How does one come to believe something?

[jonesdon]

You still seem to believe the atheists are engaging in sophistry. Let me try a different approach.

I don't know if you are genuinely unaware, or simply ignoring, the fact that Christians have wildly divergent views of God with very distinct consequences for debate and discussion. Many of these views are so idiosyncratic that they could not reasonably be anticipated.

My experience, which I strongly suspect is shared by many of the atheists on these forums, is that discussions of God with Christians can be frustrating unless there is initial agreement on at least the qualities the Christian associates with God. I might assume that you accept an anthropomorphic view of God, as represented through much of the Old Testament. Once I begin discussing my objections to this concept, you inform me that you don't buy into that view at all. I might then assume you are talking about a more transcendent God, but still one with the traditionally attributed qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. As I begin discussing the logical contradictions in this approach, you again stop me to say that you don't hold this view either. You accuse me of constructing a strawman of your beliefs. At some point, in order to proceed, I simply must ask "So, what do you believe?" Why not just get that out of the way on the front end so we don't waste an enormous amount of time running down dead ends?

It is the Christian that makes the claim that a being exists for whom we do not have clear, unambiguous, intersubjectively verifiable evidence. It is the Christian that must define the parameters of that claim. It is the Christian that must clearly explain the qualities this God possesses, for it is only by analyzing those qualities that we can engage in reasoned debate.

==== REPLY: I asked a simple question -- Is God or no God better for America? Perhaps, I could have said "Is religion better than no religion?" But, at this level, w/o any sophistry or other, most Americans don't argue about knowing (or attacking) a God. Esp. the majority of 70% professed Christians. All that I wanted (and want) is a simple foundation for developing further argument.

With your type side-stepping & running around the issue, I've decided to continue my arguments w/o you atheists or anti-theists. So, don't plan on butting in later w/o answering this 1st basic Q! This is, even tho I'll be responding to your kind of arguments even if you don't think that the God concept is a positive choice for our nation. You can continue your negative view w/o me.

 

[Wayne R.]

Not a very charitable analogy for us. Perhaps you're the guppy in the fish bowl?

We are all "guppies in fish bowls". Some of us just recognize the fact that there is an ocean and attempt to discover it. We can't understand all there is, but we do know we cannot deny what we know to be true, neither can we explain to those who insist it be presented within the confines of their "fish bowl".

 

[jonesdon]

Yes, I already noticed that you are on the verge of losing your patience.
Now, it was you who came here asking a question. As far as I am concerned, until you can ask your question in a way that makes it meaningful to me, it will remain unanswered.
If doing so asks too much from your patience, we can simply put your question to rest and move on.

=== REPLY: OK, so no answer from you. This is fine. I can imagine what "meaningful" means to you! But, just don't butt in later as I continue -- and expect a response. With the God concept as a positive choice, on which I'll build, I won't need your negatives.

P.S. I'll take care of my patience, if you'll take care of your closed-mindedness.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We are all "guppies in fish bowls". Some of us just recognize the fact that there is an ocean and attempt to discover it. We can't understand all there is, but we do know we cannot deny what we know to be true, neither can we explain to those who insist it be presented within the confines of their "fish bowl".

How do you know it to be true?

 

[Davian]

It's only "imaginary" to the guppy. That's the whole point, you cannot reveal oceans and whales to a limited reality like a guppy in a fish bowl. The concept of reality so different, even denied. As soon as I say "supernatural" I spoken of the "ocean" and the "fish bowl concept" rejects it as non-existant. There can be no meaningfull discussion, and neither party will deny the reality they know.

The protestations of the religionists aside, it seems imaginary to everyone, just some are in denial. This "guppy" sees claims of "oceans and whales" yet these stories remains just that. Elaborate rationales are developed for why these stories cannot be verified as true. Worse, they are often inconsistent, contradictory, and and require that current, testable, verified knowledge be wrong in order for these fanciful whale stories to be true. Some tell tales of oceans being created by magic words, whales being created from the rib of another whale, great droughts where the creatures of the oceans were only saved by putting two of each, male and female, into a small pond, until the oceans returned as if they had never gone, an all-powerful all-knowing whale in the sky that sent himself as a whale to be sacrificed to himself by the other whales for reasons that elude me.

