Why is god so hard to believe?

Athiesm is as much a figment of your imagination as theism is. We cannot say there isn't a higher power. But at the same time we cannot say there is. WE DON'T KNOW. You can disprove most ideas of religion because they are bogus. But don't think about a higher power in the form of god. But as something we can never imagine. Something too superior for us to understand. I'm not saying I believe, I just don't think its right to put down religions. Especially when you dismiss their ideas as fantasies, and insult them. They are only doing what they think is right. So let them believe. Show the world through example that its better to say you don't know rather than assume you know. Make yourself a better man, and only when they respect you will they start to listen. Then you can change something, insults and anger aren't the way anymore. We are past that. It is time to start accepting people for what they are, and let them do whatever they want to do, as long as they don't assault on anyone else's beliefs.

You said it there that we have yet to discover why we are here. So don't put down a religion until we have the answers. Cause there is a chance, however big or small it may be, that they are right. There very well could be a higher power. Maybe not one they imagined, but one nonetheless.

I say show the world by example.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Your position is not improved by shouting.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In fact, your comment is not particularly relevant. There is a nearly unbounded class of things/fantasies that "WE DON'T KNOW". In what percentage of them do you believe and why?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't believe in any. But I'm not gonna talk down to someone who does believe in one. Cause it doesn't make a difference if one beleives or not. That is their choice. It is those who try to impose their beliefs onto others who must be put into check.

And one cannot shout on paper. I was placing emphasis on a statement that i thought was important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Philosopher,

I think you’ll find that both theism and atheism are extremely real and thriving.

True, but unless one is discovered any suggestion that there is one is an imaginative fiction.

From Webster –

Fictional: something invented by the imagination or feigned.
Fantasy: a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived.
Fact: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY *a question of fact hinges on evidence*.

There are no proofs that gods exist, this is fact. This can be easily refuted by the demonstration of just one fact, and no one to date has come anywhere achieving that.

Without facts all religious claims are fictional fantasies. This is fact.

This says nothing about whether such fictional concepts might be found factual in the future.

Why not? They propose fantasies as real and that is dangerous.

My assessment is objectively accurate, why is it an insult to be accurate?

Using criteria that is seriously flawed.

Not if their irrational ideas adversely affect my life which I think they do.

That is my approach. But I can only convince those who have open minds. Institutional religions force a single narrow minded view that they and they alone have the only truth. The way out of that conundrum is to build a system of critical thought and constantly erode the political power and influence of such institutions.

Can you show where I have been insulting and angry?

Institutional religions are still a potent and highly emotional political force in the world. If I take a pacifist stance then their irrationality and power will directly and adversely impinge on my lifestyle and freedom. That is unacceptable.

But it is religion that is playing a significant role in preventing us finding real answers. Christianity has been opposing science throughout its history and it still has a massive adverse influence.

But that is your personal fantasy isn’t it? Religion doesn’t have an effective mechanism for discovering truth. If they are found to be right it won’t be through their efforts but through science. In that view religions are and always will be irrelevant.

Again you have no factual basis for that view, it is just another fantasy.

 

Atheism has nothing to do with 'talking down' theists. It has to do with choosing not to believe in things for which there is a conspicuous lack of evidence. You, apparently, are an atheist with regards to most (if not all) Gods, rendering your previous assertion that "Athiesm is as much a figment of your imagination as theism is." little more than thoughtless posturing.

 

Cris,

You said something about there are more athiests scientists now, so what? My point was the greatest scientists believe/believed in god, such as Einstein, Many Astronomers, De Vinci, and even Stephen Hawking. Hawking and Einstein are 2 of the greatest scientific minds. However, they think differently from everyone else, like Einstein's theories were bold and did not seem to follow "logic" at the time. According to you, Einstein and Hawking are uneducated because they believe in god.

Also,

So, according to the definitions, you saying that there is no god is an imaginative fantasy since it is not a fact that there isn't. Anything not proven as a fact doesn't mean that it isn't a fact, it just means that there is no evidence that it is a fact.

How is there being a god not logical? That means that atoms, chemicals, & organisms just magically have a need to survive. The real question isn't how, it is why. Open your mind and learn to keep ideas out as a possibility instead of immidiately dismissing them as false. If everyone did that no one would come up with new ideas because they aren't factual yet.

You cannot think like I do because you can't accept that this reality is merely an illusion. You cannot think outside of what is told by science and your brain. If this reality is real, then dreams are real, illusionations are also real, any experience that you see, hear, feel, touch, or taste is real.

 

Re Einstein:

Re Hawking:

... and ...

... and ...

So tell me, VitalOne, do you, in accordance with your support for argumentum as verecundiam, likewise reject a personal god in favor of Spinoza's pantheism? After all, "Hawking and Einstein are 2 of the greatest scientific minds" ...

