness only in working brains. You keep trying to reduce it to some sort of assumption, or belief, or conclusion. Why are you working so hard to avoid accepting this observation?

This is an assumption based on intuition and apparent observation.

So now you are questioning our ability to observe the environment accurately? Jim sees an orange on the table (Well how can you know it’s really an orange?) So Jim picks it up and it feels like an orange (Well how can you be sure your sense of touch isn’t flawed?) So Jim smells it and it smells like an orange (Well how can you be sure your sense of smell isn’t just you imagining it?) So Jim peels it and tastes it, and it is indeed an orange (Well how can you be sure you aren’t dreaming?)

If humans are so flawed how confident can you be that your unevidenced and fantastic religious beliefs are anything close to being true? I see theists often try this tactic, to question our senses and reasoning, but they don’t realize attacking the human as an instrument that can detect reality accurately sabotages themselves since they too are human.

 

[Trailblazer]

It would not matter for you if you were sexual or asexual, because you have accepted the 19th Century uneducated Iranian, Bahaollah, as the latest manifestation of Allah. You will get your 'divine' body.

I won't get a divine body, I will get a spiritual body, but so will everyone else.

 

[rational experiences]

Science only stated by one human in the species one. A human.

The human man self present a human and the man. Two says hierarchy self.

In one species is two humans first mutual equal hierarchy. You lied theist. The man human.

Just human men first and always liar history.

Your evil minds...
The machine is first in science terms...by human men.

Ignoring human woman. The teaching testimony.

Said space womb maths a mother. In science machine terms only. Yet no machine.

Now mother is only a baby mans humans word use.

Proves natural mother father weren't the theist or scientist.

Baby man type. Sperm ovary self baby toddler Child teenager.

The non sex man did it. Theist baby man liar. Testimonials proof.

So hence you ask why to form human only question to answer.

Proven human innate awareness.

Question answer both human only. Testimony stated.

No man is God.

After his machines attack AI transmitters are ever present. He encoded the fall himself.

Brought sun mass over that once was voiding above. Been there ever since AI.

So now man who put machine by his side was ignoring human woman's equality. Is mind possessed claiming a machine was first.

Sun machine that an alien came out of from a star. Star mass in correct description.

Falling star mass hit when no machine first and no alien first.

His thesis fake. The warning Satan belief. Cloud angel image.

So you ask humans. Where did you come from. We are babies. We all should say without any argument whatsoever. Two adult humans who had human sex.

If you ask where do your parents first ever come from now deceased. You have a belief only.

No machine proves anything.

Man's big machine looks at cells he cannot see naturally. Proof I'm looking at enlarged micro cells.

Where did you get human cell DNA from to look at?

A humans whole body. One full body human species owning every condition to be termed the human.

By another human.

That advice isn't evidence. You are interested.

Yet if you use the same machine to look at other microbes you see in the exact same machine moment they aren't human celled DNA.

Advised exact. Then you con. Lie. Coerce as your behaviour is lack of consciousness is why.

Humans attacked said the sun machine came as a chariot. As metal work by humans invented a chariot. It was visionary terms.

Man's invention machine fell from above.

Returned to its mass advice human inventor beginning the machines own history.

Ended our bio life. As we are not any machine.

Now humans said eternal hell ended as clouds presence. Clouds saved life. A gas in heavens will remain in space forever. Clear gas the proof..not burning. We aren't a clear gas.

We aren't the cloud eternal story.

We are humans always only.

We never owned an argument about not being a human ever.

Another con.

The argument was where did the human parent come from.

Still doesn't own a thesis. As human is used as both subject and topic. The con itself.

Why a thesis does not exist.

Warning scientific human satanisms theisms fooled you.

Now I can depict a spiritual eternal story...not a thesis. A belief only by visionary recorded advice.

Humans always kept records as evidence. Therefore I claim my advice is true. We once never existed in created creation first.

Theists as humans infer only to machine or sun star mass history...life changed on earth.

Star mass sun history killed off biology and it's why legal stated no sun theories were allowed.

Legal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Right .. you conclude that a brain is necessary for the phenomena of awareness.

You are again playing this silly game of switching up the terminology. Awareness is ambiguous in this context. The actual word used is consciousness. Please don't engage in those dishonest tactics.

And off course I conclude that a brain, or the equivalent thereof, is required for the phenomena of consciousness. It's what all the evidence suggests. You can alter consciousness by playing it around with the brain, like for instance by stimulating it or by changing the chemical balance or damaging it.

That and literally every example we have of consciousness comes with a living brain.

It's a conclusion based on what you can observe

Yes. I base my conclusions on evidence. It's what rationality is all about.
The moment you come with evidence that contradicts it, is when I'll change my conclusions to conform to the evidence.

You presume that a tree is not aware of its existence, because it has not got a brain.
You might consider it to be "fact", but I do not.

We are talking about consciousness.
See, this is why I consider what you are doing to be intellectually dishonest.
Awareness is a far more ambiguous term.

You do not have to assume .. you just cannot be certain .. unless you consider that humans are able to know all, and they have nothing left to learn.

Who is expressing certainty?
Tentative conclusion are by definition not expressed with absolute certainty.

Once again, you are making intellectually dishonest statements.
You are sneakily changing terminology and now you are also arguing strawmen.

