Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

You again misunderstand, completely.

Read up on Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) and the null hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis).

Once you understand why the default statement is that there is no teapot, you may be ready to progress to round two.

Stating that there is no teapot is not a statement that there never will be a teapot, merely that there is no reason to presently believe that there is one.

No, you misunderstand completely.
I fully understand the point you are making.
But you are not understanding mine.
"merely that there is no reason to presently believe that there is one", can only be concluded, if all your eggs of personal determination are in the science basket.
Sorry, but at least to me, it is obvious that is a very narrow and risky choice, and simple statistical scientific analysis would agree with me.
Although, it is yours to make if you like.
And if you do, I fully expect your reaction to my claim to be considered nonsensical.
My previous post to Imari explains why.

That statement may in fact be wrong, and there may have been a teapot all along that was simply undetectable by current technology. But that the statement could have been wrong is part of what made it an interesting statement. There's no real information contained in a statement that cannot be otherwise.

Neither does it belie the real possibility, that the teapot if of the spiritual and not physical, can be known by other means.

I would ask you, what specific set of circumstances would convince you that your belief in God is wrong? Many of the atheists in this thread have given or implied their answers to this question, namely, proof of God to an acceptable standard.

None, that I can imagine.

You can say anything you like here, but there needs to be at least one set of circumstances under which you would say "Well 🤬, that wasn't at all what I expected, I guess I must have been wrong". Even assuming a purely subjective position in which you only have to establish the existence of what you believe to yourself, there still needs to be some circumstance that would conceivably refute your hypothesis (in your case, "God exists") and cause you to change your mind, or the hypothesis is completely useless.

I understand your point here, but it's more than "God exists".
He exists because he can be known through the spirit.
As said, with that reality in hand, I do not know how it could be changed.

 

[zzz_pt]

Christians believe in god and in satan.

Both this entities "are" far more intelligent and powerfull than humans and both of them are capable of decieving us.

How can a person claim that a "revelation" or a "personal experience" came from god and no from satan? How could he know that if he's much less intelligent and powerfull than god and satan?

The interpretation people give to their experiences are a consequence of their [religious] education, tradition or even desires. That's why people in the USA tend to say that Jesus revealed himself to them, people in the middle east tend to say that Allah or Mohammed revealed himself to them, etc.

 

[Imari]

But you are not understanding mine.

So then explain it better.

"merely that there is no reason to presently believe that there is one", can only be concluded, if all your eggs of personal determination are in the science basket.

Complete bollocks.

By any sense you like, it is moronic to believe that something exists if you have no reason to believe it exists. That's wish fulfillment, and it's how we write fantasy novels.

If you'd like to explain why it's rational to believe that something is true when you have absolutely zero reasons to believe it is (and be very sure that I did not use the word evidence there), then go right ahead.

Sorry, but at least to me, it is obvious that is a very narrow and risky choice, and simple statistical scientific analysis would agree with me.

Would it? Historical statistical analysis of the number of claims that were at the time completely unsubstantiated but later came true versus the number of claims that were at the time completely unsubstantiated but have not yet been proven to be true?

Go right ahead. Prove it. I notice that you're using the word "obvious" again.

It's not obvious. State your analysis explicitly.

I rather think there's no more risk involved in assuming that things are true with no evidence than there is in withholding judgement until further information arises, or at least there's not demonstrably any more risk.

But if you think you can demonstrate that the risk is greater then go ahead.

Neither does it belie the real possibility, that the teapot if of the spiritual and not physical, can be known by other means.

In which case there would be a reason to believe that it exists. I'm not confining myself to the physical, I'll accept any witnessable evidence of a phenomenon. Spiritual events are just as witnessable as physical ones, or you wouldn't be referring to your "experiences".

It needs to be objective evidence if I hope to use it to convince anyone else, because ultimately they'll need to witness it too. I don't expect anyone to take my word for it. But for myself, I'll take whatever I can witness at face value unless given reason to believe otherwise.

