• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What do you consider would be impossible to believe?

royol

Member
Sunstone said:
Perhaps you didn't mean it this way, but your choice of words here would seem to imply that you believe you are speaking for all atheists. There is a huge diversity of thought between atheists, and no one person represents all atheists.

BTW, I think the notion that religious people will believe anything is either superficial and shallow, or so vague as to be practically meaningless. Could you restate your thought in such a way that it makes some sense?

My understanding of being an Atheist means you do not believe in ANY Gods, and BTW, please read the 'Quote' below

MidnightBlue said:
Do you find it at all believable that Joseph Smith received golden plates from an angel, and from God the miraculous ability to translate them?
Do you think it's at all likely that Muhammad made a miraculous night journey to Jerusalem and from there to heaven?
Do you think there's a pretty good chance that Loki really, in the form of a mare, gave birth to Odin's eight-legged steed Sleipnir?
Can you give any objective reason for believing that your own belief is more plausible than these,
or that any of them are more plausible than invisible pink unicorns?
Don't most religions, taken literally, require suspension of disbelief?
And why should it be so offensive to make a comparison between something most people don't believe and something no one believes?

The 'Quote' above gave rise to this thread.
I was wondering if there was a point at which even the most
religious person would say to themselves ' enough is enough ' even I can't believe that.

Mattp said:
I have a question. Being an Athiest, why do you have a hard time believing in God?

For the reasons given above, and as you are affronted when someone questions your sanity for believing in a God,
so it is with me, I am affronted that you could even think me capable of believing in a God, to me it is like saying you think I am mad.
 

cardero

Citizen Mod
What do you consider would be impossible to believe?
That a day will come when people would no longer have the ability or the freedom to believe.
 

royol

Member
cardero said:
What do you consider would be impossible to believe?
That a day will come when people would no longer have the ability or the freedom to believe.

Amen to that.
I don't think that will ever change because believing is only in the mind, and unless they can come up with 'thought' police people will always be free to believe what they want.
 

bigvindaloo

Active Member
royol said:
With lots of the different religions represented here, with their different beliefs, and doctrines, is there any one thing you would find impossible to believe?
as an Atheist I would say religious people will believe anything, but even I know that is not strictly true.

I will believe anything you put to me Royol as long as you can justify it to me. That is the same as your position. However, others have different beliefs to mine (and yours). Are they valid? Psychologically they are as valid. What other criteria can you give for justifying belief? So evidence for belief amounts to belief: do you want external, observable criteria for belief? Good luck.
 

Simon Gnosis

Active Member
I find it almost impossible to believe we exist!

Also

I find it impossible to believe a fractured world of competing nations is good for the future of our species.

And

I find it impossible to believe that there is any theistic doctrine in all space and time that is 100% empirical.

Lastly

I find it impossible to believe with regards to free will and destiny anything other than that you are the sum of all choices offered by the world.
Sometimes the world offers you stony paths, but the spirit always wills the mind to select the next turning (choice) that leads upwards, and with each upward move the spirit becomes stronger.
 

stemann

Time Bandit
sparc872 said:
I will believe just about anything if there is enough compelling evidence to show it is true. To this date, I have failed to find enough evidence in support of any religion that believes in the supernatural. So, for me right now, I am going to say that I cannot believe in the supernatural.

If there is enough evidence for something so that science says it is true (or very likely true), then it is no longer supernatural, it is classed as natural.

I don't think anything is impossible to believe- the mind is not completely logical when working things out.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
stemann said:
If there is enough evidence for something so that science says it is true (or very likely true), then it is no longer supernatural, it is classed as natural.
Supernatural and natural are not classifications that are mutually exclusive. Something can be both natural and supernatural at the same time.

It's like superpowers: Superman can have the normal powers we humans have and superpowers at the same time.
 

stemann

Time Bandit
Willamena said:
Supernatural and natural are not classifications that are mutually exclusive. Something can be both natural and supernatural at the same time.

It's like superpowers: Superman can have the normal powers we humans have and superpowers at the same time.