Consider this little guppy sceptical of your whale stories.

 

[quatona]

=== REPLY: OK, so no answer from you. This is fine. I can imagine what "meaningful" means to you!

I am not responsible for the products of your imagination.

But, just don't butt in later as I continue -- and expect a response.

I´ll butt in whenever I feel like it.
Neither is this your thread, nor are you the thread police.
Whether you want to respond or not is completely up to you, though.

With the God concept as a positive choice, on which I'll build, I won't need your negatives.

P.S. I'll take care of my patience, if you'll take care of your closed-mindedness.

I notice, you have reached the point of issuing unveiled personal attacks and attempts at preaching.
Time to move on.

 

[Chany]

I acknowledged my source, as well as my intent, in post #396. You might also want to look at the history of my exchanges with jonesdon to appreciate the context.

Sorry, missed that post.

 

[SpiritRehab]

I can never see what the pictures are. Are you suggesting that I am being indoctrinated subliminally? Did you know that the theory of subliminal indoctrination has been disproved?

Which theory has been disproved?
Big Bang?
Evolution?
Subliminal indoctrination?
Etc?

Hi Aardverk

Regarding the intro to "the Big Bang Theory" TV show. It's not the images we don't see that indoctrinates, nor so much even the few our eyes do catch, each time we watch an episode. It's the lyrics to the song that indoctrinates, as indoctrination requires an understandable message. The visuals are just aids to help explain the concept.

Regarding which theories have been disproved, I was referring to Evolution; but yes, theory of "the Big Bang" has also been disproven. As it requires all the energy in the universe to have suddenly appeared out of nothing and fit in an impossibly small point of non-space/time. Those two claims aren't even scientific. They're statements of faith in 2 Miracles; like God created the Universe by Talking.

Same with Evolution, which requires life to originate from non-life and both information and the information reading/writing/auto-correcting system, to generate by accident; several impossibilities that violate tested & proven Scientific Laws.

Anyway, my overall point is that most people don't come to belief, based on investigating evidence. Rather most people look for evidence that supports their belief. Most people come to a belief, by hearing it stated as the truth, over & over again. Most people, not all people. In my experience & according to the claims of various groups with interest in controlling society.

 

[AllanV]

So your mind could be tricked, and these experiences that you alluded to could be unreliable, or outright wrong. How do you test that your resulting beliefs comport with reality?

This is what stunned me some what when the first experience occurred, that there is a mind a little deeper and just beyond the natural mind that is thought from. And this would be every ones mind.
God is very close and not far off, I am able to vouch for this. The perfect acceptable mind cannot be seen or comprehended from the perspective of the natural mind that is prone to making subconscious excursions into other minds. The rebellious nature is prone to something like witchcraft and bonds all humans in emotional response connections and also feelings within the body. Emphasis on words is used to get a response and comes from the inner being. The mind is hijacked and then the response feelings occur in the body via the brain.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
The personality is encumbered and is on display for every one to see. Words are spoken and they proceed to hold a person in their Human responses.

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth
Eph 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

The mind that is cleaned up and perfect first occurred in Jesus and He resisted all the way to death and did not conform to the natural mind we all have.
There is a supernatural act that must occur and this takes a person beyond themselves to be able to see it. It is something like a two perspective drawing where only one is usually seen.

What or who should be followed on this planet, everyone is right in their own minds only.

 

[AllanV]

How do you know that you did not simply imagined this?

The mind is really interesting. Why do people behave and speak the way they do? What is the difference between them? I am not imagining human behavior.

 

[jonesdon]

1) I am not responsible for the products of your imagination. 2) I´ll butt in whenever I feel like it. Neither is this your thread, nor are you the thread police.
Whether you want to respond or not is completely up to you, though. 3) I notice, you have reached the point of issuing unveiled personal attacks and attempts at preaching. 4) Time to move on.

