How does one come to believe something?

[Archaeopteryx]

The argument cannot be made sound because it relies on human intellect and reasoning. People who are Christians believe that God exists by revelation. Evaluating evidence, logical arguments, or properly basic beliefs are all actions of the flesh and no one will be saved by the works of the flesh. John 16 tells us that conviction is a work of the Spirit, not a work of reason. Look around this forum and see. How many have been convinced to believe by debate and reason?

What happens when revelation leads to multiple incompatible claims?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But this is atheist circularity. The atheist says to the theist, "Come, let us argue our cases together. The rules are, only things in space and time exist. Now then, come, tell me all about your God!"

If you get to set the rules, you'll "win" every time. So much for the 'freethinker' title.

As opposed to religion, which plays by no rules or arbitrarily changes the rules to suit itself.

 

[Davian]

LOLOL.
Let's get real.

Unlike your initial posts here.

Atheists don't visit religious websites, they're indifferent to theism.

You have confused them with "apatheists".

Antitheists, however, elevate atheism to the level of religion. They feel compelled to attempt to refute the faith of the theists with their own antitheist faith for political purposes.

What are these alleged political purposes?

It really is a ridiculous premise, hating “religion” yet promoting the religion of antitheism, a fact they deny but cannot escape.

or that you can demonstrate.

Antitheism has proved to be destructive throughout history and a failed belief system, yet the antitheist insists on investing unquestioned faith in it.

For what does it require faith?

It's purpose is subjugation, elimination of independent thinking not aligned with it's own. Antitheists are what they claim to hate.

Indeed. It is the job of religion to subjugate and eliminate independent thinking not aligned with it's own.

As to “theology”: to those familiar with the supernatural, those who's thinking is confined to the limitations of the natural and arguing against the supernatural are like blind men criticizing Picasso.

You compare yourself to Picasso, do you? We have objective evidence of Picasso's work. You have no objective evidence of anything "supernatural", do you?

There's no point in discussing what they have no concept of,

Or what you cannot define.

and every argument raised only proves their blindness.

Or that it is all imaginary.

Guppies in a fishbowl will never comprehend whales in the ocean.

But whales can be shown to exist, even if the guppy cannot comprehend it.

Antitheism religion, and that is exactly what it is, holds no interest to those who see it for what it is.

All religion is the same, as far as I am concerned.

 

[eclipsenow]

What is evidence?
Are empirically obtained data the only data?
What about history?
What about historical documents?
What about historical eyewitness accounts—yes, the bible?
If there is a God, and he decided to leave historical documents as the main source of evidence about Himself, how would you know if you refuse to read about His character 'in a book'.
Why is stuff in a book not evidence that must be dealt with?
If He has decided to create enough evidence for those who seek Him, but not so much as to overwhelm free will and compel belief in those who really want nothing to do with Him, how dangerous might it be to just ignore evidence because it is 'in a book'?

 

[Winepress777]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

I've known to be surrounded by the presence of God from my earliest memories. No one taught me that.
He called me to know Him. He doesn't do that to many folk. I am overwhelmed continually and thank Him for His Grace in giving me to know Him more and more. His presence is incredible. Awesome. Jesus Christ Lives in me, His Resurrected Holy Spirit Lives in my thoughts words and deeds now. He is my Life.
I learned much of that subsequently of course from scriptures. But He's always been with me. He's my Everything. My Life. I've always known that Thank you Jesus

 

[quatona]

So far, our working p1 is:
" 1. People come to believe something by evaluating evidence, logical arguments, emotions, or properly basic beliefs."

I´d be interested to learn what exactly you mean by "evaluating emotions". How is this done?

 

[gadz]

Winepress obviously has the evidence in herself as have I. It is better felt than telt as they say. Jesus said the kingdom does not come by observation i.e by working it out in your head. It comes by faith which is the evidence of things not seen with the natural mind. The only way to find out is to go through the door which is a person and not a religion.

 

[Dave RP]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

People, by and large, believe in religion because of indoctrination. if you had been born in Iran you'd be a devout Muslim if you're indoctrinated from an early age. You cannot evaluate religion in the same way as facts, because it is based on believing a book reflects the word of god, and there is zero evidence for that except in the brainwashed mind of the believer. You might as well believe in Hogwarts!

 

[Wayne R.]

Big fat argument from ignorance.

LOL. My point exactly.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LOL. My point exactly.

You seem to have misread. Your post was an argument from ignorance.

 

[paul becke]

Since that thread is still available, why don't you link or quote some of these atheists who said you "only come to believe something based upon evidence?"

It would be helpful to see what they said exactly and the context they said it in.

Due to their a priori commitment to atheism, its adherents are unable to escape what Einstein called, 'naive realism', and what has become known, not as 'science' , but as 'scientism' , i.e. the belief that science can explain everything. It is actually a fundamentalist kind of religious belief, totally impervious to evidence, although the evidence against it is now overwhelming. As a result, quantum physics, the most sucessful paradigm in the history of science, verified again and again by new experiments, and upon which 70% of industry now depends, makes a nonsense of your question, which belongs to the scientism that the old classical mechanistic paradigm seems to have encourage in them.

'The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.'

... from thearticle linked below:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150527103110.htm

Furthermore, there is evidence that everyone KNOWS intuitively that God exists, since an experiment was conducted in which atheists were asked to curse God, but which, however, caused them to perspire; evidently from the stresses produced by fear. I can't guarantee it, but I'll try to find the post on UD with the link to the relevant article.