Supernatural:
  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
If something violates or goes beyond natural forces, then it is not natural.

If you are talking about something being both natural and supernatural (like, for example, Jesus' divine and human elements) then it is the supernatural elements that cannot be defined by science, and so if they were, they would become "natural."
 

royol

Member
Could someone give me an instance of the supernatural please, what would you say was supernatural?
Real things, not superstition.
 

Radio Frequency X

World Leader Pretend
sparc872 said:
I will believe just about anything if there is enough compelling evidence to show it is true. To this date, I have failed to find enough evidence in support of any religion that believes in the supernatural. So, for me right now, I am going to say that I cannot believe in the supernatural. This is liable to change, and I am not saying it doesn't exist, but my current understanding of the universe and the evidence I have been provided prohibit the existence of such things.

I feel pretty much the same way. Once the gods start talking to me or I see them in person or I witness a miricle (or something supernatural) I'll believe they have some objective reality. But I see no reason to believe in something I have no objective experience of. What's the point? If I don't experience it, then believing it is real doesn't do me any good.

Until then, I'll continue to view the gods as being superstitions and functions of the things they correspond to. Until I have knowledge, I'm force to remain agnostic.
 

Comet

Harvey Wallbanger
royol said:
With lots of the different religions represented here, with their different beliefs, and doctrines, is there any one thing you would find impossible to believe?
as an Atheist I would say religious people will believe anything, but even I know that is not strictly true.

There is lots of things I find impossible to believe, but none of that really has to do with religion. In a religious context? I could come up with a million different scenarios I would find impossible to believe.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
stemann said:
Supernatural:
  1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
  2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
  3. Of or relating to a deity.
  4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
  5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
If something violates or goes beyond natural forces, then it is not natural.
Well, I could play the dictionary game too, and quote one that says nothing about "existence outside the natural world" and includes a few more definitions, but that's never very helpful.

More useful for both us us if you just tell me what *you* think. :)

Something "beyond" nature need not be exclusive of nature, merely unexplainable in natural terms.

stemann said:
If you are talking about something being both natural and supernatural (like, for example, Jesus' divine and human elements) then it is the supernatural elements that cannot be defined by science, and so if they were, they would become "natural."
Something in being cannot be something else other than what it is; that goes for a thing as well as its "elements". If a thing has natural and supernatural "elements", and if the supernatural "elements" are the inexplicable bits, then they do not change their nature by us explaining the explicable bits.

If something is or "becomes" explicable, it never really was inexplicable.
 

Green Gaia

Veteran Member
I cannot believe in a theology that claims to have a lock on the truth and discourages a personal search for truth.

I cannot believe in a theology that goes against logic, reason and scientific fact.

I cannot believe in a theology that goes against my personal morals, ethics and experience.

I cannot believe in a theology that says it's ancient holy texts are from a supernatural being and therefore must be taken literally.

I cannot believe in a theology that condemns those who do not believe it.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
royol said:
Could someone give me an instance of the supernatural please, what would you say was supernatural?
Real things, not superstition.
Depends, then, on what you consider to be superstition.

In some books, superstition is mistaking the natural for the supernatural, so that would leave you with no answer to your question.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Maize said:
I cannot believe in a theology that goes against my personal morals, ethics and experience.

Couldn't Ted Bundy or Charles Manson say the same? If such a subjective thing as "hurt" is the only reason one can use, then I don't see why can't interpret "hurt"as they see fit. :shrug:
 

Mr. Hair

Renegade Cavalcade
Maize said:
I cannot believe in a theology that claims to have a lock on the truth and discourages a personal search for truth.

I cannot believe in a theology that goes against logic, reason and scientific fact.

I cannot believe in a theology that goes against my personal morals, ethics and experience.

I cannot believe in a theology that says it's ancient holy texts are from a supernatural being and therefore must be taken literally.

I cannot believe in a theology that condemns those who do not believe it.
*nods*

A far more eleoquent post then I could have ever managed. Fruballs!

@Victor: I know you weren't talking to me, but could you clarify what you meant above?
 
Top