Not really. I've heard of Darwin's theory that man evolved from ape like creatures. Even then who created the first ape? Nothing makes sense with our conventional wisdom.
With respect, you are asking the wrong question.
I am just really curious why people believe and naturally would like to know their reasons.
It seems like benevolent dictators are hard to come by. Only one I can think of is Josip Broz Tito of former Yugoslavia. Although debatable among historians.
Interesting perspective.
I think I'll pass. I have a number of reasons, both intellectual and personal, which if I were chatting with you over a pint I may well give an airing. But I don't feel the glare of public social media is the place. I've always wondered how anyone can be so certain one way or the other anyway. It usually turns out to be some kind of personal experience that trumps all intellectual debates.
I am by no means certain about my position. I have a high level of confidence that there are no Gods but this is nowhere near certainty. I also don't know any atheists who claim to know with certainty there are no Gods.
So then you do not believe but it's not settled for you, or are you just checking your work?
I think no belief can truly be settled as new evidence may emerge which challenges that belief. I am ready at any time to be convinced there is a God. if there is a God and this God cares if I believe or not - then this God knows what it will take to convince me.
We have a similar point of view. I've often wondered if there is a God, why is this so hard? When I have asked that question out loud, the answer I usually get is essentially that it's my fault. The peak was at the end of World War II so I guess it's true that there are no atheists in fox holes. Less at least.
No, they are still atheists in those foxholes - but facing death, anything is worth a try - even a prayer.
Hi @GeorgeLG -- I've heard it's because our spiritual destiny is so high, something I've come to accept as likely true. The journey to God is apparently not like traversing a nice even landscape, or a downhill slope. Instead, it's supposedly more like climbing a steep mountain. It can be rugged (usually is), but the higher we go, the higher our viewpoint becomes. And we all eventually reach the "summit".
Indeed - if the God of classical theism is real - I see no good reason for divine hiddenness.
Religion is a human invention, frequently revised to create a new round of exclusivity and in some cases to wield power and influence. Inserting yourself between God and the worshiper as is often done, is a pretty powerful position to be in. A constant stream of revision, as you say, usually at odds with the other choices is not confidence inspiring. It's like a ship without a rudder. Hard to find and hard to maintain.
Well, nothing wrong with being a theist of course. If there was a God, which I have no evidence of, I kind of like these two options I ran across in my pilgrimage. It would be nice if God exists, God is something like one of theses as well written by ChatGPT:
The "humanization" of spirituality results in a religion largely based on need which for some individuals can be rather fluid.
Do you think you have "intellectually defeated me?" You're a try-hard, I'll give you that!
I will summarize and keep it brief.
You do know that the theory of evolution by natural selection is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England and indeed all of the major denominations. It is backed up by very robust scientific evidence and the foundation of all biology. It does not have to be believed - only studied to see how it works. I would suggest "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins who explains it so well.
And my favourite God would be one that makes me immensely rich - cures my tinnitus and makes me irresistible to the women of my choice.
Thank you for your comments.
I agree with you. Except that I find it surprising that if Jesus was seen walking around after he died - no contemporary writer bothered to say anything about it. And none of Jesus followers either wrote about it for at least 20 years. That seems odd for such a fantastic piece of news.
That is incorrect. Caesar had Cicero and many other educated Romans writing about him while he was alive and we have documents written by Caesar himself. We have Roman coins with Caesar's head etc. Since you got that wrong - I won't bother going to check what you said about the ancient Greek wars.
I don't know of any evidence for that. Very little is known about what happened to the apostles after Jesus died. The early church father were not eye witnesses. A lot of what was written is based on third hand accounts of supposed eye witnesses. In USA courts, eye witness testimony is rarely enough to convict anyone of anything - science is used. Eyewitness accounts are so unreliable NOW - let alone third hand eye witness accounts from 2000 years ago. But we have no eyewitness accounts - just claims of eyewitness accounts of Jesus rising from the dead. For me - that is not enough.
Correct - bias does not mean an event did not happen. But that's not enough for me to accept the event DID happen. We need some way to see beyond the bias and the only way is objective evidence. Reports on their own are not evidence of anything regardless of bias. A right winger reading the Guardian a story he finds unpalatable because he is a right winger will need to establish - what are the actual facts? And check across news outlets to find what is true. I try to do this with the gospels and can't come up with much more than - Jesus probably existed - Jesus probably was crucified and died. It stops there.
I agree with you there.
I really think you should write a book!
I have a job and family duties to prioritise, after all.There were probably contemporary writings of the Resurrection, but these writings did not survive. There were no contemporary writings available of Pontus Pilate either, but we know he existed through references from people such as Josephus and Tacitus plus there was an archeological finding with his name in the 1960s. During his lifetime Jesus was only "popular" for less than a year towards the end. The Pharisees tried to squash down any memory of him and any talk of his Resurrection, that Jesus' followers had to go into hiding after his death. The Romans viewed Jesus as nothing more than another troublemaker from that region (there were a handful of Jewish rebellions at that time). The Risen Jesus only appeared to around 500 people, and probably not to any Romans thus explaining why no contemporary Romans wrote of the Resurrection. Likely more people saw Jesus from afar but likely just appeared as just another guy to them. Even Mary Magdalene did not recognize him at first.
Thanks.I really think you should write a book!
It was Caesar's death that wasn't written about in detail until over a century later, though it was referred to briefly at the time.
Just because I haven't taken the time to check all my sources in forensic detail recently like you have, that doesn't make me wrong about everything
Have a good day and enjoy your agnosticism!
Writings which may have existed cannot be appealed to as evidence.
I have changed my mind on things and could change my mind about God - but only good sound evidence is going to do that.
I suppose you could watch the movie "The Case for Christ". I watched it yesterday on Amazon Prime and will probably watch it again. I don't think we will ever get definitive proof of God or an afterlife.
People generally are evidence oriented in their life decisions though. Who buys a house without the evidence of a survey to have it checked over? Who buys a car without doing a basic mechanical check? We rarely take things on faith when something important is at stake. Yet this one sphere - the religious sphere, the one sphere which could potentially consume masses of time and money - people are prepared to take a chance in faith and disregard the burden of proof which all claims must meet to be accepted. But if they can take Christianity on faith - why not Islam? Why not Hinduism? Scientology?
Well - I think the overturning of Roe vs Wade proves that religious belief can affect people's rights. And we have the Catholic Church to thank for AIDS in Africa, overpopulation in countries, due to the suppression of contraception where Catholicism has influence. Not to mention all of the evils beings done in the name of Islam. Sure - the sweet old dears singing songs of praise in the pews of Southern Baptist churches are doing no harm to anybody as such - but I would argue the world needs to start leaving religion and superstition behind. The good being done by religions - say charity - often comes at a price. Take our money - take our God.
Member
