There is neither evidence nor a rational reason to believe in God.
And IMO there shouldn't be! The whole point is that faith is defined as "belief in things not seen"--whether they be "seen" by the senses, or through the light of reason.
I have a dear friend who is involved with something called Reasonable Faith. To me, that's a contradiction in terms. The essence of faith is that it not be reasonable, as the term is usually used: If the existence of god(s) could be proved, then it would be a matter of rational conviction and not faith at all!
Moreover, as soon as a believer asserts that there is a rational basis to believe in god(s), s/he is likely to be asked "prove it"--and at some point the proof will beg the question (that is, assume what needs to be proved), or s/he'll say something like "God's logic is not our logic," which precisely undercuts the contention of there being a rational basis for belief (because "rationality" is based on human logic).
To me, faith is the essence of religious belief: "No, I can never prove my god exists, not even to myself--yet I believe!" That, I think, is being intellectually honest--and is unanswerable.
All the best to everyone, and thanks for all civil posts. I doubt this thread will last much longer.
You're just embarrassingly contradicting yourself. you say that human knowledge is limited so we cannot know a god bigger than us even though you seem to know this and then later on you completely u-turn and say theres evidence for god and its rational implying you changed your mind in the course of two sentences. Not very smart are you. And its not really about knowledge per se but the process of accepting or rejecting statements based off of evidence. Our standards of this for other beliefs, which often turn out to be suspect when we dont keep up the standard, are so much higher than our standard of evidence for God. Look at your own post even where you argue for God by presupposing ots own existence which is not good reasoning.
To me, faith is the essence of religious belief: "No, I can never prove my god exists, not even to myself--yet I believe!" That, I think, is being intellectually honest--and is unanswerable.
All the best to everyone, and thanks for all civil posts. I doubt this thread will last much longer.
This undefinable 'black box' we refer to as faith is the very thing I struggle with the most in regards to religion. Because faith is counterintuitive and irrational in every sense. And I believe there is no place for it in modern society. But it's the ultimate trump card, isn't it? In a debate, ultimately the conversation ends with this very point-- you either have faith or you don't. There is no bridging that gap, and we remain eternally opposed.
Anyway, I appreciate your refreshingly rational response. And here, I suppose I will take a step back and let you slug it out with your fellow theists who will vehemently disagree with this take of not being able to prove it.
To be an atheist, you cannot believe in free will.
Actually, by definition all that "atheist" means is someone who doesn't believe in any god(s).
I've certainly met nonbelievers who believe in free will, and others who don't. TBH I've met atheists who accept and espouse all kinds of irrational crap--so much for atheism's necessarily being an "intellectual" or "reasoned" position!
Atheists might believe in karma, or reincarnation, or all manner of goofy sh!t. The thing (and the only thing, in my experience) that they share is that none of them believes in a god. That's it.
Free will is an illusion. Our wills are simply not of our own making. Thoughts and intentions emerge from background causes of which we are unaware and over which we exert no conscious control. We do not have the freedom we think we have.
Take a moment to think about the context in which your next decision will occur: You did not pick your parents or the time and place of your birth. You didn't choose your gender or most of your life experiences. You had no control whatsoever over your genome or the development of your brain. And now your brain is making choices on the basis of preferences and beliefs that have been hammered into it over a lifetime — by your genes, your physical development since the moment you were conceived, and the interactions you have had with other people, events, and ideas. Where is the freedom in this?
Now Paul--who was active and wrote his epistles before any of the Gospels were written, remember--wanted to grow the church, wanted to make it something other than a minor Jewish sect. How to do that? Ah, decide that you *don't* have to keep kosher, you *don't* have to keep the Sabbath...and especially that you *don't* have to be circumcised! Eternal life, *and* keep the tip? Now that's a product!