======== RESP: 1) Yes. But, "just saying". 2) True. We both have choices. I'll just classify your non-resp. as "typical" of atheist, anti-theists, and some "seekers" so proned 3) "If the shoe fits" -- then, feel attacked. Preaching is in the mind of the beholder. 4) Yes -- and take your alter ego, Davian, with you!

BTW: This relates to my simple Qs and track of developing belief (as from post #187) -- as is the topic. Meanwhile, you can count on me butting in later (soon) once my basics are down.

 

[jonesdon]

Can you give us a description of this God, that can be tested against reality?

RESP: BTW: I replied before (#389) "NOPE!" as I wanted the answer to my simple question of the commonly known God being good (or not) for our American culture. Not the deep (apologetic or sophist one)! But, I can, also, say "nope" to a physical (scientifically approved) description of God because there is none! Again, and still, is a concept "real" in your reality world?

 

[jonesdon]

Does mainstream science need to be wrong for your beliefs to be true?

==== RESP: Has no one addressed your oft-appearing cartoon? It leaves out what class is being taught! If it's about values -- as in respect for life & others, goals & aspirations, our purpose, or such, then your scientific evidence is not good. Oh, I forgot, we aren't allowed to teach these things in public schools! ;-( And, surprise! Our society shows it! ;-(

If this is about a science class, then, yes, scientific evidence is appropriate -- up to what it knows. But, what about beyond -- like dark energy, the origin of the universal, and the mystery of metaphysics which neither scientists nor doctors (in medical issues) have explanation?

Then, what's the problem w evolution (not entirely proven by science) that has a God that creates the human unique soul, at the appropriate time, in the most advanced creature? At Adam & Eve time, but, also, which continues daily? BTW: Adam & Eve doesn't not need to be the one man-one woman, literally, as told in Genesis.

 

[Davian]

We are all "guppies in fish bowls". Some of us just recognize the fact that there is an ocean and attempt to discover it. We can't understand all there is, but we do know we cannot deny what we know to be true, neither can we explain to those who insist it be presented within the confines of their "fish bowl".

I do not deny what you claim to be true, I just do not accept your unevidenced assertions of it. I am sceptical.

 

[Davian]

This is what stunned me some what when the first experience occurred, that there is a mind a little deeper and just beyond the natural mind that is thought from. And this would be every ones mind.
God is very close and not far off, I am able to vouch for this. The perfect acceptable mind cannot be seen or comprehended from the perspective of the natural mind that is prone to making subconscious excursions into other minds. The rebellious nature is prone to something like witchcraft and bonds all humans in emotional response connections and also feelings within the body. Emphasis on words is used to get a response and comes from the inner being. The mind is hijacked and then the response feelings occur in the body via the brain.

Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
The personality is encumbered and is on display for every one to see. Words are spoken and they proceed to hold a person in their Human responses.

Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
Mat 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Eph 5:7 Be not ye therefore partakers with them.
Eph 5:8 For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:
Eph 5:9 (For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth
Eph 5:10 Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord.

The mind that is cleaned up and perfect first occurred in Jesus and He resisted all the way to death and did not conform to the natural mind we all have.
There is a supernatural act that must occur and this takes a person beyond themselves to be able to see it. It is something like a two perspective drawing where only one is usually seen.

What or who should be followed on this planet, everyone is right in their own minds only.

As I said, your mind could be tricked, and these experiences that you alluded to could be unreliable, or outright wrong. How do you test that your resulting beliefs comport with reality?

 

[Davian]

The mind is really interesting. Why do people behave and speak the way they do? What is the difference between them? I am not imagining human behavior.

I never said that you did. I asked, how do you know that you did not simply imagined all of that?

 

[Davian]

==== RESP:

My name is not "RESP".

Has no one addressed your oft-appearing cartoon?

It appears in my signature; that is a feature of this forum.

It leaves out what class is being taught!

It would appear to be a science class.

