Zone1 Why is it so tough to believe in God?

[ding]

You can have friendships and relationships without God

How has not believing in God enriched your life?

 

[rightwinger]

Your leap in logic is astounding.

You do not “choose to believe”
You either do or you don’t.

 

[rightwinger]

How has not believing in God enriched your life?

Interesting question

My life goes on.
I form relationships, raised children, help others, am an active member of society…..

All without God

 

[ding]

You do not “choose to believe”
You either do or you don’t.

Sure you do. Everything is choice.

At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. To see it any other way means you believe you don't have control of your destiny. Is that how you see your life?

 

[ding]

Interesting question

My life goes on.
I form relationships, raised children, help others, am an active member of society…..

All without God

Almost everyone does those things. How has not believing in God enriched your life?

 

[Meriweather]

God isn’t unique in any meaningful way, there have been thousands of mutually exclusive god-claims, each asserted as uniquely true. If you want to argue that a vague, unfalsifiable ‘man in the sky’ concept is unique, that only makes it epistemically meaningless.

And pointing out uniqueness doesn’t help prove your god-claim correct. The conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, it’s a non sequitur

Again, you are moving goal posts. God is unique, that's fact. Moving the goal posts to include an argument of "in any meaningful way" then covers personal opinions. The gods of mythology have sometimes to step in to protect/save humans from a specific physical danger the role of champion in a physical situation. By contrast, God acts on a spiritual level, saving individuals from their own faults and failings.

We both agree on no 'man in the sky'. In fact the entire world is in agreement no 'man in the sky'. In contrast, God's existence is manifest everywhere: In, around, among within, etc.

 

[Meriweather]

So, let me get this straight: failing to cite a unique trait about one religion somehow invalidates the point that people reject all god-claims except their own? That doesn’t follow.

The observation stands regardless, mutual rejection of competing claims is independent of whether any one religion can be called ‘unique.’ The logic here is another non sequitur.

Again with moving the goal posts: The discussion was citing a unique trait between God and the gods of mythology. It wasn't a discussion "about a unique trait about one religion".

 

[rightwinger]

Almost everyone does those things. How has not believing in God enriched your life?

Has no bearing

Life goes on

 

[Meriweather]

I don’t give agreement any weight until it can be verified.

1. Have you taken the time and effort (and it takes a lot of both) to seek and find God?
2. Have you talked face-to-face with people with personal testimony?
3. Have you researched and studied the evidence that is available in various places around the world?

Or, is it more likely you have made up your mind and you will not allow anything to change it? By the way, my purpose is not to change your mind. Some of the most loved people in my life are atheists and will remain atheists. What they better understand (and I'm hoping you will as well) is why people believe in God. It's usually because we've gotten past that 'man-in-the-sky' interpretation and are on to something more.

 

[ding]

Has no bearing

Life goes on

So you can't tell me how not believing in God has enriched your life? Is that because it hasn't?

 

[Meriweather]

You can have friendships and relationships without God

Absolutely. When my best friend since high school was living, I had (and still have) relationships with others. I still wouldn't have wanted to do without the relationship I had with her. I still miss it, and it's been a dozen years now.

In the same way I work at relationships with others in my life, I work at my relationship with God.

 

[Meriweather]

You do not “choose to believe”
You either do or you don’t.

One does choose to seek or not to seek.

 

[forkup]

Where did I present God as "objective truth" when "objective truth" by definition is physical evidence?

Here

In many situations God appears to stand back and allow us to forge through on our own. That makes us a stronger, more confident person, which cautions me about rushing too quickly to another's rescue. Try to be on hand, which gives confidence. Often, that is all that is needed.

With God, each situation is unique and personal.

His presence in our midst is quite different from that of fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns.

Dismissing the one God

Every time you assert God’s presence or behavior as fact, you are making an objective truth claim. That’s the point.

