Theists - How can you believe? Seriously ...

I was going to use the Heaven's Gate example but I knew Paul 7 would just dismiss it as a "strawman". You are right though as many die for what they believe in... like ISIS.

 

I'm on about evidence, I'm not going to bang on about conspiracies and lies. Any evidence should be closely examined of course, you can't just accept something without analysis. When that happens then it can be said that there's evidence. So far though, what would be a huge scientific discovery has not yet been produced. Perhaps the examples you use have either been explained as coming from other phenomena? If they have been analysed and found to be evidence then surely it would be in a referred journal, at least?

 

Yes they do believe and they will sacrifice their lives for beliefs, it happens all the time. People blow themselves up in trucks laden with explosives in the belief they will get to Paradise. Soldiers face death in battle because of their beliefs. Belief in humans is an immensely powerful instinct.

 

People love to die for a cause. It really doesn't matter what the cause is. All that matters is that they consider it to be important to them and that some enemy is trying to take it away from them. It can be a rock or a god, money or love, an idea or a person. Someone will gladly die to keep it.

 

Mate, don't offend my deity, the almighty Rock, my Lord. And I quote from The Book of Rock, "Pebble the 2nd Witness of Rock" Verse 23:7: "Love the LORD your God Rock and keep his requirements, his decrees, his laws and his commands always".

 

Mate, as soon as I saw you open with "Mate" I knew you from upside-down-town.

 

It's nice to know the Australian-English language variant isn't dead.

 

I'll bite.. even though this just seems like a ridicule thread, not a quest for truth or understanding.

1. Human experience. It is too vast & too broad to dismiss as individual hysteria.
2. Personal experience. I have subjectively experienced the supernatural.
3. Scientific evidence. The human genome, that you mention is one of the evidences for a creator. Life did not happen spontaneously.. there is no mechanism to do it, & your ubersmart medicine men can't even replicate it with all the science & technology at their disposal. If it 'happened' so easily, why can we not repeat it?
4. Pseudo science. Grand clams, with NO validation or scientific methodology are used to produce pop science.. more in line with religious beliefs than anything resembling science.
5. corroboration throughout the ages. We may not be able to see it, define it, our examine it with our natural senses, but there is something beyond the material world, & it has fascinated & intrigued great thinkers throughout the ages. You can dismiss them all as idiots, if you want, but it seems to me there is something there that is beyond us.
6. The arrogance of man. Every generation of man seems to think they are at the pinnacle of knowledge & wisdom.. they have 'arrived' & all before them were superstitious fools. I see no difference in this modern generation of self congratulatory fools. We have advanced, technologically, beyond any generation before us. But morally, intellectually, & rationally, we are no different than any other generation.. maybe a bit more irrational, & prone to dogmatism masquerading as science, but critical thinking & depth are not highly regarded at this time.
7. dogmatism & assertion trumping the scientific method & logic. This is a lot like #4, but it is illustrated by the OP. Eye rolling & repeated dogma, with NO basis in scientific fact, are presented as absolute truth, when they are not even good theories.

I actually have the same question, but i direct it to the so-called 'educated' among us:

How can you believe this pseudo scientific crap that passes for 'scientific truth' these days?

 

"walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7)

Christianity is faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ. The struggle you talk about is believing the biblical account because it doesn’t match up with our perception of reality. Like the disciple Thomas, when he heard the stories of the resurrection, he wouldn’t believe them until he saw with his own two eyes. The skeptics are echoing Thomas’ sentiment: “Unless I see Jesus face to face, I will not believe."

It's important to remember that our minds, our brains... are 3 in 1.

Neocortex - Thought (logic, language, will)
Limbic System - Emotion (relationships/nurturing, dreams, play)
Reptilian Brain - Instinct (survival, breathing/swallowing/heartbeat)

We are not solely rational creatures who follow logic. There is an intermingling and communication of these 3 parts that can lead to a lot of contentiousness. The Neocortex likes to think it is in the driver's seat, but the Limbic System and Reptilian brain exercise a lot of power.

In other words, there are often attempts to supplant faith with pure logic & reason...but this discounts what it is to be human. Religion taps into a need for a person to seek hope and transcendence. The message of Christianity taps into this unlike atheism, which offers little in it's embrace of the whole of humanity.

The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and ethics.

.

 

1) human experience is vast and broad because human imagination is vast and broad. so is superstition.
2) if you have actually experienced the supernatural, empirically proven and with no other possible explanation, then you're the first.
3) there are many things in the universe yet to be fully understood, or achieved, or replicated by science - but how does that equate to a jewish goat-herder sky god? show us the clear link between the two.
4) science simply goes where evidence leads. 'grand' claims are the realm of superstition and religion.
5) if you can't see it, taste it, touch it, understand it, test it, detect it, how do you know it's there? see 1). human imagination, plus our fear of death, has compelled us to will into existence a realm no one has ever detected.
6) the only arrogance is in thinking you have all the answers. scientific enquiry enquires because it DOESN'T have all the answers.
7) what is dogmatic about "we don't have all the answers"? it's a cute furphy, this new 'science as dogma' idea, but outside the bubble it's very clear this is an "I'm not, YOU are!" nose thumb.