 

Vitalone,

Where have I said there is no god?

I have said that gods are not real (i.e. are artificial/man made) they are fantasies created by human imagination, which is a fact.

 

CA,

Thanks for the E and H quotes, there are more of course but those will do quite nicely.

 

Vitalone,

I’m not sure why you ask. Have I said somewhere that the existence of a god is not logical? I don’t remember saying anything like that.

My position concerns the claims made by theists that gods exist but have no factual basis for their claims. Such claims are illogical since logic requires facts to form valid premises, and without facts no valid logical conclusion can be achieved. To insist on believing such a claim is true is the definition for irrationality.

Why magically? And such inanimate materials cannot express any personal needs one way or the other. Why can’t they simply exist?

Why? As Consequent has just shown from the quote made by Hawking, the universe could just BE. Asking why would be a redundant question.

You mean speculate using imagination. I do that all the time. Maintaining that something is possible requires a factual basis. Imaginative speculation is a big part of the life of most good scientists. Discovering if something is possible moves us to create structured testable hypotheses.

From Webster - Possible: being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization, (b) : being what may be done or may occur according to nature, custom, or manners.

It is theists who do not have open minds. They have eliminated all other possibilities other than “a god did it”. That is the epitome of narrow-mindedness. Neither have I dismissed anything as false, I am insisting that one demonstrates a truth before expecting anyone else to believe it as true. Theists insist gods exist but they have no way to know whether such a thing is true or false. That is irrational and irresponsible.

Nonsense. Imaginative speculation is essential as most good scientists will do and as you quote as advice from Einstein. The problem comes when someone states that their speculative idea is true without proving it, as is done by theists. Most of Einstein’s time was spent proving his theories were true.

Contrast that with theism - Most of the time spent by theists is proclaiming that their fantasies are true – there is no effort to discover proof or truth.

I can speculate that it is an illusion but I have no reason to believe it is an illusion until you prove it. It is true I do not think like you do since you appear to think irrationally, i.e. you believe something true which may well be false.

Apart from imaginative speculation of course and not constrained by the narrow mindedness and severe limited ideas of theism.

This looks like another essay to explore these, what appear like ramblings, sorry but you need to make a stronger case for your ideas.

 

Cris, I'm done arguing with you. If you choose not to see how you're insulting people by calling their ways of life fantasies, then you're just as blind as they are. You are close minded.

No, you are dismissing the idea of a god/higher power completely. You are closing yourself off from the idea. You are offending people. That is the bottom line.

People base their whole lives around their views. And you are calling them fantasies. Calling something a fantasy which they think is fact is an insult. Stop proving them wrong and start showing them by example. I'm done arguing with you, you choose not to see the other side. And the questions you ask me I've already answered, but you have purposely overlooked.

 

If God exists, why does he not send us a sign that everyone can understand and take in as truth of his existance? I am sure some people say he sends signs everyday, but I have yet to see one.

James Sibley

 

What's your view of the Daoine Sidhe?

 

Cris isn't being insulting. Cris is just being honest.

Why does Cris (and myself) think God is a fantasy? Because there is about as much evidence supporting a 'God' as there is for unicorns, one-legged leprachauns, and my principal being a wizard.

Do you think Lord of the Rings is a fantasy? How do you know? Is it set in another dimension? Prove to me that it's not.

If you accept Lord of the Rings as fantasy, then you HAVE to accept God as a fantasy. They are supported by the same amount of evidence (aka. none).

It is a 99.999% possibility that unicorns don't exist. It is a 99.999% possibility that God doesn't exist. Since I take math classes, I like to round up to 100%.

No. It's the truth.

AAAHHHH! Yes, yes. If only theists would look for proof, then maybe this world would be a better (and religious free) place.

I think Cris (like myself) has already seen the other side, and knows that it's a load of bull.

Show me the hand of God, and I'll believe. Since no one has done this yet, I'm not a believer.

 

You seem to be the only one who's offended. Are you sure it's not your mind that is closed? If you're offended because I call your bluff, who is the asshole?

 

No atheism is the position all life on earth had untill 30,000 years ago when the human race had advanced to a level of imagination/artistic ability.

Theism is no more than man's artistic ability twixt with lack of better information thereof.

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

I agree with aristotle,but entertaining a notion is different from being 100% convinced of such a notion,we entertain ideas this way all the time,just look at hollywood films.

 

Really? Now we're getting somewhere ... perhaps. Let's see.

How did you calculate this "possibility"?

Can you show, for example, that this purported "possibility" is greater than, e.g., 97.391%? How about greater than 61.473%?

Come to think of it, just what do you mean by "possible"? Best I can tell, there is absolutely nothing impossible about the unicorn, particularly if you disregard the legends surrounding it - the myth about warts does not render the toad less "possible".