You don't understand squat, and you're still evading. You're not worth my time.

None, that I can imagine.

There's your problem.

You have just labelled yourself as unworthy of even discussing this matter with. You're not worth my time.

I understand your point here, but it's more than "God exists".
He exists because he can be known through the spirit.
As said, with that reality in hand, I do not know how it could be changed.

It's more that you can't imagine any circumstance in which you could be wrong.

It may be the truth that God exists. But if you're so ******re of yourself that you can't even hypothetically admit that there might be a situation in which what you've witnessed appeared to be God but is in fact something even slightly different to what you claim it to be, then it's completely pointless talking to you.

You're not worth my time, and I dare say you're not worth anyone else's time either. You have nothing of value to share, either in terms of experience or insight. All you have is a little boy's assertions that he's better than everyone else because his Daddy says so.

 

[Spurgy 777]

None, that I can imagine.

Well, that's the end of that discussion.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

How about this: What is it that makes you so special that you were able to learn from all the great teachers that you've had, and yet I cannot learn from you?

I'm not special, but Jesus Christ was and is.
Thats the whole point.
I just gave you the key to the understanding, so you can get the understanding.
There is none without that key.
It is spiritually derived, and cannot be obtained any other way.

From there at least we can hopefully move on to how you decided that your belief was right. But if there is or was no way you could ever be wrong, I don't see why anybody should pay any attention at all to the first word you say.
A person that does not accept even the idea that they could be wrong is not someone who has put any effort at all into establishing whether their ideas and perceptions are correct.

We are all wrong Imari, that is also the whole point.
God is right, and I am just agreeing that he is.

P.S. There are logical flaws in your post, but I'm choosing not to address them at this point under the final hope that you will stop dancing around the point and actually speak like someone who wants to share their knowledge with those who know less. At this point you sound like someone poking fun at the retarded kids: "I'm saved, you wouldn't understand what it's like, you're not good enough".

It makes me sick, and I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting your tone.

None of us are "good enough" (of our own carnal intellect, understanding, or actions)
It is of and through him we are made "good enough".
Not of ourselves.
You have to go to him.
It's just that simple.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+1&version=AMP

 

[Famine]

God is right

[Citation needed]

 

[Jet Badger]

You have to go to him.
It's just that simple.

@DK's signature comes to my head but nevermind. Where does this omnipotent supernatural being reside? Does he have a postcode?

 

[Imari]

I just gave you the key to the understanding, so you can get the understanding.

No.

You said I wouldn't understand. You were very clear that it was not possible for me to understand, even were it to be explained to me.

Don't weasel out of stuff.

What makes you able to understand, and me not able to understand?

Edit:

Actually, rereading this you were and are saying exactly what I was hoping that you weren't.

None of us are "good enough" (of our own carnal intellect, understanding, or actions)
It is of and through him we are made "good enough".
Not of ourselves.
You have to go to him.
It's just that simple.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 1&version=AMP

Namely, that people who don't believe what you believe are somehow lesser beings.

So much for Christian tolerance and kindness. You are an arrogant, selfish person. I hope one day that your God points this out to you.

 

[mistersafeway]

Imagine for a second that someone walked up to you and offered you a billion dollars, a beautiful wife, and all the beer you could ever want. How long do you take to get bored? Ten years? Twenty? Now let's see how SCJ explains that "eternal bliss" is a good idea. I think I actually prefer the thought of just being nothing when I die.

Explanation 1: God is a sadistic 🤬.
Explanation 2: God will emotionally castrate those among us who ascend to Heaven (sadistic 🤬).
Explanation 3: The Bible was written by people with the intellect of modern children and has no basis in reality.

 

[huskeR32]

"merely that there is no reason to presently believe that there is one", can only be concluded, if all your eggs of personal determination are in the science basket.
Sorry, but at least to me, it is obvious that is a very narrow and risky choice, and simple statistical scientific analysis would agree with me.

