Nature of Knowing God Exists or not

[Im_A]

This is something that comes to my mind a lot.

The theist will declare that God exists. We hear proofs based on the use of science, evolution, what I consider "religious science"(for lack of better word) creationism, what their church or set of dogmatic views teach them, their sacred books, their feelings, emotions, experiences. All very humanistic things that always lead to a very biased outcome. Because there is something to gain from it. Whether it be rewards in this life or the afterlife, or just a personal gratification/success to take care of their problems of existence...there is some reward.

So my question is, and I beg you all to take this question as just a question for discussion purposes ONLY and nothing as sarcastic or slander, cynical or sarcastic...but isn't the non-theist, be it agnostic or atheist, guilty of the same thing?
Conclusions based from science, the fallacy of religious sciences, the problems of the "institution of God" ie church(be it Christian or not), the dogmatic views, the sacred mythological books, their feelings, emotions and experiences and the rewards one may get with such a conclusion. Be it some person using it to do things they want to do but believed were wrong (which i believe is an EXTREME minority...because religious people are just as good as doing things they believe are wrong anyways), or just the simple reward of believeing they are seeking truth out and finding it, or whatever reward one would receive.

If this is the case, doesn't our nature with knowing things seem awfully biased, selfish, irrational?

I ask this because there just seems no way to come to a conclusion about God outside of these very things that, I at least thought, would contradict the claim of obtaining any kind of absolute conclusion of something...in this case, the existence, or the lack of thereof existence of God.

So what do you all think?

 

[quatona]

So what do you all think?

I´m afraid I haven´t understood what it is you are positing, asking or want to see discussed. Sorry.

 

[Solidlyhere]

The OP said: "All very humanistic things ... Because there is something to gain from it. Whether it be rewards in this life or the afterlife, or just a personal gratification/success to take care of their problems of existence...there is some reward."

OK, you are suggesting that Religion provides some Goodies.
Then, you compare it to Atheism, where some people will get Goodies because of searching for truth.

If I came-up-with a Religion that would PROMISE bouts of torture, and an Afterlife of Fire and Brimstone, are you suggesting THAT would be a better way to go?

If you think that having a reward for performing a specific type of behavior is (somehow) bad, then I bet you would make a lousy employee. Your boss tells you to do something -- you don't do it. Hmm, soon there will be NO reward (wages).


Later, you ask: "doesn't our nature with knowing things seem awfully biased, selfish, irrational?"

My answer: compared with what?
Are you suggesting that retarded people (who know almost nothing) are the only "good" people?

I think seeking to know things is a basic Human nature.
Considering that millenia ago there were 1000 ways to get hurt (if you were ignorant of potential problems), humankind's very survival depended on learning about other animals and plants.

Before a couple hundred years ago, the value of "science" was limited.
There were few instruments to give specifics (no microscope).
There was no knowledge of bacteria begetting disease.
So, naturally, people had (what we would consider) a warped perspective.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Finally, the OP said: "there just seems no way to come to a conclusion about God".
DUH.
This is what Faith is about.
Either you got some Faith, or you will NOT believe in a god.
This is fodder for the non-belief of Agnostics ... and the anti-belief of Atheists.

 

[FishFace]

Intellectual atheism is predicated on a criticism of philosophical arguments for God's existence, not on arguments for his absence - in the main, at any rate.

 

[Im_A]

The OP said: "All very humanistic things ... Because there is something to gain from it. Whether it be rewards in this life or the afterlife, or just a personal gratification/success to take care of their problems of existence...there is some reward."

OK, you are suggesting that Religion provides some Goodies.
Then, you compare it to Atheism, where some people will get Goodies because of searching for truth.

If I came-up-with a Religion that would PROMISE bouts of torture, and an Afterlife of Fire and Brimstone, are you suggesting THAT would be a better way to go?

If you think that having a reward for performing a specific type of behavior is (somehow) bad, then I bet you would make a lousy employee. Your boss tells you to do something -- you don't do it. Hmm, soon there will be NO reward (wages).

religion provides a lot of goodies. insurance for the afterlife, a need to be convinced we are not alone in this world, a higher being on our side, helping and guiding us, a path that those who believe is so called "higher". all these selfish desires being fulfilled from a religion that calls the believer to not be selfish. how convient.

i can't say if atheism is a better way to go. there was nothing of that sort being silently typed there.

that's a pretty bad comparision to compare believeing in a god as compared to employment. one has to work to survive in most cases, but one doesn't have to believe in god in order to survive, and if the supposed call to the believer is to not be selfish, then how is it the only way to believe is to be selfish?