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and it certainly is not evidence of "impossibility".

 

Philosopher,

That is a pity since I am quite sure you have yet to properly comprehend my position. You have adopted a particular agnostic position and appear to want to impose that perception on what you think I am saying, yet you are not listening to my points and are claiming statements that I have not made. In effect you are labeling me according to your biased criteria rather than objective observation.

I believe I have a particularly strong argument but you are mistaking that as insulting and angry. Neither is true. While theists might consider themselves insulted that doesn’t mean an insult has occurred. I cannot be held responsible for the way others perceive objective facts. Neither is this forum intended to be a polite tea party. I’m not aware that truth must be pleasant or cannot cause distress to those who have trouble dealing with objectivity.

I thought you had an issue with people insulting others. Aren’t the terms “you're just as blind as they are” and “You are close minded” emotive and subjective insults? Have I insulted you at any point in our debate, that you feel you must seek revenge? Aren’t you now displaying hypocrisy?

That seems to be your underlying misinterpretation of my position. The idea isn’t being dismissed just more accurately labeled.

If I were debating face to face I might adopt a more subtle approach, but this forum is free of any such requirements. If people feel offended by truth then so be it. You might have a case if you could show that I intend to offend for the sake of offending people, but that is not the case. I am seeking an accurate assessment of the theist position.

There is no easy solution to that. If people choose to feel insulted because they have made a serious mistake in their lives then that is their problem. If they are able to think objectively and can see my perspective as true and then they could simply admit they have made a mistake and not feel insulted. But surely my statements can only be an insult if they are wrong, and I would willingly apologize if anyone can show I am wrong. The idea that someone is insulted by telling them the truth is bizarre. They might feel embarrassed perhaps.

That is an education agenda and more appropriate for a different venue, e.g. face to face discussions and politics. This forum is more suitable for the exploration in blunt terms of the real issues without significant regard for the sensibilities of others or the need to be politically correct. I.e. if you can’t take the heat then leave, as many do.

While I have not responded to each and every statement you have made I believe I have responded to all those that I felt had real bearing on our discussion. If there is some statement that you feel is important that I should have addressed but have mistakenly overlooked then please bring it forward and I will address it accordingly. You don’t need to accuse me of being deliberately deceptive, without checking first if there has been a mistake.

 

ok maybe I'm not speaking clearly. I said you are offending people because you are talking down to them like children. I'm not a thiest and I once was an athiest.

And people will not view your opinions as truth if you start out by offending them. Calling ideas they think are true to be fantasies. Yes I agree with you. Our ideas about god are pretty much fantasies. I'm not trying to disagree with you on the matter. I just think that you are going about trying to convince others the wrong way. Thats all. After people first feel offended they usually stop listening and start shouting insults back. They aren't going to see the truth that you are preaching because they think you're full of shit after offending them. I'm not trying to side with anybody. I'm playing devils advocate in a sense cause I think thiests are misrepresented on this forum. There aren't many of them here, and it goes without mentioning the ones that are here.

I guess I'm trying to help you see the other side of the argument. Cause we shouldn't be arguing about this. It should be just accepted that we don't know why we are here and leave it at that. No need for speculation. Let science do the work. I fully agree with you.

I'm sorry that I've resorted to the same tactics that I say are wrong. I was just getting frustrated with you. Cause everything I said was twisted and turned into something it wasn't. I'd rather talk to someone face to face. Its hard to convey an accurate message in a few sentences with our feable language.

They don't think they have made a serious mistake in their lives. And why should they. With that kind of mentallity most of us hold its no wonder that many continue to believe until their deaths. But really, is your view accurate? Until we know the exact reason for why we are here, we don't know. So there could be a god. So lets stop saying there isn't. CAUSE THERE MAY WELL BE. Why do you just dismiss that idea that there may be a god or higher power? Some people believe in a religion, but don't believe in the specific details in it. They jsut think there is a god so they chose the best religion for them. Cause they believe there is a chance there could be a god so they believe. They're not wrong, nor are they right. And yes your statements would be an insult AFTER science proves them wrong. But until then most people don't care what you think. Some are not insulted, they feel they are right and theres nothing you can do to prove them wrong. And those people are usually the smarter ones that respect all peoples views. They are rare.

Yes, your argument is valid Cris, I never said it wasn't. I only said that your argument wasn't sufficient enough to totally dismiss a higher power. It's up to science to find the answers, not you.

And Wesmorris, may I ask what bluff you have called on me? And about being close minded, I don't know how not taking a side on the issue and just listening is close minded.

 

"...every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him; it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."
--Thomas H. Huxley

"I think an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind. The whole subject [of God] is beyond the scope of man's intellect."
--Charles Darwin

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear".
--Thomas Jefferson