Atheists and agnotics, do you hope God exist?

[QuestioningMind]

So, you think nature can naturally produce a life after death? Or there is a supernatural that can produce a life after death?

I'm not saying that I think there's an afterlife. In fact all the evidence we have suggests that there is not. I'm just saying that if it happens that there is an afterlife it will be a pleasant surprise.

 

[Polymath257]

There isn't agreed upon definition. When christians talk about god, they mean jesus christ. When atheist talk about god, they imply a invisible being or so have you.

No, that is not necessarily the case. There is no one idea that atheists have about God.

Furthermore, from what I have seen, Christians identify Jesus as God, but what they mean is something much more than the man. It is the other properties that they mean when they talk about God: omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

Maybe a better argument with Muslims would be better since Muhammad isn't seen as god and no incarnation of god or JW.

I wasn't able to make sense of what you wrote here.

So, I wonder how they define it.

Islam tends to have the tpyical Abrahamic God: omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, etc.

That's probably why they are puzzled when an atheist ask to prove god. In their head, they think jesus.

I think that isn't quite the case. They mean Jesus is more than simply being a man. It is those extra qualities that make him God.

Criteria for christianity is the bible. Can't get around that.

What is the criterion for selecting the Bible as reliable?

Could be or just symbolisms or anthropomorphizing as they did in days of old. Just nowadays, we don't tend to think that way. We say we've advanced. I wonder if we did or just changed environment. I read awhile back we all have the same instinct as animals, just our means of fulfilling that instinct went from making a fire by trees to cutting on an electric heater. Same thing with religion. I tend to side with the Pagans who don't really find that distinction an hindrance as many abrahamics do.

For christians? The bible.

I wouldn't expect them to use anything but the bible (and/or tradition).

But they do. They use ordinary common sense for day to day events. They don't accept leprechauns or elves because they agree there is no evidence of such creatures. But they do believe in a God even though the evidence is of the same quality.

I guess if leprechauns and unicorns are part of mythology as christianity, they can align. I don't see christianity ridiculous. I disagree with their morality, but after practice and understanding of it from a more spiritual perspective, it's not ridiculous like leprechauns. Maybe misplaced.

And leprechauns are a part of a mythology as well. it is a mythology that we no longer accept as valid, but it once was. We can recognize Zeus and Athena as being mythical and as not representing real entities (they are and were fictional). But doing the same for Yahweh or Allah is seen as strange. I find it strange the two situations are NOT seen as equivalent.

I still fail to see what the big distinction is between Yahweh and leprechauns in terms of evidence for their existence.

 

[Trailblazer]

As in 'Work in Progress' perhaps? So perhaps we are just curiosities (or unintentional consequences) in the experimental laboratory of God, and one to be erased when it all goes so wrong - as Trump typifies.

No, I think the creation was intentional and that God created us out of love, but God sure has a funny way of showing His love.

3: O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 4

I do not believe that God will ever erase us, that is a Christian belief. God is waiting for us to do His bidding because He is not going to come and do it for us, as Christians believe Jesus will do.

 

[blü 2]

I was convinced by someone more literate in philosophy than I am that ignosticism is just a fancy new word for Agnosticism. (The philosophy of Thomas Huxley, not the colloquial agnosticism.) But I failed to convince @blü 2 and I don't really care about monikers as long as we know what we mean.

Thanks for the connection. And one for @Polymath257.

It seems to me that imaginary gods are the trivial case here, so the conversation is about purportedly real gods.

To be real, God must have objective existence ie be found in nature. Otherwise [he] can only be imaginary.

And it likewise seems to me that before I could not-believe in real gods and be an atheist, I'd need to know with some precision what I was not-believing in ie the finding of what real thing would refute my not-belief. And I don't.

Equally, what is the real thing the finding of which will resolve my agnostic doubts?

I'd be much more inclined to think most atheists and most agnostics were really ignostics, than vice versa.

But who knows? The next time I ask what objective test will determine for me whether my keyboard is God or not, someone may have the answer.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No, that is not necessarily the case. There is no one idea that atheists have about God.

If some of them didn't, they wouldn't have a way to talk about it since christians are so mixed. For example, one christian would say god is love (not a being). Another says god is jesus (a human being). A third says god is a mystery (so no definition). A forth says he is an intelligence (chaos can't be a creator). And a fifth says (God is a "feeling;" a holy spirit).

As an atheist, I scratch my head and say "huh?" So, which one we're talking about again.

I notice other atheist talk about god as a being no matter what definitions christians come up with (above). Why not fluctuate the conversation to match the god the other person brings up?