So you're saying that science is fallible, and that you can demonstrate this by using science?

 

[Carbonox]

Imagine for a second that someone walked up to you and offered you a billion dollars, a beautiful wife, and all the beer you could ever want. How long do you take to get bored? Ten years? Twenty? Now let's see how SCJ explains that "eternal bliss" is a good idea. I think I actually prefer the thought of just being nothing when I die.

I'm not religious, but I'd just quickly like to speak in favor of the afterlife concept, because some people really do gain comfort from it. That totally beats depression.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you're saying that science is fallible, and that you can demonstrate this by using science?

Yes, that's how science works, the ongoing concept of fallible hypothesis.

As opposed to religion which is in many cases based on legislated Infallibility.

 

[Brutaka]

One of my closest friends wants me to go to church with her family, while I have nothing against going to church I think she feels that she can change my perception on God if I go.

 

[TenEightyOne]

One of my closest friends wants me to go to church with her family, while I have nothing against going to church I think she feels that she can change my perception on God if I go.

So go and be open-minded, one of the "duties" of a congregation is to spread the word, that's what they're doing.

They have no control over what you think of the words, and there might be a nice lunch.

 

[mistersafeway]

TenEightyOne, good point there. I don't go into churches anymore because my skin bubbles and everyone starts calling me "antichrist", whatever that means, but I've been informed that that's not a normal churchgoing experience.

I'm not religious, but I'd just quickly like to speak in favor of the afterlife concept, because some people really do gain comfort from it. That totally beats depression.

Yes, I totally get that. The point is that when you have nothing but massive amounts of work and, at best, 45 years on this Earth*, it's pretty hard to imagine getting bored with being able to do anything. No matter how much stuff there would be to do in Heaven, eventually you'd do everything to the point that you're sick of all of it, with no end whatsoever in sight. Heaven, Hell, it all boils down to the same thing eventually: eternal torture. Either that, or there's an off switch, meaning it won't truly be eternal. Either way, The Bible has to be wrong on some point or another, which calls the truth of the whole thing into question**.

*About the maximum life expectancy and the usual role in society when The Bibles were written.
**The Atheist's Prayer.

 

[huskeR32]

Yes, that's how science works, the ongoing concept of fallible hypothesis.

As opposed to religion which is in many cases based on legislated Infallibility.

Quite right. I worded that post poorly. I was amused by the irony of him trying to diminish the importance of science, and using science to do so.

One of my closest friends wants me to go to church with her family, while I have nothing against going to church I think she feels that she can change my perception on God if I go.

I'm with TenEightyOne, I'd take the opportunity and go. The more you understand all of the "sides" of a topic, the better-equipped you'll be to form your own stance on it.

 

[GBO Possum]

<snip>
Actually, rereading this you were and are saying exactly what I was hoping that you weren't.

Namely, that people who don't believe what you believe are somehow lesser beings.

So much for Christian tolerance and kindness. You are an arrogant, selfish person. I hope one day that your God points this out to you.

Yes, he's annoying, yet he provides a great case study in what can be done to a human mind if taught early enough.

To believe in God requires taught skills in the suspension of disbelief. Not just such as those required to enjoy a James Bond movie, but really serious capabilities to ignore reality.

It requires the creation of a parallel "spiritual" world which has no fixed rules like the actual physical world. Think about that word "spiritual". It has so many meanings. There are so many experiences which may be described as "spiritual" ranging from contemplation of the magnificence of the universe or the proliferation of life on this planet, to watching a sunset or experiencing a superb orgasm. Some restrict it to descriptions of religious experiences.

We can be almost sure that that if SCJ had been born in a Muslim country, he'd have a totally different attitude towards Jesus Christ.

