Agnostics “R” Us...

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.

The question is not who created the first ape? You are assuming a creator.

The question is: what is the explanation for life?

There are two components to this:

Abiogenesis - the emergence of the first living cells on earth (relatively little is known how this happened).

Theory of evolution by natural selection - explains how life developed once it emerged (much is known how this happened).

There are scientific explanations for these questions.

Many theists accept these explanations and do not think the science contradicts their religious beliefs.

I am just really curious why people believe and naturally would like to know their reasons.

So - curiosity - is one reason.

It also may be that somebody will present some reason that might make me think about my own position of not believing.

I entered this thread to talk about these things and wonder why people would come in if they are not prepared to talk about why they believe or disbelieve.

If people just want to state their beliefs and not discuss - it's not going to make for a very interesting thread from my perspective.

I actually respect the position: "I have no evidence - it is just gut feeling."

I can't argue with that - the conversation is over. But when a theist claims the weight of evidence favours belief - I want to know what evidence - maybe I have missed something. And if all I get is crickets - well - I can't make people engage.

Yes I know people believe in things without sound justification. I tend to be interested mainly in religious claims though. Conspiracy theorists are another group, though I tend not to bother with them and there are masses that believe in stuff like ancient aliens building the pyramids - I don't bother with that either. It makes no difference to my life whether that is true or not - but if a God exists - that would make a difference - particularly if it's the Christian God. Plus we have seen in Roe vs Wade that religious beliefs can impact on people's lives. I think it is worth questioning these beliefs even on a tinnitus forum.

 

I was just kidding with @Jazzer, but apparently human composting is allowed in a few states.

A body is put in a closed vessel along with selected materials such as woodchips, alfalfa and straw grass, and gradually breaks down under the action of microbes. After a period of around a month - and a heating process to kill off any contagion - loved ones are given the resulting soil.

 

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.

Personal experience is usually cited by theists as a reason for belief in the face of an intellectual defeat and if that is your reason that's fine - I can't counter belief by personal experience.

I have no experience of any atheist telling me they disbelieve due to personal experience and it is certainly not my reason. My reason is just lack of evidence.

However - I respect your decision not to give any account of why you believe, though I don't feel any glare of social media on this platform but I let that pass.

 

So then you do not believe but it's not settled for you, or are you just checking your work?

I can tell you that for me I was amazed at the sheer volume of believers, none of whom could offer me a single thing that got me there. For a while when I was younger I thought something was wrong with me. Now I am just amazed at the phenomenon but I'm good with being different. I saw a projection last month that by 2070 over 50% of the population would be non believers or maybe they said unaffiliated. Eventually I might be in the majority. Lol.

George

 

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.

Yes - religion is being pushed back all the time in the developed world and is becoming less and less relevant.

 

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.

George

 

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".

I've read the spiritual destiny of every person is to reach this summit, a state called God Realization. Once this is achieved, a person lives in the awareness of God every moment, 24 hours a day. And then our main desire becomes sharing the love and gifts of Spirit in every way imaginable. In essence, we become a servant of life, helping others on their own spiritual journey in whatever way we can (with their permission of course).

This road to the awareness of God is usually a long journey, spanning many lifetimes to reach. It's just not feasible we can learn all we're meant to learn in just a single lifetime. I long felt discerning the reality or non-reality of reincarnation was more important to me than whether or not God existed. After much reading and research (including self-testing with recall techniques), I came to accept the reality of it. This then allowed me to adjust (expand?) my spiritual viewpoint considerably.

One thing that's notable about our long journey spanning many lifetimes, is that in our continual learning about God and love, we make many Soul to Soul love connections along the way. So we may feel an instant affinity with someone we meet for the first time in this lifetime, which appears is what happened with you and your wife (very touching by the way how you write about your wife). I firmly believe that even when love connections are interrupted by someone passing away, it's only temporary until life brings us back together again in some manner. Love overcomes all.

 

Indeed - if the God of classical theism is real - I see no good reason for divine hiddenness.

