What Makes People NOT believe In God? (Atheists Come!)

frank apisa:


I understand your confusion. Maybe the reason I included agnostics is because of my predisposition to believe that there is a spiritual explanation for things physically unexplainable.

Well...let me go on record...(as an agnostic)...as saying that there may very well be a (spiritual) explanation of things that are physically unexplainable. That possibility, in fact, is as likely, based on the evidence available to me, as any other explanation that might be offered.

I prefer not to characterize my sensibilities in this regard as "believing" one way or the other on it.

In any case, the reason I commented on your original sentence is easy to understand. In fact, if you take out the "atheist" from that original sentence and write it: "I'm asking if agnostics believe that there are things beyond their conprehension"...you quickly realize that agnostics (think) almost all of these things are beyond their comprehension.

To be totally honest, my motives are probably at least partially some proselytizing, but it really comes naturally - almost subconsciously.

I have said this before on other threads and maybe saying this here may clear the air ..

( I am speculating here.. )

I think, to simplify things, what some people are trying to say is that .. well....
Hmm.. let me start over .

If, according to the bible and many other religions I might add, you dont 'meet' god / dess until you die, then there is no proof for the living that there IS a god. I personally dont know anyone who has died and lived to tell about it.
And maybe an agnostic stand point is just that. -Im alive, I dont see it, doesnt mean it isnt there.. it just means I dont see it. -

Does that make sence???
Am I talking out of my rear end here? ;-)
Or am I wayyyy off base?

God is not a fact to be believed in but a truth to be arrived at.

Thalion, it could be just me, but it strikes me that Quaternio Terminorumm, Non-Sequitur, Ignoratio Elenchi, Equivocation, and Style over Substance is one helluva buncha logical fallacies to incorporporate into a single-sentence syllogism.

I agree with whatever it is you said, Timber. :wink:


Thalion...your comment seems more proper for embroidery on a sampler...than as a post in an Internet forum.

Allow me to elaborate: I believe in God as pure philosophical truth and existence in an Idealistic framework. I believe it is irrational to believe in a human like being that will aid me when I call for aid, but rather I believe in God to the extent that He exists as the universe Becomes. Thus, God is a truth that I must arrive at through the act of existence itself; I cannot simply believe in the fact that a God exists. I must come to know God, and through my knowledge, God exists. More or less God as a personal Zeitgeist.

I was under the impression that syllogism had two components that came together to prove one. All I made was a statement, not a syllogism capable of logical fallacy. It was no "proof."

Thal...

...the way you said it the first time is easier to get on a sampler! :wink:

Well, Thalion, looks like you're workin' hard at it, but I think you're still missin' a few. You might wanna take a look HERE for some more ideas.

Oh, and I'll grant I erred in characterizing your earlier aphorism as a syllogism. Sorry for the confusion. I get sloppy sometimes - a lot, in fact. I ain't layin' fault on your argument that is inapplicable to many of my own. We're imperfect beings all, after all.

Woah, woah, woah. If truth has no equation with facts, then where do you get your medicines from? Would you listen to a bank that told you they couldn't give you any facts, but just the truth?

I have a great concoction here that *cough cough* cures gout, acne, and prevents wrinkles. It's the truth. There aren't any studies supporting it, but I'm sure you will arrive at the correct conclusion. I also have a great bridge in San Fransisco. Disregard all the facts you may have heard, facts are of no consequence when getting to the truth of the matter.

It is completely natural to assume that something that works well for you would work for other people.

I have nothing against religion, so long as it doesn't interfere with my life. I am a big believer in majority - rules so long as it doesn't opress or limit the minority. And, it just so happens, the majority of people in this country are religious, just like you. This is part of why religion comes so easily, so "naturally." You have been raised with these concepts everywhere, steeped into your family, your community, your nation.

But please understand that there are other people out there, who live different lives and operate under different belief systems. Just because religion is popular doesn't mean it is correct. Being incorrect doesn't make is bad, I think religion does a lot of good things. It unites communities, helps with social good-services, etc. But this doesn't make it correct. In order for something to be factually correct, you apply the same standards you would ask for from your mechanic, your doctor, or a space engineer. Correctness has to do with evidence supporting provable theory. There simply isn't non-circular evidence supporting what you believe in. That doesn't make it a bad thing for you to do, it just isn't factual.

I am differentiating between philosophical truth and true fact. I use "truth" to indicated philosophical truth and "fact" to indicate true facts.

I think this latest attempt of your to 'splain...is best characterized as "struggling now that you are in quicksand!"

"true facts" as opposed to "untrue facts" wow what a concept. Just state the facts ma'am.

Religion, in my experience, is about authority and control, niether of which have ever been my strong points.

The practice of living a life of honesty, even when it isn't appreciated, is not a religion, but a personal decision. It doesn't depend on one's fear of a jealous or vengeful god, nor does it require a following or prosyletizing or money. It can and should be taught at home and it should also be taught in school. If you keep religion out of it, society will have strong standards and tolerance for others' opinions.

As long as religion is avoided, belief in God or no God is personal and does no harm to others. IMO.

Portal - you've made a lot of assumptions connecting me and "religion", and me and the "religious" in this country. A person can believe there is a God, that he himself ain't it, and still have not much to do with "religion".

Democracy is a Truth; a Democratic state is a fact. I am argueing that Democracy still exists as a concept even if a Democratic state does not. The existence of a Democratic state will not necessarily mean that people understand what a Democracy is; hence, Truth is not self-evident by its factual embodiment but must be discovered. God, as a Truth, must be discovered, regardless of if He factually exists or not. His Truth can be discovered even if He does not factually exist. More to the point, if I choose to believe in God, and He does not exist, or if I choose to believe in God, and He does exist, my life here is not altered. Likewise for if I choose to not believe in God. Therefore, God's factual existence is irrelevant to my life here, which is what would allow me to get to some supposed afterlife, if such a thing exists. All that remains is my knowledge of God's Truth, which is what will change my life here.

Any statement that is completely objective is a statement of Fact. That a democracy exists is a statement of fact. Truth is a quality of that statement, not a quality of anything within the statement itself. The Statement of Fact is determined to be True or False through a Truthful understanding of what the statement of fact is indicating. Statements of fact are completely objective: they require no greater understanding than what the statement itself indicates. Truth, however, requires an understanding that lies outside of the statement; Truth is therefore subjective based upon the level of Wisdom (Truth) that the mind has acquired. If a person does not possess a sufficient amount of Truth, he will wrongly conclude even on good statements of fact. A Wise person with no availible good statements of fact will have nothing to gain objective knowledge of. Therefore, as I said on another thread, Absolute Knowledge is subjectively objective and objectively subjective, a statement that many probably ignored on the grounds that it was only an attempt to sound good. This is similar to Hegel's dialectic in which all thesis are synthesized with their antithesis in that the Subjective Ideal is synthesized with its Realistic counterpart. Real matter exists within the universe through History. Absolute Truth must be arrived at through History, which contains both the Ideal and the Real. God is a Truth to be arrived at, not a fact that can immediately be believed in.

Have some confidence that I actually have a reason to say what I say in a philosophy/theology discussion other than to save myself, which I would not do because it is in opposition to discovering Truth.