In a sense, SCJ is helpful as part of the evidence that "God" is invented by man, since the choice of God is so heavily based on who got into the immature human mind first, and that the defense of belief relies on a suspension of disbelief combined with torrents of meaningless words.

If you read the Corinthians link he posted, tell me, did you understand anything much there other than that it's gibberish?

 

[BobK]

They have no control over what you think of the words

Actually they do, in a rather limited sense. Religious groups have a pretty long history of, when encountering thoughts they don't like, causing said thinkers to stop thinking. And breathing, of course.

 

[Imari]

Yes, he's annoying, yet he provides a great case study in what can be done to a human mind if taught early enough.

To believe in God requires taught skills in the suspension of disbelief. Not just such as those required to enjoy a James Bond movie, but really serious capabilities to ignore reality.

The thing is, I've met scientists who are Christian (and other religions as well). They have no problem compartmentalising, and if you ask them about their religion they will mostly quite happily admit that there's no logical basis for it, it's just something that suits the way that they enjoy living their life.

I think that's fine and healthy. Asking them why they believe in that case is like asking someone why they like strawberries. They just do, there's no reason for it.

It's only when people start to present their belief as an objective truth that there's issues.

We can be almost sure that that if SCJ had been born in a Muslim country, he'd have a totally different attitude towards Jesus Christ.

I find the story of Mohammed much more interesting than the story of Jesus, myself. It has far less parts that make me just go "what?"

It's still not evidence of God, but it's an interesting read into influencing politics and power through the use of groups.

I do wonder often if the great religious leaders were just extremely talented and charismatic. Put Steve Jobs or some other iconic leader back in ye olde days and they'd probably control the world within a couple of years.

It's not too hard to see how someone with extremely high levels of intelligence could do many of the things that the prophets did (assuming a bit of luck and some warping of the story over the years).

If you read the Corinthians link he posted, tell me, did you understand anything much there other than that it's gibberish?

It's dribble.

I suspect if someone took the time to simplify what it was saying with symbolic logic or something, there would be very little there and what did exist wouldn't be far from "true Christians > all".

 

[Dotini]

...he provides a great case study in what can be done to a human mind if taught early enough.

I'm not sure we can assume this is the case. In my experience, some of the most fervent believers have become that way later in life after some particularly traumatic event drove them to extremity.

 

[orimarc]

You have to go to him. It's just that simple.

If it were that simple, don't you think some of us would've tried it already?

Why should I accept the christian god and not the other bazillion gods mentioned in the other bazillion scriptures, myths, history books, etc.?

And why do I have to go to him? What if I go and I don't find him? Or even worse, what if I go and I find I don't like God? Or I find a different God/Gods?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What if I go and I don't find him?

That's the difficulty, you have to go at night to avoid being burnt to death by the sun.... but then it's impossible to see anything :\

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm not sure we can assume this is the case. In my experience, some of the most fervent believers have become that way later in life after some particularly traumatic event drove them to extremity.

I'm not too sure that many later life fervent believers get there without the pre-school "faith" brainwashing, even if that brainwashing is provided by a different faith.

 

[Dotini]

If it were that simple, don't you think some of us would've tried it already?

Why should I accept the christian god and not the other bazillion gods mentioned in the other bazillion scriptures, myths, history books, etc.?

And why do I have to go to him? What if I go and I don't find him? Or even worse, what if I go and I find I don't like God? Or I find a different God/Gods?

People will tend to seek their religious experience within their own cultural context, which for our demographic implies Christianity of some sort, although some white westerners will seek alternate paths such as Zen Buddhism. Loose and trippy "New Age" spiritualism also provides a suitable alternative for some few.

But as we know, there are a minority of educated, street and tech savvy, self-motivated and self-confident people who do not need a formal religious component in their lives to find fulfillment and happiness.

As far as I can tell, the only reason to seek the religious experience is if you are unhappy, unsuccessful, and unfulfilled in your life. In that case, it can be the right thing to do. It's better than crime, drugs and violence, and sleeping homeless on a park bench at the end.