 

[forkup]

The fact that belief in a power greater than man has existed since the beginning of man, in overwhelming numbers, in every society ought to give you a clue that it's hardwired into man. So... if we take the Darwinian approach, it should be clear to you that belief in God provides a functional advantage that atheism does not have. Otherwise, belief in God would have died out long ago. I'm sure that even with your limited intellect you could figure out what those functional advantages might be.

This is a psychological argument, not an epistemic one, it does nothing to establish whether God is true.

Yes, belief in God can help people cope with grief and provide a sense of certainty where knowledge is lacking. But it also exacerbates tribalism and violence, creates hurdles to reaching objective truths, stifles scientific progress, and spreads questionable moral advice to billions.

So even if belief persists for psychological reasons, that doesn’t make it true. And when I weigh the effects, I believe the net benefit of religion is negative.

This is also an OP in zone one. So calling me stupid is not only against the rules here, it’s also an admission that you feel unable to get the better of the exchange. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like it when people weaken their own point, but I won’t take that bait in the future. I just wanted to point it out to show how weak it makes your argument, and that I’m fully aware of the tactic.

 

[Meriweather]

Every time you assert God’s presence or behavior as fact, you are making an objective truth claim. That’s the point.

Your post is hilarious as none of those were any part of our present discussion. If I ever need goal posts moved, I'm calling you!

Over and above that, all of those posts were my own experiences, and it has already been established between the two of us that personal experiences are not objective evidence/proofs but subjective evidence/proofs. I find it hilarious that first you complain that all I have is subjective evidence, and now you are claiming my subjective evidence/claims are really objective evidence/claims!

Think about telling someone about all you did yesterday. You will find that much of what you did falls into the subjective, not the objective. I can say I went for a walk, but I have no objective proof of it. I can say I went searching for a plant but couldn't find it--no evidence for that either. I don't even have objective proof of what I ate or drank, or that I washed my hands each time I left the bathroom.

 

[forkup]

So what? Neither of those religions claim to be God seeking man. Maybe take it up with Huston Smith.

Huston Smith actually makes my point. His comparative work shows that every tradition has its own way of expressing the relationship between humanity and the transcendent.

In Hinduism, avatars like Krishna descend to restore dharma, that’s divine initiative. In Buddhism, bodhisattvas delay their own enlightenment to help others, that’s higher beings reaching down to aid man.

So no, Christianity doesn’t hold a monopoly on divine initiative. And if you want to invoke Huston Smith, you’ll find he agrees that motifs of divine outreach exist across traditions, even if they don’t use the same Abrahamic categories.

 

[ding]

This is a psychological argument, not an epistemic one, it does nothing to establish whether God is true.

Yes, belief in God can help people cope with grief and provide a sense of certainty where knowledge is lacking. But it also exacerbates tribalism and violence, creates hurdles to reaching objective truths, stifles scientific progress, and spreads questionable moral advice to billions.

So even if belief persists for psychological reasons, that doesn’t make it true. And when I weigh the effects, I believe the net benefit of religion is negative.

This is also an OP in zone one. So calling me stupid is not only against the rules here, it’s also an admission that you feel unable to get the better of the exchange. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like it when people weaken their own point, but I won’t take that bait in the future. I just wanted to point it out to show how weak it makes your argument, and that I’m fully aware of the tactic.

It's not a psychological argument anymore than natural selection is a psychological argument. It's reality. So no matter how clever you think your argument is to justify denying reality, it's still denying reality. Belief in God exists because belief in God is a functional advantage. It's literally what Pascal was arguing and it explains why belief in God is so prevalent and has endured for such a long time.

To your point that religion is a net negative, if that were true it would have died out long ago. Maybe a better contrast would be to compare it to the atheistic countries of the 20th century. Or I guess you could just keep denying the Darwinian principles of natural selection which is based upon functional advantage.

Religion and belief in God are two different things. One is a collection of individuals following the same dogmatic beliefs. The other is an individual who has a personal relationship with God. It's not religion that creates the functional advantage that enriches one's life. It's having a personal relationship with God that creates the functional advantage and enriches one's life.