If god is an experience, why ask for proof of a being?
If god is love, why not ask for proof of love (since atheists don't believe in god)?
If god is jesus, why not ask of proof of jesus not a leprechaun?

It works the other side too. So.

Furthermore, from what I have seen, Christians identify Jesus as God, but what they mean is something much more than the man. It is the other properties that they mean when they talk about God: omniscience, omnipotence, etc.

But "what" is it that they talk about that they all have in common?

Those two things are adjectives. What's the noun?

I wasn't able to make sense of what you wrote here.

Oh. Since atheist don't believe in god and challenge believers about god, it makes sense to challenge people like JW or Muslims (etc) because they don't believe god is a human being like many christians do. Though I never had a debate with Muslims. JW tend to talk about god in adjectives and countless scriptures that I just give up. Not sure if they can speak without one scripture.

Islam tends to have the tpyical Abrahamic God: omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent, etc.

How do they define him, though?

They do have a list of adjectives like christians do. I'm assuming all believers from abrahamic faiths believe god is a mystery-which makes it hard for both atheists and theists to debate since neither know what god is.

I think that isn't quite the case. They mean Jesus is more than simply being a man. It is those extra qualities that make him God.

What do you say they mean when you ask them to prove god?

Most say god is a mystery and you only know him through christ in scripture.

What is the criterion for selecting the Bible as reliable?

According to who?

I can say it's reliable in that it supports and proves a christian's subjective experiences. But I'm thinking you're looking for a different support?

But they do. They use ordinary common sense for day to day events. They don't accept leprechauns or elves because they agree there is no evidence of such creatures. But they do believe in a God even though the evidence is of the same quality.

They don't accept elves because they don't have personal religious experience with them to consider their existence.

They have a personal relationship with god because they experience him not elves. Many people (I won't say all since I've been on RF) depend on personal experiences to derive facts and truth of their religious beliefs. I can safely say for all religious beliefs-Hindu, Pagan, Abrahamic included.

And leprechauns are a part of a mythology as well. it is a mythology that we no longer accept as valid, but it once was. We can recognize Zeus and Athena as being mythical and as not representing real entities (they are and were fictional). But doing the same for Yahweh or Allah is seen as strange. I find it strange the two situations are NOT seen as equivalent.

True. I honestly don't even know if Zues was real back when. It's not like the laws of nature (physics, reality) changed in the past thousand years. Rocks should fall then just as they do now. So, I doubt Jehovah and Zues are real (actual beings).

I still fail to see what the big distinction is between Yahweh and leprechauns in terms of evidence for their existence.

How they are experienced and defined by believers is the proof or evidence of the former's existence. Which means if you say god is a being (that's how you're addressing believers) and they say god is a mystery (so they don't say it's a being because they don't know) there's a conflict-because you guys don't have the same foundation and definition in which to discuss any evidence (and questions from either side).

 

[Topaz27]

Atheists and agnotics, do you hope God/a higher power exist? And do you hope an afterlife exist?

Definitely not the god of the Bible. I would be so dissapointed if the omnibenevolent omnipotent creator of the world really was ok with things like slavery and killing gay people for being gay.

 

[Trailblazer]

The positive aspects of a [positive] God can even out the negativity of the brutal nature of this negative world and dark mother nature, and getting another chance at life can provide us with an excellent opportunity to build a better life for ourselves and our family as compared to this painful life.

Some people, like me, feel there cannot be any Merciful God because of the evils of this world. I understand, I sometimes feel the same way, but what if this world isn’t meant to be perfect and is just one of the many levels of life, and more [and arguably, the best] levels of life are yet to come where the negativity of this world is evened out?

I feel the same way you do... How can there be a Merciful God given the suffering in this world? But I understand that this world is not meant to be perfect but rather it is just a stepping stone to a better life, a place to grow spiritually and learn what we will need to know in the next world.

“O My servants! Sorrow not if, in these days and on this earthly plane, things contrary to your wishes have been ordained and manifested by God, for days of blissful joy, of heavenly delight, are assuredly in store for you. Worlds, holy and spiritually glorious, will be unveiled to your eyes. You are destined by Him, in this world and hereafter, to partake of their benefits, to share in their joys, and to obtain a portion of their sustaining grace. To each and every one of them you will, no doubt, attain.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 329

Sometimes knowing that helps, sometimes not, depending upon the amount of anguish I am experiencing.