A lot of people don't realize the impact that Paul had on the Christian faith. I would estimate that modern Christianity is 80% Paul and 20% Christ. All of Paul's Epistles predate the first Gospel, some by as much as a decade. The Gospels were written by people who had read Paul's epistles (and the legendary Q document: but that's another story)
It was Paul who softened the image of Christ and first formulated the basic principals of the Resurrection: God sent his Son to Earth. The Son was crucified and resurrected for the benefit of humanity. The Son would soon return and those who believed in Christ would live with him forever. Paul also strongly pushed the principle of Atonement, that Christians are redeemed from sin by Jesus' death and resurrection. All this was put in place by Paul before any of the Gospels were written.
A lot of the cherry picking regarding the Laws in Leviticus can also be traced back to Paul. The business about eating pork was addressed in Romans 14:14 "I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." This is probably understandable as Paul was determined to expand Christianity into the gentile community and so eliminating some of the more problematic Jewish social customs would be beneficial.
In Galatians 3:19 he provides that ultimate "Get out of Jail Card" for the problems with Mosaic Law: "Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made." I.e., now that Christ has come the old laws can be viewed differently.
I have to say, with firsthand experience, that faith can be very powerful in terms of sports performance.
I am not a person of faith but coached for several years at a Christian high school (Dutch Christian Reformed variety).
My athletes believed that faith required them to prepare, to work hard, to "run in such a way as to win the prize" (Corinthians), and that to do anything less than your best is an affront to God. The Protestant work ethic was present in everything these kids did, from sports to their studies, to how they worked their summer jobs.
Then, come race day, their attitude was "God has a plan for me and I will accept the results as they come." They would be relaxed and ready to roll, leaning on this idea that it "is in his hands now."
Again, I am not a person of faith, but I saw how faith helped these kids be little Terminators.
You're just embarrassingly contradicting yourself. you say that human knowledge is limited so we cannot know a god bigger than us even though you seem to know this and then later on you completely u-turn and say theres evidence for god and its rational implying you changed your mind in the course of two sentences. Not very smart are you. And its not really about knowledge per se but the process of accepting or rejecting statements based off of evidence. Our standards of this for other beliefs, which often turn out to be suspect when we dont keep up the standard, are so much higher than our standard of evidence for God. Look at your own post even where you argue for God by presupposing ots own existence which is not good reasoning.
You misunderstood what I said. There is no contradiction. Our limited knowledge does not prevent us from knowing God. Our limited knowledge/understanding of the world stops us from understanding Him. I’m not going to enter every argument I’ve had with an atheist by presupposing that God isn’t real. 9.5/10 the atheist begins the argument and so the burden on proof is on them. id love to see an example of the evidence you have. Please educate me because I am not smart.
These supreme beings must be so busy looking after pro athletes with their demands for high level training and race performance, and all of them queuing up to be given the nod for victory. It's a wonder a single child living below the poverty line actually makes it to adulthood. Very mysterious ways indeed. But it's good to know the chosen ones get to focus on sport and not worry so much about the peons begging for crumbs.
9.5/10 the atheist begins the argument and so the burden on proof is on them. id love to see an example of the evidence you have. Please educate me because I am not smart.
You’re claiming there is an all-powerful, all-knowing being, of which there is no evidence, and you want to put the burden on others to disprove that?
not being able to disprove something does not equal that thing being even remotely likely.
I have to say, with firsthand experience, that faith can be very powerful in terms of sports performance.
I am sure you are correct. As Henry Ford said, "Whether you think you can, or you think you can't – you're right." A positive attitude is a huge influence on success or failure, indeed it has generated a whole industry in Sports Psychology.
In that respect I feel religious beliefs are a positive contribution to society. The Golden Rule, Protestant work ethic etc. all make our lives a little easier to get through. I do have a problem when religion is weaponized but in general the benefits of religion outweigh the negatives. Whether you need to have a religious faith to follow the Golden Rule and apply the Protestant work ethic is another matter.
What is interesting to me though is once I stopped believing in God then the whole history of Christianity becomes a completely different subject. Once the "Word of God - Divinely Inspired" foundations are removed you are then looking at human beings trying to make sense of an individual who was obviously incredibly charismatic and inspiring. The debate over whether Christ was the Messiah of the Jews or all mankind, the differences between John and Thomas as to the nature of Christ, the influence of Paul, the relevance of Mosaic Law, the Arian Heresy etc. etc. all become fascinating subjects.