That can vary, depending on how I might be feeling.
So far, it has not got as low as 0%, and can be 100% on occasions.

Then you are the only one here who's dealing with absolute certainties at times when it concerns beliefs / conclusions / assumptions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden is a fictional story that has many spiritual meanings.

30: ADAM AND EVE

And I consider all religious myths to be like that.

Just about every Greek myth conveys some kind of "moral of the story" message about the human condition. I wouldn't say that I agree with all of them. But to me it's clear that that is why the stories exist. That is what their purpose is.

Sometimes, the "moral lesson" is imo just stupid and ignorant.
Other times, they aren't.

 

[samtonga43]

That's interesting. Anybody capable of believing by faith can be a theist, which is every child and most adults. Anybody that benefits from such a belief psychologically is prone to accept it uncritically, and anybody who has no needs met by such a belief will walk away from it. You seem to feel that the believer is better off.

Better off? I can only speak for myself, of course. I have joy, contentment and the awareness of God’s all-encompassing love. I know that my husband (a scientist and a Christian) would agree with me. I never stopped reading philosophy, teaching yoga, cooking, writing. My life is full.

The very last thing in the world I wanted was to believe what I had been arguing vehemently against for many years – that God IS.
In my atheism days, I too would say that Christians were unable to evaluate evidence, that theistic belief was just a psychological need, and that, while I was a critical thinker, Christians just accepted uncritically what they were told by other Christians and what they read in the Bible.

I left theism (Christianity) decades ago, and the benefits have been substantial. I was a very generous tither, and the hours devoted to church attendance, prayer, and Bible study were in the double digits every week. How many thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars have I saved because I don't have a god need? Much of that time was spent reading science, philosophy, history. Much of that time was spent studying guitar and performing in public venues with my wife on bass. Much of that time and money was spent traveling, collecting art, and going to concerts. The savings allowed me to retire early to a better place and life, and are a buffer against inflation now. I've become a critical thinker once I abandoned belief by faith - an extremely valuable skill, one that allowed me to make an intelligent decision about Covid vaccination when faith-based thinkers unable to evaluate evidence had to guess who to trust, many guessing wrong and dying and leaving their families broke and missing caretakers, or disabled by long Covid and with damaged lungs, kidneys, nervous systems, etc.

Hmm.. I never stopped thinking critically on my journey from atheism to Christ. Not one of my Christian friends were unable to evaluate evidence regarding Covid or had to guess who to trust. They, too, are critical thinkers, of course.

However, I do realize that some Christians (the Bible belt type) don’t 'do' critical thinking, and accept uncritically what they were told about the tenets of the Christianity by others. We Christians who are critical thinkers try to help them.

But tell me, don't you think it irrational to assume that ALL Christians are exempt from this 'critical thinker' appellation?

If you are happy to do so, I would be very interested to hear about the church (denomination) where you spent so much time and money, and the reason/s for your leaving. If you would rather not … I understand.

[QUOTE="It Aint Necessarily So, post: 7938557, member: 61691"Where would I be today if I were still a Christian?[/QUOTE]
God knows!

 

[muhammad_isa]

You don't think science succeeds at making conclusions?

Of course it does.
The scientific method is a very valuable tool, but has its limitations.

If the predictions are not accessible by observation or experience, the hypothesis is not yet testable and so will remain to that extent unscientific in a strict sense. A new technology or theory might make the necessary experiments feasible. For example, while a hypothesis on the existence of other intelligent species may be convincing with scientifically based speculation, no known experiment can test this hypothesis. Therefore, science itself can have little to say about the possibility. In the future, a new technique may allow for an experimental test and the speculation would then become part of accepted science.
Scientific method - Wikipedia

False. Consciousness and awareness is only observed in working brains. You have offered no evidence to the contrary.

No scientific proof no .. it's the same with most non-physical concepts .. some people have an open mind .. others would rather assume that unseen phenomena are unlikely.

Do you think it is responsible for a scientist to claim something they aren't sure about?

No .. but it is possible to hold opinions based on plausible hypothesis.
Something like whether awareness is possible without a brain cannot be proved one way or another with certainty either.

It lacks facts, so not believable..

For you, it is not believable.

None of this is factual..

It is factual that we all have a small subset of knowledge compared to all human knowledge, and that does not even include what we don't know yet.

Religions that include the idea of afterlife has to be defended by believers since it is what they adopted as “truth”..

I've already said, it makes no difference what the actual mechanism might be. Whether brains are necessary for awareness or not, does not eliminate the possibility of being aware somehow after death.

Just accept that consciousness isn’t observed in anything that doesn’t have a brain.

I won't accept that awareness is not possible without a brain, because I don't see how one can observe such a thing if it does exist without a brain.

If humans are so flawed how confident can you be that your unevidenced and fantastic religious beliefs are anything close to being true?

We are all capable of making wrong conclusions.
As I say, I believe in God and the unseen. You do not.
You therefore reject all religious belief in its entirety.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We are talking about consciousness.
See, this is why I consider what you are doing to be intellectually dishonest.
Awareness is a far more ambiguous term..

Consciousness implies awareness.

If I ask you whether a tree is aware of being alive, I assume that you will answer "no" as it has no brain.
Nothing wrong with that answer .. but some people might think otherwise. They don't assume it to be impossible, just because they cannot observe it directly.