- - - Updated - - -

Maaaate

 

My biggest issue is let me for argument sake say there is a DIVINE FORCE there is an issue if one takes all the human faiths and the likely untold number of non-human faiths on other worlds what is the odds the Judeo-Christian-Muslim narrative is correct with most of the historical evidence debunked by science? I made a sound point it could be a Divine Force some beast mindlessly crapping and belching reality into existence and its just as valid an argument as for god of the main holy books.

Science may have issues but it uses what evidence is given to make claims and those can change, they have and will, but not knowing all the answers doesn't mean fill in with [insert faith of choice] but keep hammering away to find out more.

 

1. experience is not the same as superstition. Experience is what has brought the technological advances, education, & learning. Sure, superstition can be propagated or indoctrinated as 'truth', but this was not my point. The overall experience of humanity, & their collective opinion of something beyond themselves is too great to ignore, for an honest analyst.
2. You are either very young, or don't get out much. Many people.. thousands if not millions, have claimed an 'experience' with the supernatural. I had the disclaimer.. 'subjective'... because this kind of thing does not lend itself to repeatable, observable analysis. That does not invalidate it as evidence, it just is not subject to the scientific method of enquiry.
3. ? I don't get the question. The study of science does not equate to goat herding. But the claims of fantastic origin scenarios are no more 'science' than your goat herder's opinion.
4. That was my point. The scientific method is not a factor in this kind of thing. Demanding everything to be run through a specific methodology is narrow minded & dogmatic. Knowledge cannot be limited to narrow spheres of enquiry. The universe is much bigger than our tiny brains. Dogmatism is not limited to the religious or superstitious.
5. Your opinion.. based on a very narrow, subjective view of reality. You are not omnipotent, & have no way to prove this assertion.
6. False accusation. I do not claim omnipotence, & have only ridiculed the arrogant elitists throughout the ages who act as if they have it.
7. 'we don't have all the answers' is a very good answer. I wish i heard it more from the pseudo scientists, but instead, i hear dogmatic assertions regarding millions of years, the cosmos, origins, & changes in life & cosmology. The 'scientific establishment' has not changed. It is still dogmatic, inflexible, & defensive of their 'turf'. Go back as far as you like, it has always been this way. Many advances in scientific knowledge have come with resistance from the scientific community, as they jockey to protect their image & power base.

 

I'm trying to follow.. so statistically, you think a particular religion is proven false, since there are other different perceptions about the same thing?

I am all for the scientific method, & i see NO CONFLICT with it & any religious views. Many of the most brilliant scientists throughout the ages have been religious, or held opinions about the supernatural, & it did not conflict with their quest for scientific knowledge. The current crop of atheist scientists have made a FALSE DICHOTOMY, claiming there is such a conflict, & the only choice is religious superstition, or empirical science. They are not the same disciplines, & do not correlate.
The scientific method is limited in its scope of enquiry. It cannot deal with historical events, or any matter that is not repeatable & observable. But many pseudo scientists do exactly that. They project their fantasies, & claim scientific endorsement. This is just as superstitious as any religious view, & offends the true scientist, who is searching for valid, provable, evidence, not flimsy imagination to prop up some lame theory.

 

agree, it's easier to say one doesn't believe in the bible definition of God then for them to say they do not believe in a higher power(God)

 

I don't ignore this very human tendency to superstition, though. And you seem to be talking about it (superstition) as though it's some discrete agency. Or rather, you feel that because most of us are inclined to be superstitious, this must mean something other than .... most of us are inclined to be superstitious. You seem to attribute meaning above and beyond the call of duty.

On the contrary, I'm so not-young, and have gotten out more than most people might do in several lifetimes (including living in different countries and culture and studying comparative religion), that it will be a strange day indeed if I can be convinced purely via anecdotal experiences that the supernatural exists. I'm happy to wait for ACTUAL evidence - the provision of which, given the superpowers attributed to many supernatural entities, shouldn't be a problem.

 

This is an assumption you make. But it is not proven fact, just your opinion. You do not have any evidence that everyone who claims an experience with the supernatural is just because 'most of us are inclined to be superstitious.' This is your belief, based on your experience with people. But it is presumptuous, imo, & prejudicial to dismiss ALL other's experiences as 'superstitious' just because you have not personally corroborated their testimony. There are too many instances with too many variables & too many inexplicable situations to dogmatically assert all of it as 'superstitious inclination'.

Perhaps this is what other people do as well. Perhaps many HAVE actually waited for evidence, experienced it subjectively, & based their philosophical outlook & beliefs on it. It is irrational & prejudicial for you to ASSUME that all supernatural claimants are deluded, superstitious fools, & you know omnipotently all the truth in the universe. This thread is not about bullying anyone to believe something without their mental assent, but WHY people can believe in something supernatural. I have provided the reasoning for the question. I am not trying to convince you of anything, or persuade you to believe anything, just answering the question in the OP.