People within Christian circles debate things such as free will and predestination all the time. I think it's pretty obvious that people do have choice, and throughout bible, God will give prophets choices, in which sometimes they choose the wrong choice.
To be an atheist, you cannot believe in free will. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens admit as much. We are just doing what protoplasm does under the sun at this temperature.
So you can choose between some kind of creator, or realize that you have no choice or control over your life.
You're just embarrassingly contradicting yourself. you say that human knowledge is limited so we cannot know a god bigger than us even though you seem to know this and then later on you completely u-turn and say theres evidence for god and its rational implying you changed your mind in the course of two sentences. Not very smart are you. And its not really about knowledge per se but the process of accepting or rejecting statements based off of evidence. Our standards of this for other beliefs, which often turn out to be suspect when we dont keep up the standard, are so much higher than our standard of evidence for God. Look at your own post even where you argue for God by presupposing ots own existence which is not good reasoning.
You misunderstood what I said. There is no contradiction. Our limited knowledge does not prevent us from knowing God. Our limited knowledge/understanding of the world stops us from understanding Him. I’m not going to enter every argument I’ve had with an atheist by presupposing that God isn’t real. 9.5/10 the atheist begins the argument and so the burden on proof is on them. id love to see an example of the evidence you have. Please educate me because I am not smart.
That's not how a discussion works.
Your position is that we should just presuppose that [fill in the blank] exists and then it's up to the other person taking the counterpoint to prove that [fill in the blank] doesn't exist.
If I said that there are zebras living on the Moon today, it's up to me to provide demonstrable proof to back that claim. I don't expect everyone to presuppose that zebras are living on the Moon and then claim that lunar zebra deniers are backwards for no presupposing a position for which there is no observable evidence.
There's an infinite number of statements anyone could claim to be true. We don't just presuppose them to be true and then go from there. I believe in the observable universe because it is observable and measurable. If you're going to tell me that there's something I should believe in that isn't observable or measurable, how does that logic work? The zebras on the Moon are also not observable: they don't reflect light and have no measurable mass, but they're still there. Why wouldn't anyone believe that?
With all of this said, the Pope is the Antichrist.
Wow, I'd be fearing God for posting that. You might live to 100 or even longer, but you will face fear for making such a post. God is real. Jesus Christ his son is real. The Bible is real. You have my pity for making such a comment.
Galen's legacy will always be marred by the years he spent working with a coach who played with drugs and is now banned.
We'll never know the truth. It's hard to accept that Galen wasn't doping in some way what with the many witnesses, fact that he was Alberto's favorite, and all the stories about him. God might not care about medals but God might care if you lied and cheated your way to the top.
I believe that Salazar did some sleazy stuff to gain an edge but was never successful in doing so. Until Solinsky injured his hamstring, he was every bit as good as Rupp and I doubt he would have been any faster had he been coached by Salazar.
The essence of faith is that it not be reasonable, as the term is usually used: If the existence of god(s) could be proved, then it would be a matter of rational conviction and not faith at all!
To me, faith is the essence of religious belief: "No, I can never prove my god exists, not even to myself--yet I believe!" That, I think, is being intellectually honest--and is unanswerable.
That is my understanding of Faith, as well, and it makes the most sense in the context of religion.
And the more unreasonable the supernatural claim of a particular religion, the more Faith required. That is why Mormons, for example, have more Faith than Presbyterians, for example. The more supernatural intellectual hurdles one must overcome, the more Faith one has.
With all of this said, the Pope is the Antichrist.
Wow, I'd be fearing God for posting that. You might live to 100 or even longer, but you will face fear for making such a post. God is real. Jesus Christ his son is real. The Bible is real. You have my pity for making such a comment.
Many christians think that the Pope is the antichrist, that catholicism is satans church, etc…