Christians will say - because faith is a virtue and can only be where there is no direct evidence. But why is faith a virtue? Muslims have faith - is that a virtue? Not in the opinion of Christians - since Muslims deny the divinity of Christ. So whose faith is correct? Christian faith? Or Muslim faith - and how do we know? Christians assert that only Christianity offers salvation so their faith is correct - Muslims assert that Mohammad is the last prophet with the most up to date word of god written down in the Koran - so their faith is true. Jews don't accept the divinity of Christ - God's chosen people reject God's incarnation in the flesh. Yet all three religions are faiths claiming to be faith in the one true religion. There can be no harmonisation of these faiths since they contradict each other. So - my view - dispense with them. You won't find God there.

That leaves some other Gods - maybe the God is love God.

For the good that will do you - if you have to believe in a God - go for the God is love God.

You have at least experienced love - therefore - by that definition - you have experienced God.

Personally, I'm going for the God is chocolate definition - endless seas of heavenly chocolate.

Looks like I'm a theist after all.

 

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.

George

 

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:

#1

Seth, as channeled by Jane Roberts, spoke extensively about the nature of God. According to Seth, God is not an individual entity or a separate being, but rather an all-encompassing, infinite consciousness that exists within and beyond all things. Seth described God as a creative energy or force that permeates the universe and is responsible for the ongoing process of creation and evolution.

Seth also emphasized that humans have their own individual connections to God and can experience this divine essence directly through their own inner experiences and insights. He taught that each person's understanding and experience of God is unique and that there are many different paths to this realization.

Additionally, Seth rejected the idea of a judgmental or punishing God and instead emphasized the loving and compassionate nature of the divine. He encouraged individuals to cultivate their own inner spirituality and to seek out their own understanding of the divine, rather than relying on external religious authorities or dogma.

Henry notes: Well the "compassionate nature" sure does not seem to be evident in this world anyway!

#2

Hinduism is a complex and diverse religion with a broad range of beliefs about the nature of God. However, there are several key concepts that are commonly associated with Hinduism's understanding of the divine:

1. Brahman: In Hinduism, God is often referred to as Brahman. Brahman is the ultimate reality and is believed to be the source of all existence. Brahman is an all-pervading, eternal consciousness that is beyond all concepts and can only be experienced through spiritual realization.
   
   
2. Atman: Atman is the individual soul that is believed to be a part of Brahman. Each person's individual soul is believed to be a spark of the divine, and the goal of Hindu spiritual practice is to realize this connection and achieve spiritual liberation or moksha.
   
   
3. Deities: Hinduism also recognizes a wide range of deities or gods, each of whom represents different aspects of the divine. These deities are often worshiped through rituals and prayers, and they are believed to be accessible to devotees who seek their blessings.
   
   
4. Karma and Reincarnation: In Hinduism, the concept of karma and reincarnation are closely linked to the nature of God. It is believed that a person's actions in this life will determine their fate in the next, and that the ultimate goal is to achieve spiritual liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth.

Overall, Hinduism's understanding of the nature of God is complex and multifaceted, and varies widely among different sects and traditions within the religion.

Henry note: I always liked the concepts of Braham and Atman aspects. I am definitely agnostic about reincarnation. Also in terms of belief in reincarnation I have adopted the thinking of Stephen Batchelor as ChatGPT notes as follows:

Stephen Batchelor has written several articles and essays about the concept of reincarnation in Buddhism. Here are a few examples:

1. "Rebirth as a Humanist Doctrine" - This essay, published in the book "Buddhism and Science: Breaking New Ground," explores the concept of rebirth in the context of modern scientific understanding. Batchelor suggests that the traditional Buddhist view of rebirth as a literal continuation of consciousness from one life to the next may not be compatible with a scientific worldview. Instead, he proposes a humanistic interpretation of rebirth as a metaphorical way of understanding how our actions and intentions can have a lasting impact on the world.
   
   
2. "Rebirth and the Stream of Life" - In this essay, published in Tricycle magazine, Batchelor reflects on his own personal journey with the concept of rebirth. He shares how he initially struggled with the idea of rebirth as a literal continuation of consciousness, but ultimately found a deeper meaning in the metaphorical understanding of rebirth as a continuation of the stream of life.
   