Here is the link:

http://fixedpointfix.com/daring-god-makes-atheists-sweat/

Also from BA77's same post on UD (I call the putative rationale of their rejection of belief in God, the Argument from Pouting and Petulance):


When Atheists Are Angry at God – 2011
Excerpt: I’ve never been angry at unicorns. It’s unlikely you’ve ever been angry at unicorns either.,, The one social group that takes exception to this rule is atheists. They claim to believe that God does not exist and yet, according to empirical studies, tend to be the people most angry at him.
http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....gry-at-god

Study explores whether atheism is rooted in reason or emotion – Jan. 2015
Excerpt: “A new set of studies in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology finds that atheists and agnostics report anger toward God either in the past or anger focused on a hypothetical image of what they imagine God must be like. Julie Exline, a psychologist at Case Western Reserve University and the lead author of this recent study, has examined other data on this subject with identical results. Exline explains that her interest was first piqued when an early study of anger toward God revealed a counterintuitive finding: Those who reported no belief in God reported more grudges toward him than believers.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....r-emotion/

 

[Wayne R.]

You seem to have misread. Your post was an argument from ignorance.

No, I didn't misread. I got your point. You just proved mine true, but don't comprehend the fact. Have a nice day.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Due to their a priori commitment to atheism, its adherents are unable to escape what Einstein called, 'naive realism', and what has become known, not as 'science' , but as 'scientism' , i.e. the belief that science can explain everything. It is actually a fundamentalist kind of religious belief, totally impervious to evidence, although the evidence against it is now overwhelming. As a result, quantum physics, the most sucessful paradigm in the history of science, verified again and again by new experiments, and upon which 70% of industry now depends, makes a nonsense of your question, which belongs to the scientism that the old classical mechanistic paradigm seems to have encourage in them.

It's no coincidence that people who are fond of hollering "scientism!" happen to hold positions that are either unsupported or demonstrably wrong. They've got an axe to grind. Science may not be able to explain everything. But is religion able to explain anything?

Furthermore, there is evidence that everyone KNOWS intuitively that God exists, since an experiment was conducted in which atheists were asked to curse God, but which, however, caused them to perspire; evidently from the stresses produced by fear. I can't guarantee it, but I'll try to find the post on UD with the link to the relevant article.

Which says a lot about the prevailing social influence of religion, but very little (nothing really) about the truth of religious claims.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I didn't misread. I got your point. You just proved mine true, but don't comprehend the fact. Have a nice day.

So you understand that your argument was a fallacy?

 

[KCfromNC]

Evolution states that things go from simple to complex...

If you're going to lecture people on the implication of evolution don't start with an obvious misunderstanding of the theory. That kind of kills your credibility and makes it pointless to worry about all of your other preaching. If the easy to check stuff that you're saying is wrong, it doesn't say much for the truth of the harder to verify claims.

 

[KCfromNC]

Yes, it's methodological naturalism....into which arena the atheist demands the theist discuss religion. Keep on freethinking...

Feel free to propose a better method - but be ready to show how that method has proven good results in the domain you wish to apply it in.

 

[KCfromNC]

Name ten.

And if they don't conclude the exact same god as the one he believes in, let's see what happens when we tell him he should convert because of them. No fair offering them up as a good reason for belief if he isn't willing to convert to the particular god they are a reason for.

Anyone want to dig up a few books written by "atheists" turned Muslim? That should demonstrate that even the poster you're replying to doesn't find these particular stories convincing in the least.

 

[KCfromNC]

After all, they do not believe he exists so they are obviously the ones that are the experts on nothing.

Yes, the research shows that on average non-believers understand religion better than the people who follow those religions.

I had a very good friend who has since died who was a Professor of Philosophy at Oxford University. He was 25 when he acknowledged God in his life. How did it happen? Being a Professor of Philosophy he decided to read the bible from A to Z. His study was from a philosophical perspective.

If I can find a professor who rejected religion, would you stop believing? If not, then why would you expect your story here to be convincing enough to cause people to change their mind?

This is what people mean when they say that believers come up with reasons to continue believing, but those reasons are based on poor thinking. Evidence which even a believer wouldn't accept if it didn't lead to the correct predetermined answer isn't good evidence in any sense of the word.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why is stuff in a book not evidence that must be dealt with?

You tell us - how do you deal with all of the "evidence" from various written sources showing Buddhism to be correct?

 

[bhsmte]

What is evidence?
Are empirically obtained data the only data?
What about history?
What about historical documents?
What about historical eyewitness accounts—yes, the bible?
If there is a God, and he decided to leave historical documents as the main source of evidence about Himself, how would you know if you refuse to read about His character 'in a book'.
Why is stuff in a book not evidence that must be dealt with?
If He has decided to create enough evidence for those who seek Him, but not so much as to overwhelm free will and compel belief in those who really want nothing to do with Him, how dangerous might it be to just ignore evidence because it is 'in a book'?

Historical documents are evidence, but how reliable the evidence is to point in a certain direction, is what historians evaluate when they examine historical documents and apply the historical method. Most NT historians will state; the NT is mostly a work of theology, as opposed to a work of reliable history, because much of the NT doesn't hold up to the historical method as being reliable.

Men can write anything in stories, as other men have wrote in other holy books.