Is it that incomprehensible to some that we theists may come to theism by way of evidence & reason?

[1137]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

 

[osgart]

so what is the evidence for an omniscient all knowing God?

I actually want to believe and dont.

 

[Laika]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

As an Atheist, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of a rational path to religious belief, but given the way atheists typically present facts and faith as mutually exclusive and opposed I'm probably in a minority. I would love to see more Deists or adherents of Natural Theology to constitute a middle ground on this forum, but it is sadly unlikely. I think that is a big problem for dialogue between Atheists and Theists, so I basically agree with you.

 

[Skwim]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally.

My guess is that none of them do. That it's failed to convince them is pretty good reason to dismiss its ability to do so, don't you think?

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

In as much as I've never seen either I can only conclude that they're highly implausible. But I'm open to any argument or evidence one cares to present.

Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both?

Don't you mean "atheist"?

.

 

[George-ananda]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

I do think so. I have come to my pantheistic views through reason/evidence. Certainly after my reasoned study of the paranormal and eastern spirituality, atheist-materialism does not fit the evidence in my reasoned view.

Actually for me it is the reverse that is true; I could not come to atheist-materialism from the evidence and reasoning.

 

[Sunstone]

Nearly everyone thinks they've arrived at their beliefs through "reason and evidence" -- regardless of what those beliefs are, and regardless of how poorly reasoned or insubstantially evidenced they are. The notion that we're reasonable individuals is almost as commonplace as our noble and esteemed habit of "flinging poo" at each other at the least provocation. You either love us or you don't, but you'll never reform us -- at least, en masse you won't.

 

[YmirGF]

Nearly everyone thinks they've arrived at their beliefs through "reasoning and evidence" -- regardless of what those beliefs are. The notion that we're reasonable individuals is almost as commonplace as our noble and esteemed habit of "flinging poo" at each other when we get upset.

Well said, @Sunstone

Personally, I am not convinced by the arguments, so-called 'reason' or 'evidence' that theists claim and that is after my own bout of theism, from which, I have made a full recovery. It's like Fox Mulder deciding to believe because he so desperately wanted to believe. After than tipping point, confirmation bias steps in and one is suddenly awash with all the evidence they desire in a self-supporting hierarchy of understanding.

 

[sayak83]

Nearly everyone thinks they've arrived at their beliefs through "reasoning and evidence" -- regardless of what those beliefs are. The notion that we're reasonable individuals is almost as commonplace as our noble and esteemed habit of "flinging poo" at each other when we get upset.

There is no reason behind me believing cats are the coolest beings in the world though..

 

[sun rise]

Reason was part of my journey to believing in God which went something like the following. The intellectual component was just one of the pieces of the puzzle for me. The other piece was analogous to smelling perfume and believing that there was a source of the perfume - a very personal experience. For me, both the experiential and the intellectual were necessary at various points:

Either God exists or not. If God does not exist, then the universe is ultimately meaningless because there is no overall purpose to life, especially human life. Any meaning that people feel is just an illusion or a temporary feeling of meaning but there is no ultimate meaning in an accidental universe.

If God exists and is all knowing, all powerful and all loving, there has to be an explanation for suffering in the world. Western religion does not really have an acceptable answer to me.

Eastern religion with concepts of reincarnation and karma does offer an explanation which I could accept. It's partly the extension of the law of action and reaction to the human sphere. What we do causes effects which come back to us.

But that still seemed not completely satisfying intellectually. Another piece of the puzzle to me is about effort. If I want to climb mountains, I might have to suffer as part of reaching the goal. If I just rode in a helicopter, there would not be the feeling of accomplishment. If I struggle against the elements etc and then stagger to the top, I feel great satisfaction. "Suffering" in this area is part of the effort to reach the goal in an ultimately satisfying way.

And what is the highest "mountain" but knowing and being united with God. After studying the literature, there are several methods which are possible which emphasize love, service or other methods.

To choose and follow one of these methods is analogous to choosing a college to study one subject or another. It requires belief that the course of study is meaningful, that the "college" and the professors are qualified to teach etc. And there is a possibility of independent study as well.

 

[1137]

Well said, @Sunstone

Personally, I am not convinced by the arguments, so-called 'reason' or 'evidence' that theists claim and that is after my own bout of theism, from which, I have made a full recovery. It's like Fox Mulder deciding to believe because he so desperately wanted to believe. After than tipping point, confirmation bias steps in and one is suddenly awash with all the evidence they desire in a self-supporting hierarchy of understanding.

My first question would be why "being convinced" is relevant to objective truth? Shouldnt it just be based on the logic? Second, is it not possible that atheism itself may be fueled by confirmation bias?

so what is the evidence for an omniscient all knowing God?

I actually want to believe and dont.

Not only is it not relevant to the question for me to defend any belief of mine, but I don't believe in any omni-gods.

My guess is that none of them do. That it's failed to convince them is pretty good reason to dismiss its ability to do so, don't you think?

Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism, does this give us good reason to dismiss atheism? If not, how would that not be special pleading?

In as much as I've never seen either I can only conclude that they're highly implausible. But I'm open to any argument or evidence one cares to present.