   
3. "Why Reincarnation is an Un-Buddhist Idea" - This essay, published on the Lion's Roar website, presents a critical perspective on the concept of reincarnation. Batchelor argues that the idea of reincarnation is not central to the Buddha's original teachings, and may have been added to Buddhist doctrine as a result of cultural influences. He suggests that the emphasis on reincarnation can distract from the Buddha's core message of liberation from suffering. These are just a few examples of Stephen Batchelor's writings on reincarnation in Buddhism. His work offers a thought-provoking and nuanced perspective on this complex topic.

 

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!

If you really want to win the argument, there is one claim of Christianity which, if it were disproved, then millions of believers would be forced to abandon their faith overnight. That is the claim that he was seen alive after his death, on numerous occasions by multiple witnesses. If the authorities of the day wanted to squash those reports, all they had to do was show the body. But instead, the reports continued to spread, and his followers were emboldened to continue a movement that survives to this day.

There was a lawyer some years ago who was also an atheist, and he decided to write a book to disprove this claim. He planned to call it "The Case Against Christ". However, as he went about his research he changed his view, and the book was called "The Case for Christ" instead.

Perhaps you can do better than he did? Maybe you can read his book and write your own. You're certainly good at writing lots of words. Or perhaps you'll just carry on with the book below.

 

“The Case for Christ” was made into a movie in 2017, but I forgot if I’ve seen it.

 

I will summarize and keep it brief.

I don't count the gospels as historically reliable and so I don't trust the details of the accounts. The earliest gospel (Mark) was written 20 years after Jesus died. Outside of Christian writings there is very little evidence for Jesus so none of the details can be confirmed as true. The witnesses were likely made up to make the story seem authentic. There is no contemporary evidence that the Romans had any "Jesus is alive" claims to deal with. Jesus body may well have ended up a big communal burning pit where other executed bodies were taken.

I cannot disprove the resurrection - but given the fantastic nature of the claim - it is going to take more than Christian writings to convince me anything like that ever happened.

 

The primordial soup evolution theory below is hard to believe. The book of Genesis is also hard to believe. I don’t see any mention of dinosaurs, which we have proof they existed millions of years ago. God would have had to create dinosaurs millions of years ago before creating humans and animals.

The first idea to capture scientists' attention was the “primordial soup”: the notion that when Earth was young, the oceans were filled with simple chemicals important for life. These would eventually self-assemble into simple living cells.

 

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.

The origin of the first self-replicating cell is unknown. But the Miller–Urey experiments showed how organic molecules can form certain amino acids crucial to life under certain conditions.

Given that there were hundreds of millions of years and trillions upon trillions of chemical events on earth after it cooled - I don't find it surprising that life did form.

Much is still unknown and how the first self replicating cell formed is certainly a mystery - but one which hopefully science will eventually reveal. And if it does not, then we will have to say we still do not know. But that does not lend any more credence to the God hypothesis since why solve one mystery by appealing to an even bigger one?

So I can understand you having a hard time believing the Bible - as there is no scientific support for creation. But evolution and the origin of life - if you would care to take the trouble - are well established fields of study.

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.

Beats your favourite Gods hands down!

 

Thank you for your comments.

20 years is not a long gap for a historical record to be written. We have nothing written about Julius Caesar until hundreds of years after he lived, nor about some of the ancient Greek wars.

There are references by Roman authors to Jesus, by Josephus (although disputed), Tacitus and Suetonius. Also we have literally hundreds of books by the early church fathers going right back to the first and second centuries, some of whom studied with the disciples and their direct descendants.

On the question of author bias, if you are politically on the right, do you dismiss any articles appearing in a left wing journal like The Guardian or The Atlantic? Perhaps you do. But just because a topic is generally favoured more by outlets on one side or the other, that doesn't mean it didn't happen. There may be a different bias, but it still happened. That's why I think when people reject a report on the basis of having a different bias to themselves, they may be missing something.

 

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.

The Greeks had an advanced society of literate men so I doubt if that was true. But in any case, wars - commanders conquering territory, these are worldly claims and require less evidence than what is being claimed about Jesus. The claims are of a different nature - and require different types of evidence. I can grant the gospels that Jesus existed - I can grant that he preached etc. That's all fine - where I begin to have doubts is turning water into wine - raising people from the dead and being resurrected. The gospels are not evidence - they are a set of claims. So you need to look outside of the gospels for confirmation of these claims. Tacitus, Josephus were writing decades after Jesus died and reporting what Christians believed. They have no way of knowing if these things happened any more than me or you.