 

I'm afraid I don't know how else any rational person is to take the complete lack of evidence for anything supernatural - other than to dismiss the claims. And since we know humans are suggestible, imaginative, herd-minded, and sentient enough to realise their own mortality, it follows that the imagination is likely to fill in the gaps, or smooth over the bits we don't like (ie, death). This stuff is neither dogmatic nor emotive, it's simply The Most Likely. I can't see any practical benefit to a refusal to accept likelihoods in preference to 'the least likely'. If you went to a used car lot, would you buy the car with 800,000 miles on the clock which hasn't been serviced since it was new 30 years ago? or would you buy one of the other 99 cars - all of which have less miles and more service? There may well be a NON-PRACTICAL benefit to buying such a crappy car (it has flames painted on the sides, and white wall tires), but once you accept that emotions compelled you to make the decision, you also accept that it's an act of self-indulgence, and know full well that it's likely to give you all kinds of trouble getting it to function in the real world. also, you must acknowledge that it's entirely YOUR fantasy, and doesn't exist outside of your own head - as it were.

actually I know very little about the universe. it could be run by a team of computer geeks, headquartered in the horsehead nebula. it could be run by a small donkey, it could be run by a jewish sky god. since none have ever been shown to have any impact on our existence, it's entirely irrelevant.

 

Crank……. you have obviously not read the Helen Wambach Ph. D. research. I read both of her books back in the '90's.


http://www.carolmoore.net/articles/helenwambach.html

If you read up on String Theory you would know that time not being limited to being one straight line is one of its implications. Helen Wambach Ph.D.'s third study and book was finished by Dr. Chet Snow. Their research can be profoundly encouraging if you look into it.

http://dwij.org/forum/future_link/future7.htm

Crank….. one of the obvious benefits to having a population that is informed on such topics is that Christians who at this time are unconcerned about climate change could be encouraged to become more worried about us doing our part to produce a much less violent future this time around by concentrating on putting green energy devices on the market and in producing food even in desert areas through initiatives like the Sahara Forest Project or Sahara Solar Breeder project or Permaculture.

 

Is it possible emotions could be involved in a decision to reject a God-concept?

For someone who doesn't know, you sure are sure the God-hypothesis is false.

- - - Updated - - -

What would constitute said actual evidence for you? If Jesus really did walk on water 2,000 years ago, what evidence would you want?

 

what is the basis for your belief?

 

For me personally, I don't believe in believing. That is, why should I believe that the sun rises in the east? I see it each and every day, so no need for a belief in it.

Now, when it comes to God, the Creator, the Immeasurable, my own feelings towards THAT, is not a belief, but I sense IT, when the mind is quiet, with no thought, no movement of the ego is happening. So, it's like the sun rising in the east. No need to believe, in fact one only believes when one doesn't really know, but has a hope. I have no such hope. As I have no hope in regards to the sun rising. I do not think about it.

If God exists, it is outside of time, which means outside of thought. Now, what I just said is a concept, created by thought, but one has to do that in order to say anything about the timeless, the immeasurable. While understanding it is an exercise in futility.

Thought can never KNOW this thing man has called God. But thought can believe in something it can never know. But that belief is utter nonsense. And when man forms these beliefs about god, generally the next thing historically is he starts murdering those who do not believe as he does. Utter insanity.

So beliefs are very dangerous things to other human beings. I will not indulge in the insanity.

 

One Mind.... do you find the idea of the Creator planning an essentially infinite number of Big Bang type events over infinite time in the past to be offensive at all?

Some Theists do!

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/reincarnation04.html#a05

 

The short answer: I had an experience that I interpreted as something greater than myself intervening in my life. This is proof of God to me but I will never use this as proof to another.

As for being a Deist, we believe in God but reject dogma. We believe that God gave us a brain to use and He expects us to use it. Deism is not about being told what to believe, its about asking our own questions and seeking out our own answers. Because of this no two Deists will have the exact same view of God.

Is Deism text books are our Bible and knowledge is our religion.

 

As an atheist I am open to there being a God but I see no evidence for there being a God.

 

My guess is a quarter to half of all atheists think those that believe in God are an example of individuals reverting back to primitive spirituality due to being forcefully indoctrinated into religious life. Some think we are nothing more than a brainwashed vessel that our evil theist parents have filled with all sorts of superstitious nonsense. They think theists and other believers of metaphysics and religion are doomed to live out our lives as primitive thinkers shackled to our bibles Korans', Grimoires etc. Its obvious they did not think such things through and its also obvious they are measuring from their own cup ie own experiences.

As far as the beauty of nature being all that is needed to fulfill their curiously etc, and it being the sole domain of atheists I would suggest looking up a word ; Revelation. We theists use the same things to venerate the creator God.

A good read that explains the concept... The Bible: The Inspired Revelation of God | Bible.org
https://bible.org/seriespage/bible-inspired-revelation-god

Oops that address above does describe biblical revelation but Its the wrong web site I wanted to post. Its a good resource in any case and does touch on natural revelation via spirituality. Christians see God in the creation, a butterfly the night sky all are evidences of Gods existence.

In any case thank you for your kind non hateful words ~


reva