 

[Polymath257]

If some of them didn't, they wouldn't have a way to talk about it since christians are so mixed. For example, one christian would say god is love (not a being). Another says god is jesus (a human being). A third says god is a mystery (so no definition). A forth says he is an intelligence (chaos can't be a creator). And a fifth says (God is a "feeling;" a holy spirit).

As an atheist, I scratch my head and say "huh?" So, which one we're talking about again.

Again, the precise reason I let the theist state which one they are discussing.

But I think I disagree with your statements. The Christians, as far as I can see, always consider God to be a being, even if they then say that God is love or a holy spirit. When they say God is love, for example, they will balk at the idea that God is a human emotion mediated in our limbic system. Instead, they see God as the *embodiment* of love. At least, that's what I get out of it.

I notice other atheist talk about god as a being no matter what definitions christians come up with (above). Why not fluctuate the conversation to match the god the other person brings up?

If god is an experience, why ask for proof of a being?
If god is love, why not ask for proof of love (since atheists don't believe in god)?
If god is jesus, why not ask of proof of jesus not a leprechaun?

But that is precisely my point. Christians tend NOT to say that God is *just* an experience. They envision a *being* that produces that experience. When they say God is love, they do NOT mean the emotion of love, but rather some embodiment of it in a being. And, again, when they say that Jesus is God, they see Jesus as an embodiment of the being that has all sorts of properties that are not seen in most people. And it is those properties that distinguish Jesus as God.

It works the other side too. So.

But "what" is it that they talk about that they all have in common?

Those two things are adjectives. What's the noun?

Right. They see God as a being that has those properties. They also claim there is only one such being. Those properties are what the different views of God have in common, as far as I can see.

Maybe a Christian needs to help out here?

Oh. Since atheist don't believe in god and challenge believers about god, it makes sense to challenge people like JW or Muslims (etc) because they don't believe god is a human being like many christians do. Though I never had a debate with Muslims. JW tend to talk about god in adjectives and countless scriptures that I just give up. Not sure if they can speak without one scripture.

And I have challenged JWs and Muslims about their views of God.

How do they define him, though?

They do have a list of adjectives like christians do. I'm assuming all believers from abrahamic faiths believe god is a mystery-which makes it hard for both atheists and theists to debate since neither know what god is.

And again, they often have a list of characteristics that they think God possesses. They also claim these characteristics uniquely identify their deity.

What do you say they mean when you ask them to prove god?

Well, again, I let them set the stage by identifying characteristics of their God. Then I ask them to prove there is a being with those characteristics.

Most say god is a mystery and you only know him through christ in scripture.

In which case, I will ask why they trust that particular collection of texts *as* scripture.

According to who?

I can say it's reliable in that it supports and proves a christian's subjective experiences. But I'm thinking you're looking for a different support?

Most people realize that their subjective experiences are not sufficient to show the existence of something.

So, yes, I am looking for support in showing it isn't just their subjective experience happening. That it is something independent of them. if all they are claiming is that they have certain experiences, I certainly accept that they do. But that is usually NOT all that they claim. The claim that their experiences show that something exists outside of them in some objective sense. THAT is what I want evidence for.

They don't accept elves because they don't have personal religious experience with them to consider their existence.

But more so, if they ran into someone who claimed to have seen a leprechaun or elf, they would think that person delusional. Why?

They have a personal relationship with god because they experience him not elves. Many people (I won't say all since I've been on RF) depend on personal experiences to derive facts and truth of their religious beliefs. I can safely say for all religious beliefs-Hindu, Pagan, Abrahamic included.

They have had an experience, I agree. But is it an experience *of God* or is it a delusion in their own head? That is what I want to know.

True. I honestly don't even know if Zues was real back when. It's not like the laws of nature (physics, reality) changed in the past thousand years. Rocks should fall then just as they do now. So, I doubt Jehovah and Zues are real (actual beings).

Exactly. yet theists believe that they are and *argue* that they should be believed in as such.

How they are experienced and defined by believers is the proof or evidence of the former's existence.

I disagree. That only means they have a common psychological bent.

Which means if you say god is a being (that's how you're addressing believers) and they say god is a mystery (so they don't say it's a being because they don't know) there's a conflict-because you guys don't have the same foundation and definition in which to discuss any evidence (and questions from either side).

And yet we seem to have a common foundation to discuss the existence of chairs or elephants in my room. The problems come when it comes to leprechauns and deities.

 

[Trailblazer]

And it is even more problematic when they don't. How do you identify something if you don't what it should be?