If it's about values -- as in respect for life & others, goals & aspirations, our purpose, or such, then your scientific evidence is not good.

Why not?

Oh, I forgot, we aren't allowed to teach these things in public schools! ;-(

Why not?

And, surprise! Our society shows it! ;-(

Yours, perhaps.

If this is about a science class, then, yes, scientific evidence is appropriate -- up to what it knows. But, what about beyond -- like dark energy, the origin of the universal, and the mystery of metaphysics which neither scientists nor doctors (in medical issues) have explanation?

You are proposing a god-of-the-gaps?

Then, what's the problem w evolution (not entirely proven by science)

Science does not prove anything.

that has a God

What do you mean by "God"?

that creates the human unique soul,

What is a "soul"?

at the appropriate time,

When would that be?

in the most advanced creature?

What is the most advanced creature? By what criteria?

At Adam & Eve time, but, also, which continues daily?

I am not sure that it does happen, unless you can define your terms.

BTW: Adam & Eve doesn't not need to be the one man-one woman, literally, as told in Genesis.

Really? How wrong is the Bible?

 

[jonesdon]

My, my, quite a test! ;-) 1) "==== RESP:" -- My name is not "RESP". 2) "Has no one addressed your oft-appearing cartoon?" -- It appears in my signature; that is a feature of this forum. 3) "It leaves out what class is being taught!" -- It would appear to be a science class. 4) "If it's about values -- as in respect for life & others, goals & aspirations, our purpose, or such, then your scientific evidence is not good." -- Why not? 5) "Oh, I forgot, we aren't allowed to teach these things in public schools! ;-( " -- Why not? 6) "And, surprise! Our society shows it! ;-( " -- Yours, perhaps. 7) "If this is about a science class, then, yes, scientific evidence is appropriate" -- up to what it knows. But, what about beyond -- like dark energy, the origin of the universal, and the mystery of metaphysics which neither scientists nor doctors (in medical issues) have explanation? -- You are proposing a god-of-the-gaps? 8) "Then, what's the problem w evolution (not entirely proven by science) "-- Science does not prove anything. 9) "that has a God" -- What do you mean by "God"? 10) 'that creates the human unique soul," -- What is a "soul"? 11) "at the appropriate time," -- When would that be? 12) "in the most advanced creature? "-- What is the most advanced creature? By what criteria? 13) At Adam & Eve time, but, also, which continues daily? -- I am not sure that it does happen, unless you can define your terms.
14) "BTW: Adam & Eve doesn't not need to be the one man-one woman, literally, as told in Genesis." -- Really? How wrong is the Bible?

=== RESP: 1) Really? 2) You show a sense of humor. A "feature", huh! ;-) 3) It appears? At least to you. Religion or ethics (the missing class) to others! 4) So your science also provides answers to our purpose in life? Hmmm. Is psychology part of physics also? 5) It's the law (in America) -- a win for you guys.

6) Oh, I forgot that you're from a different country, prob. world! ;-) An ETI? 7) Call it what you want. So, your answers to these issues are ...? 8) OK. I'll file this for later "science does not prove anything". 9) That concept that you won't allow yourself to realize. 10) Another such similar concept.

11) In good time -- I think before I write. You might try this? 12) Homo sapiens. By science criteria. Ask them. 13) Rather, than RESP or Davian (or quatona) your label should be "Doubting Thomas" -- no wonder you can't get beyond "seeker". You're "not sure" of anything! I'll never be able to (even) define terms satisfactorily for you. Your wedge out of arguments.

14) An open question of "how wrong the Bible". I've already mentioned allegory & other figures of speech which you just want to read literally, as a science or history book, for argument sake. I just say "grow up" -- intellectually.

 

[jonesdon]

To Davian -- BTW: The space-wasting cartoon is getting old!

 

[Chany]

To Davian -- BTW: The space-wasting cartoon is getting old!

You can quote people's posts using the forum. You do not need to write it all out.

Also, this is a site with signatures on. If you don't want to look at them, you can turn them off. If you do not want to, then I do not know what to say.