Did I call you stupid? Or did I say you have a limited intellect? They aren't the same thing. And if you don't understand the difference then you are proving my point that you have a limited intellect.

 

[forkup]

Your post is hilarious as none of those were any part of our present discussion. If I ever need goal posts moved, I'm calling you!

Over and above that, all of those posts were my own experiences, and it has already been established between the two of us that personal experiences are not objective evidence/proofs but subjective evidence/proofs. I find it hilarious that first you complain that all I have is subjective evidence, and now you are claiming my subjective evidence/claims are really objective evidence/claims!

Think about telling someone about all you did yesterday. You will find that much of what you did falls into the subjective, not the objective. I can say I went for a walk, but I have no objective proof of it. I can say I went searching for a plant but couldn't find it--no evidence for that either. I don't even have objective proof of what I ate or drank, or that I washed my hands each time I left the bathroom.

The last one actually was. And all of them are in this OP. Do you think saying something to one person should be considered invalid when speaking to someone else?

I’m not moving the goalposts. The claim I made is consistent: when you assert something without qualifier, you’re presenting it as true.

Pointing out that your statements about God are presented as fact isn’t shifting the terms, it’s clarifying what’s already happening.

The difference is simple: everyday claims like ‘I went for a walk’ are testable in principle, even if you don’t have proof on hand. God claims are not testable at all. That’s why they don’t qualify as objective evidence.

So no, I haven’t changed the standard. I’ve applied the same one throughout: testability is what separates evidence from mere assertion.

 

[ding]

Huston Smith actually makes my point. His comparative work shows that every tradition has its own way of expressing the relationship between humanity and the transcendent.

In Hinduism, avatars like Krishna descend to restore dharma, that’s divine initiative. In Buddhism, bodhisattvas delay their own enlightenment to help others, that’s higher beings reaching down to aid man.

So no, Christianity doesn’t hold a monopoly on divine initiative. And if you want to invoke Huston Smith, you’ll find he agrees that motifs of divine outreach exist across traditions, even if they don’t use the same Abrahamic categories.

Huston Smith said the only revealed religions are the Abrahamic religions (see Huston Smith's The Illustrated World's Religions). So Huston Smith certainly isn't proving your point.

 

[forkup]

It's not a psychological argument anymore than natural selection is a psychological argument. It's reality. So no matter how clever you think your argument is to justify denying reality, it's still denying reality. Belief in God exists because belief in God is a functional advantage. It's literally what Pascal was arguing and it explains why belief in God is so prevalent and has endured for such a long time.

To your point that religion is a net negative, if that were true it would have died out long ago. Maybe a better contrast would be to compare it to the atheistic countries of the 20th century. Or I guess you could just keep denying the Darwinian principles of natural selection which is based upon functional advantage.

Religion and belief in God are two different things. One is a collection of individuals following the same dogmatic beliefs. The other is an individual who has a personal relationship with God. It's not religion that creates the functional advantage that enriches one's life. It's having a personal relationship with God that creates the functional advantage and enriches one's life.

Did I call you stupid? Or did I say you have a limited intellect? They aren't the same thing. And if you don't understand the difference then you are proving my point that you have a limited intellect.

Of course it’s a psychological argument. Pointing out the psychological need for humans to believe in a deity is...you know...a psychological argument. Unlike Darwinism which is a scientific one.

And sure, let’s compare. Most Western European nations today are largely atheist, and the U.S. deliberately separated religion from the state. Contrast that with theocracies, or with Europe before secularization, when pogroms, crusades, and religious wars tore societies apart. That’s exactly why the U.S. built a wall between church and state.

Religion requires belief in a God, does it not? If you want to separate organized religion from personal belief, fine, but both rest on the same untestable premise.

And as for ‘I didn’t call you stupid, just said you have limited intellect’, that’s still an ad hominem. Implied meaning counts. Dressing it up doesn’t make it less weak. If you think that saves face, good luck. Next time maybe it’ll work.