In what way is this not an argument from personal experience?

 

[Jedster]

There is no reason behind me believing cats are the coolest beings in the world though..

I agree, that cats are the coolest beings in the world is self-evident. Those that cannot see it have cataracts in there eyes due to their own bad karma.

 

[siti]

For some reason I can't help thinking of that Tim Hardin song from the 60s...

If I listened long enough to you
I'd find a reason to believe that its all true
Knowing that you lied straight-faced while I cried
Still I look to find a reason to believe

You can always find a reason to believe but I doubt that many actually reason their way to belief. and if they do, I suspect its faulty reason - it certainly was in my case and I was an avowed theist for decades.

 

[YmirGF]

My first question would be why "being convinced" is relevant to objective truth? Shouldnt it just be based on the logic? Second, is it not possible that atheism itself may be fueled by confirmation bias?

In what way are the faith based arguments of theists objective truth? Everything, to lesser and greater degrees is fueled by confirmation bias. The trick is to be mindful of it, to be aware of it.

 

[1137]

In what way are the faith based arguments of theists objective truth? Everything, to lesser and greater degrees is fueled by confirmation bias. The trick is to be mindful of it, to be aware of it.

Is there inherently less confirmation bias in atheism?

 

[sayak83]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

I find your threads on atheists truly puzzling. As far as I have seen in the forum, all atheist threads are all geared towards Christian and Islamic belief systems. So why are you bothered?

 

[1137]

I find your threads on atheists truly puzzling. As far as I have seen in the forum, all atheist threads are all geared towards Christian and Islamic belief systems. So why are you bothered?

Well a question comes to mind: why is the popularity of abrahamic on atheism relevant at all? Philosophy isn't a game for me, it's a dedicated search for truth. As for your question, I'm simply curious to know. I've asked many questions about many religions over my years.

 

[osgart]

My first question would be why "being convinced" is relevant to objective truth? Shouldnt it just be based on the logic? Second, is it not possible that atheism itself may be fueled by confirmation bias?





Not only is it not relevant to the question for me to defend any belief of mine, but I don't believe in any omni-gods.



Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism, does this give us good reason to dismiss atheism? If not, how would that not be special pleading?



In what way is this not an argument from personal experience?

My first question would be why "being convinced" is relevant to objective truth? Shouldnt it just be based on the logic? Second, is it not possible that atheism itself may be fueled by confirmation bias?



Not only is it not relevant to the question for me to defend any belief of mine, but I don't believe in any omni-gods.



Many theists are unconvinced by the arguments for atheism, does this give us good reason to dismiss atheism? If not, how would that not be special pleading?



In what way is this not an argument from personal experience?

I think every side of the religion and science debate has beliefs without evidences. I'm beginning to think belief is a major force in science as well as religion. either way I think beliefs are fascinating and they should be talked about even if there is no evidence yet for them beliefs. or I am entirely missing the evidential standards of both religion and science. I can see where evolution might be true, but there is good arguments for and against evolution on RF.

honestly though I was just looking to understand religious based evidential reasoning because of my desire to believe.

 

[LuisDantas]

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence?

Not really. It is not IMO a valid path for that stance.

Aesthetical preference, sure. But not reason.

Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both?

No, it does not. But it is odd to attempt to present deities as subjects of reason and evidence, as if their existence were a matter of logic.

What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Difference views are plausible. It just turns out that the most virulent forms of theism are logically self-contradictory, and I fear that hurts the reputation of theism as a whole.

 

[Enoch07]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

I was an athiest for a good part of my life. I am also a pragmatic person. I did not belive the ocean was salty until its waters splashed upon my face. I also did not believe a metal hull weighing thousand of pounds could actually fly until I got in one and did soared the heavens.

It is possible. But like myself, and most cases, it is a personal experience. While it changed me, it is not evidence for unbeleivers, and I understand why. While my personal opinion is that one day science may find tangible evidence. I think on the other hand, perhaps not. And if it did would that not cheapen faith?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

In my experience, I feel I've met a good many atheists who don't seem to believe theism can be come to rationally. For example, when I've previously pointed out I'm a former atheist, I've been told I probably wasn't a real atheist at all because I changed my position. I've been told I'm just my birth religion (I'm not), or that it's just my culture, or that I need a crutch to lean on to. But rarely does it seem recognized by non-theists that some of us were in the same spot as them, just as rational as they are, and we were convinced through proper means. I don't understand why this is. I myself am a theist but I also recognize that people can differ from my views, including being an atheist, through rational means.

So do you think theism can be reached through reason/evidence? Does being a theist equate with a failure of either/both? What is the thought process behind the idea that a different view simply cannot be plausable?

Thanks and Xeper.

It depends on the God you believe in.

If people explain that their god is just some concept, like "love," or they are monist who like to label the universe as god, then why not.

If your taking about an active consciousness that exists outside the universe, that it's interested in what you do, and you can understand what it wants from you, then yeah. . . you have little reason to believe that.

So what is your god?

Is it just a concept that you choose a common vocabulary word to describe. . . or is it the second thing, a being that no rational human being could ever demonstrably confirm?