Later, you ask: "doesn't our nature with knowing things seem awfully biased, selfish, irrational?"

My answer: compared with what?
Are you suggesting that retarded people (who know almost nothing) are the only "good" people?

I think seeking to know things is a basic Human nature.
Considering that millenia ago there were 1000 ways to get hurt (if you were ignorant of potential problems), humankind's very survival depended on learning about other animals and plants.

Before a couple hundred years ago, the value of "science" was limited.
There were few instruments to give specifics (no microscope).
There was no knowledge of bacteria begetting disease.
So, naturally, people had (what we would consider) a warped perspective.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

compared to what? that's the problem. what else is there to compare to? isn't there a bettter way to live in this life than to be selfish that whatever we believe in solely based upon that precious little fact?

with the rest of this section, don't stretch it out too far. i was specifically intending discussion about belief in some god, or non-belief of some god...not in regards to scientific advancements. those scientific advancements that you gave an example was to help our survival and knowledge of what we can see with our own eyes. the belief of God is nothing of a need to survive, so i don't see how your examples relate with the OP at all.

Finally, the OP said: "there just seems no way to come to a conclusion about God".
DUH.
This is what Faith is about.
Either you got some Faith, or you will NOT believe in a god.
This is fodder for the non-belief of Agnostics ... and the anti-belief of Atheists.

if faith is the only way, then that is the problem. i can have faith in anything and thus that faith will lead me to believe in its existance. i can have faith that the God of Abraham, the god of other religions exists and all of a sudden God in whatever sense must exist. the same theory applies to any of the gods that people have believed in. why is it for you, a believer, faith is enough? how do you reconcile, or more importantly, justify having faith?

 

[levi501]

So my question is, and I beg you all to take this question as just a question for discussion purposes ONLY and nothing as sarcastic or slander, cynical or sarcastic...but isn't the non-theist, be it agnostic or atheist, guilty of the same thing?

Not unless you want to reduce everything to nihilism.

 

[FutileRhetoric]

Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Every agnostic is a theist/atheist for the former is about knowledge and the latter two are beliefs.

 

[Emmy]

Dear tattedschmoe. I keep remembering our Lord telling the Scribes and Pharisees, You make it so very hard for men and women to know God. It might not have been in these words, but the meaning was there. Jesus gave us 2 Commandments, which contain all 10 Commandments, God gave us. 1) Love God with all your hearts, all your souls, and all your minds. That is straight forward, God is certainly WORTHY, and deserves our Love and Loyalty. 2) Love each other, as you love yourselves. Which also means; treat your fellow human as you would like to be treated, with kindness and considerration, with courtesy and helpful hands and hearts. Jesus also told us to give the GOOD News to all we meet, that God loves us, and Jesus our Saviour has reconciled us to God. All we have to do now: exchange our selfish and unloving/uncaring natures, into loving and caring selflessly, and say and do to others, as we would like others to do, or say to us. That is Not easy, but we have years to learn and become better and better. Jesus has promised to help and guide us, and He has kept His promise for ca. 2 centuries. I say this with humility and conviction, tattedschmoe, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[cantata]

Just as an aside, I'd like to correct the OP's terminology: you can't know something that isn't true. All knowledge is true knowledge.

Therefore when it comes to the personal God, I'm afraid that either the atheists know and the theists mistakenly believe, or vice versa. Two people cannot know wholly contradictory things.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Well, when it comes to the existence of something we might legitimately call 'God,' I rely mostly on the cosmological argument. I know there are some questions about it, and that it's not a 'proof,' but I do find it convincing.

I also find the arguments surrounding the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth very convincing.

That's not to say my Christian faith is based on logical and/or historical arguments. Rather, it is based on the existential experience of the transcendent through the everyday. But however much a person might 'feel' something, that's no basis for a sustained argument.

 

[Walpurgis]

I think you'll find most atheists are happy to acknowledge that it's not possible to disprove god, provided the theist in turn can understand the atheist argument that there is no more evidence for god than there is for, say, the tooth fairy.