There are few-to-no guarantees in life. Only death and taxes come to mind.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

No.

You said I wouldn't understand. You were very clear that it was not possible for me to understand, even were it to be explained to me.

Don't weasel out of stuff.

What makes you able to understand, and me not able to understand?.

The opposite reason that we are all on this website for.
An "not common" experience rather than an "in common" experience.

Edit:

Actually, rereading this you were and are saying exactly what I was hoping that you weren't.

Namely, that people who don't believe what you believe are somehow lesser beings.

No more so lesser than those who haven't played Gran Turismo, or do not share as we do,
the common interest and enjoyable aspects, of the series.
It's the exact same principle.
If you haven't played the game, there is no way for you to relate to what is being shared here.

So much for Christian tolerance and kindness. You are an arrogant, selfish person. I hope one day that your God points this out to you.

Well I guess that makes us all arrogant and selfish persons, to anyone who hasn't played Gran Turismo.

 

[Famine]

The opposite reason that we are all on this website for.
An "not common" experience rather than an "in common" experience.

Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.

No more so lesser than those who haven't played Gran Turismo, or do not share as we do,
the common interest and enjoyable aspects, of the series.
It's the exact same principle.
If you haven't played the game, there is no way for you to relate to what is being shared here.

Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.

Well I guess that makes us all arrogant and selfish persons, to anyone who hasn't played Gran Turismo.

If we believed that people who hadn't played Gran Turismo were lesser people. Also, Gran Turismo is tangible. Your deity is not.

Got any more analogies where you compare an intangible being whose putative proof is in an inconsistent anthology assembled by a single individual some centuries after the original works were created, conveniently written in your language despite the inherent danger of assuming completely faithful translation to the point of there being myriad 'versions' all in your language that fundamentally disagree to something you can go into a shop and pick off the shelf?

 

[Imari]

No more so lesser than those who haven't played Gran Turismo, or do not share as we do,
the common interest and enjoyable aspects, of the series.
It's the exact same principle.
If you haven't played the game, there is no way for you to relate to what is being shared here.

Complete bollocks.

Anyone who has ever played a driving game can at least relate in some fashion to people talking about Gran Turismo.

I haven't played Forza Horizon 2, but I have a pretty good idea what it entails from playing similar games, talking to people who have played the demo and watching play throughs on Youtube.

Not the perfect understanding that I would from playing maybe, but I can at least be on the same page and converse sensibly with people who have played FH2.

This is not what you were saying with regards to your God. You said that I would not and could not understand, even if it were explained to me.

Well I guess that makes us all arrogant and selfish persons, to anyone who hasn't played Gran Turismo.

Complete bollocks.

It makes you an arrogant and selfish person if you wish to treat people who haven't played Gran Turismo as lesser.

I'm happy to tell them all about my experience with the game, try and relate it to some experiences that they might have had, and even try and help organise to get them some game time if I can. If it's a friend, they're welcome to come around to my house and play.

This is not what you do with regards to your God. You will not tell people about your experience, you will not try and relate it to anyone else's experiences, and you will not assits people who want to experience God with anything more than trite and unhelpful cliches.


Don't try and paint your failings as general failings of the human race. We're not all like you.

 

[JMoney]

You guys get away with the nastiest statements on here. I've said much less and ended up with points on my account. Kudos to @SuperCobraJet for not falling to that level.

 

[zzz_pt]

You guys get away with the nastiest statements on here. I've said much less and ended up with points on my account. Kudos to @SuperCobraJet for not falling to that level.

Which nasty statements?

Objectivity is not nasty. It can be uncomfortable to deal with but it's a good thing.

 

[JMoney]

Which nasty statements?

Objectivity is not nasty. It can be uncomfortable to deal with but it's a good thing.

Nothing you've said, but I'd rather not call anyone out.