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.

 

One of the things that I find so interesting about this entire subject is that all the “action” was thousands of years ago and none of the more dramatic events have occurred in modern times. Additionally, the documentation of all of this, as summarized here was so many years removed and second hand in nature. Because of this, the likelihood of anything more substantial ever being made available to the community who desires “proof” in the scientific sense is unlikely to ever occur, at least regarding any past events. The subject of any events is of course different because something that would occur at the level of say Noah's arc in modern times would be documented and studied at a mass scale, however, this has not happened. I understand the notion that at least one massive event is forecasted to happen in the future but that is as unsubstantial to the scientifically minded who favor classic rules of evidence as the rear view challenge.

This leaves me personally with one conclusion, that this entire subject does not lend itself to proof in this sense with what is available to observe and study today. I see any attempt to do so as pointless other than for additional personal confirmation or the endless vain defense of one's position. This does not make the subject itself pointless or of no value. I married into a family of devout Christians and have known them for 25 years so I completely understand how passionate they are about the subject and how absolutely and vitally important the subject is to them. That said, therefore a belief in this has to come from within and as I have been told so many times, often as a result of a personal experience or event of some sort.

I am more like @Stuart-T in the sense that I am very fact and evidence oriented in the way I approach life as I was in my education and my work and so printed words and stories passed down over the years also don't do it for me as a way to prove such things but I also don't think that this is necessary for everyone. I see many people all through society that have very strong opinions about things with no such proof or even sticking steadfastly to positions on things with solid verifiable proof of the opposite view. We are in large part as a people, emotional thinkers, prone to confirmation bias and not rigorous in our pursuit of the truth.

As I have said before, as long as you're not hurting anyone, I respect the conclusions and importance of this to the many people in my life that are believers and I feel no need for them to prove anything to me. Why do I always say “if you're not hurting anyone”? Because throughout history, the passionate on this subject have carried out unspeakable acts in furtherance of their beliefs resulting in countless suffering and dead. If a kind and caring person has a deep conviction to this belief system and it brings them comfort, then I am happy for them and they don't have to prove anything to me. In the meantime, I will continue my journey looking for my truth on this and all things of great importance to me. What will be my ultimate conclusion on this subject? I don't know, I am not there yet. To quote the great Yogi Berra “when you come to a fork in the road, take it”.

 

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 I have a job and family duties to prioritise, after all.

Have a good day and enjoy your agnosticism!

 

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.

When you are divorced as I am with leisure time, you can catch up and check if your beliefs are justified.

Writings which may have existed cannot be appealed to as evidence.

You are making a leap that the resurrection happened - that there were writings - and these were lost. This begs the question. First you need to prove the resurrection happened in order to make the claim that there were contemporary accounts later lost.

Writings on Pilate appear from 41 AD so during his lifetime. Nobody is claiming Pilate could raise from the dead. If there were accounts of Pilate riding on the back of a flying fire breathing dragon and chasing down and scorching Jewish militants - I would be skeptical of these accounts regardless the sources and regardless the number of witnesses claimed. Fantastic claims of a magical kind cannot be taken seriously.

You are making claims based on Bible sources (500, Mary Magdalene) which I have no good reason to believe are true.

So unless you have some other evidence outside of Christian writings - that is that.

I suggest you go and look up the resurrection in Britannica. It is defined as a "belief and central part of Christian doctrine."

Sorry - but the academic world (outside of Christian scholarship) does not regard the resurrection as a fact.

 

@Stuart-T, you are an atheist through and through and I don’t think anyone is going to change you. You seem to enjoy pointless arguing with others, even though your mind is set on the “ Primodial Soup Evolution Theory “ I would assume you are content in turning into the picture below when you die.

 

I have changed my mind on things and could change my mind about God - but only good sound evidence is going to do that.

It's not about me being content turning into a pile of dirt when I die. It seems - from what we know - that is what happens whether we like it or not.

 

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.

If God would have appeared during the Holocaust and stopped the madness of Hitler and the Nazis, we would have some proof, but that never happened. Even death caused by natural catastrophes like Hurricanes or Tornadoes, we have no explanation for.

 

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.