How could you identify God anyway, unless God showed up on earth?
I prefer to think of God as unknowable, rather than slapping attributes onto Him based solely upon religious scriptures.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then i am on to a winner because thermodynamics is what it is

What what is?

 

[Bird123]

Atheists and agnotics, do you hope God/a higher power exist? And do you hope an afterlife exist?

How about this??? A beautifully wise elderly lady told me. When one is really hurting, they are praying to someone.

Deep down, we all know God whether we know we know or not. One may never agree with religion, however one knows where home is.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, if there is God, I hope it is Krishna

Why do you hope that, are you a Hindu?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How could you identify God anyway, unless God showed up on earth?
I prefer to think of God as unknowable, rather than slapping attributes onto Him based solely upon religious scriptures.

If god is a mystery, wouldn't that, by default, need attributes applied to it to understand it more-like scripture?

 

[Trailblazer]

One God seems more preposterous to me than many Gods.

I guess it all depends upon how you define God. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, there would be no need for more than one God and it would create a real problem if there was more than one God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

If God is not omnipotent and omniscient, all bets are off as to what Gods/gods would be like.

Either way, you'd need some mechanism for gods to be possible, but for there to only be one God, you'd also need a mechanism for every God but that first one to be impossible.

I do not understand what you mean by a mechanism. If God exists, God exists, and if God is the uncreated Creator He needs no mechanism by which to exist.

Occam's Razor suggests to me that if at least one god exists, there would likely be more than one.

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor, or law of parsimony is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity", or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Wikipedia

Occam's Razor suggests to me that the simplest explanation is one God that is as described below:

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained.” (Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

 

[Trailblazer]

If Jews are right, Muslims and Christians are wrong. Of the Norse are correct, everybody else is wrong. If nobody got it right then everybody is wrong.

But if the Baha'is are right, the Jews, Christians and Muslims are also right, although the Norse are not right since they do not believe in one God who is the Supreme Being.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Again, the precise reason I let the theist state which one they are discussing.

But I think I disagree with your statements. The Christians, as far as I can see, always consider God to be a being, even if they then say that God is love or a holy spirit. When they say God is love, for example, they will balk at the idea that God is a human emotion mediated in our limbic system. Instead, they see God as the *embodiment* of love. At least, that's what I get out of it.

The only few people I talked with saying god is a being (rather than embodiment or symbol or so have you) are JW and probably some non-denominational. At least so far.

Best definition I got for god so far is a mystery. "Higher intelligence; higher being; what encompasses all; things like that." I think they talk about him like a person (the trinitarians) because he is jesus not from a being itself. I rarely if any hear christians talk about god/creator without seeing it through or as jesus. Jesus is seen as the incarnation of an invisible god.

The science of religious belief is pretty interesting. There's a clip of why we call what we can't define god. It's not religious in nature, but a ted talk on business practices if you're interested in listening to his analogy.

But that is precisely my point. Christians tend NOT to say that God is *just* an experience. They envision a *being* that produces that experience. When they say God is love, they do NOT mean the emotion of love, but rather some embodiment of it in a being. And, again, when they say that Jesus is God, they see Jesus as an embodiment of the being that has all sorts of properties that are not seen in most people. And it is those properties that distinguish Jesus as God.

But you're going off what they literally say. Can you go deeper and see the process or psychology of their thinking?

Have you had a awakening experience before or in scientific terms a brief or long euphoria as if you "got it"?

Many religions have it since it's a human experience. Maybe you're taking them a bit too literally?

Right. They see God as a being that has those properties. They also claim there is only one such being. Those properties are what the different views of God have in common, as far as I can see.

Maybe a Christian needs to help out here?

Do you believe they have a casper like person with hands like in a movie motioning the shape of the physical universe?

All christians I speak with when I talk to them more, I find out they don't believe the Eucharist/communion "is" jesus but the embodiment of it. They don't believe a ghost created the earth, but the embodiment of a mystery they define as a being (to relate to it)... but the core belief isn't these symbols or incarnations.

And I have challenged JWs and Muslims about their views of God.

What did they say? I only talked with christians.

And again, they often have a list of characteristics that they think God possesses. They also claim these characteristics uniquely identify their deity.

But when I ask them what the deity is, they say it's a mystery-higher intelligence-something the human mind can't comprehend-there is no language to describe it.

Well, again, I let them set the stage by identifying characteristics of their God. Then I ask them to prove there is a being with those characteristics.

That's my point. They can't define the being just the characteristics like love (adjectives) they place upon it.

In which case, I will ask why they trust that particular collection of texts *as* scripture.

I think you know the answer... but the question is do you accept it?

Most people realize that their subjective experiences are not sufficient to show the existence of something.

So, yes, I am looking for support in showing it isn't just their subjective experience happening. That it is something independent of them. if all they are claiming is that they have certain experiences, I certainly accept that they do. But that is usually NOT all that they claim. The claim that their experiences show that something exists outside of them in some objective sense. THAT is what I want evidence for.

Good luck with that. The foundation is subjective.

But more so, if they ran into someone who claimed to have seen a leprechaun or elf, they would think that person delusional. Why?

Why? (Rhetorical?)

They have had an experience, I agree. But is it an experience *of God* or is it a delusion in their own head? That is what I want to know.

I don't believe it's a delusion-the foundation itself. Like you said, part of it is the limbic system. So, regardless what language they use, they are having real experiences.

Take someone with psychosis. He's having real experiences-therapist don't deny his experiences, they just focus on the symptoms (if it harms others or self) and cause (if it can be treated from the source).

But it's a good question to study if you challenge believers real experiences of god not evidence of a subjective claim.

Exactly. yet theists believe that they are and *argue* that they should be believed in as such.

I disagree-at least with the god part. But I do cock my head when they say jesus is all powerful etc (some say). A handful say jesus is the actual creator.

I disagree. That only means they have a common psychological bent.

Bent? No. But I do believe it's psychological.

And yet we seem to have a common foundation to discuss the existence of chairs or elephants in my room. The problems come when it comes to leprechauns and deities.

Shrugs. The issue is experiences are real and they believe sharing their experiences or scripture based on them presents a universal fact. It's not their experiences that's wrong, they're just presenting their claim in an illogical way.

But when an atheist try to explain in baby terms "atheist don't believe in god" vs "atheist reject god" tends to go over there head. That and atheism being a religion-which I thought that was weird in itself.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't know if I can put it into words Trailblazer. The God of Virtues, faithful in all matters, master of existence, infinite glory, one who gives deserving justice and merciful to the repentant, faithful relationships, compassion at the forefront, master creator, endless knowledge, wise and true, judgment is solely a matter of heart, freedom, morally perfect, and that an abstract reality exists where spirit rules with just compassion, family and friends can be there, reasonable, supremely intelligent and only knows what's important, can't predict the future, has endless adventures yet to explore, endless roles to live, never runs out of life to live. Creates new things all the time, and is a fun personality, not bound by necessity of survival, eternal rest to the soul, magical reality, eternal victory over all evil, death, pain and torment.

You just described the God that Baha'is believe in.

Please do not judge God or the Baha'i Faith by what I say, because I have personal problems with God owing to of all the suffering I have endured in this life and continue to endure. Will it ever end? I just cannot love such a God that allows me to suffer this much, constant suffering.

It is very difficult for me to believe all the attributes that have been assigned to God by Baha'u'llah, but I still believe in Baha'u'llah and that God exists and has those attributes. You see, I know I am wrong about God and I am basing my beliefs upon emotions rather than reason but I cannot help it because the pain is just too great.

Below is a simpler description of God that is easier for me to believe. The author of that book cited was a Baha'i.

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained.”
(Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

 

[Trailblazer]

If god is a mystery, wouldn't that, by default, need attributes applied to it to understand it more-like scripture?

I guess it would, if we want to understand God.

 

[osgart]

You just described the God that Baha'is believe in.

Please do not judge God or the Baha'i Faith by what I say, because I have personal problems with God owing to of all the suffering I have endured in this life and continue to endure. Will it ever end? I just cannot love such a God that allows me to suffer this much, constant suffering.

It is very difficult for me to believe all the attributes that have been assigned to God by Baha'u'llah, but I still believe in Baha'u'llah and that God exists and has those attributes. You see, I know I am wrong about God and I am basing my beliefs upon emotions rather than reason but I cannot help it because the pain is just too great.

Below is a simpler description of God that is easier for me to believe. The author of that book cited was a Baha'i.

“Baha’is believe in an almighty creator who has fashioned the universe and has made man in his own image; they believe in a non-created cause of all existence, in a single God. The word ‘God’ is a symbol for that transcendent reality by which all existence is ruled and maintained.”
(Udo Schafer, the light that shineth in the darkness, p. 19)

If I did believe that God exists I would probably see things the way you do given what I have been thru.

A transcendent reality is compelling my interest in its possibility. I figure existence is at least as smart as humans are.

As for Ba'hullah, many things I read that you have shown me from him are things I truly want to here. That makes me all the more skeptical.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Polymath257 Did you delete a post?