The belief that unicorns and Gods are equivalent. The parallel assumption that since the notion of the God of the Bible is pretty ridiculous that the notion of God must therefore be ridiculous.3. (This one applies to theists as well.) The assumption that if there is a God then there is life after death.4. It seems to me that in this case it is incumbent upon you to make your particular position known before beginning a debate and forgive assumptions that might be accurate in most cases? make my position known?thought i was doing that..as far as assumptions that may be acurate in most cases..not sure what you mean..but remember..i am also human and as such, i am just as susceptible to my own humanity as everyone else..
When I subsequently lost the remaining shreds of faith I had, it was not because I chose to, it was because my understanding of the reality around me was updated to the point where my conclusion changed. You seem like a reasonable fella, so I am sure you know what confirmation bias is? You have talked about how you see God’s hand in so many things, but why don’t I see it? I have looked. Here is my provisional list – some items may duplicate earlier observations:1. They notice it or they don’t, but never once do they make the conscious decision whether they want to or not.Or put even simpler: one can not choose to unsee what has been seen.
I think it would be safe to say that, at least in terms of the broad details, one could quite accurately know the specific beliefs of the majority of people. i started with a simple premise..God is good.andWhatever man creates,man corrupts.(he created religion)then it is a matter of sorting through how a persons own humanity can corrupt a good God. I wouldn’t see how an atheist would assume that if there is no God still accepts the possibility of life after death, you would in say spiritualist churches and believers though assuming they do not believe in a god, but the word atheist here can be subjective because Christians are atheist to 2999 of the Gods that humans have created and indeed if they believed in one more of them or said ‘they are the same’ would be breaking the first commandment. 4. Originally Posted by John Galt 1. The assumption that all theists have the same concept of God.6. But what is not is curiosity, if you have some you will use the paradigm that can rationaly explain the other, which is superior in this dimension (rational explanation) The assumption that God must be the God of the bible, or at least an Abrahamic God.
Take the Invisible Gorilla experiment as an example – people do not choose whether or not to notice the person in a gorilla suit. That is very often a mistake. so many times have i gotten into discussions where they assumed i believed ‘X’ just because i said i believe in God.. but also in terms of specific definitions of what god is actually supposed to be. this comment is a good seguay(sp?) into the dice..this is just an analogy of how i think of it..when someone tells me ‘God is X’, i am obligated to believe he believes that and that is what he see’s..if someone else comes to me and says ‘God is Y’, something completely different then what the first guy said..I would still be obligated to believe that they believe it as that is what God has shown them..now if i were to have a table at eye level and place a 6 sided die on it, and placed four ppl on each edge of the table,(the assumption in this analogy is that no one knows what a dice is)then asked them to describe what they see..they would all say ‘it is square’ but each would say they see a different number..this is where i think religion is today..they are too busy trying to define God the way that they see him, they do not consider that the other person is seeing the same thing from a different perspective.so can you see how the question of ‘Define God’ is not a valid premise?to define God is to limit him, to define God is an attempt to ‘pidgeonhole’ God into a set of rules, so that the ppl defining God can control and manipulate othersso whenever you talk to a theist remember that they are just trying to show/share with you the way they see him..our own humanity makes it about justification and getting others to beleive as we do (to justify their own beliefs, IE ‘If i can convince others to believe as i do, then that would justify my beliefs as others believe as i do..)this is from ‘what God wants from me is not necesarily what God wants from you’this is one thing that really irks me about religico’s..(ppl more focused on the ritual and the script, than on God)one size does NOT fit all..(what works for them,doesn’t necesarily work for me.) We rationalise, we delude ourselves, we imagine stuff and we even hallucinate sometimes, even the sane. I don’t think is the case at all.
I often see though that some atheists automatically assume that someone who identifies himself as a Christian is a fundamentalist and believer in the Bible inerrancy. We are human. I for one am actually currently trying to think how god can ‘exist’ at all in the universe I have come to understand I am concluding that actually stating ‘I believe in God’ and ‘God exists’ actually is preposterous and doesn’t make sense with the right framework; I am willing to explain my conclusion if requested . 3. (This one applies to theists as well.) The assumption that if there is a God then there is life after death. People like you who might not subscribe to a particular religion are not that common. hehe..i could argue that ppl who like to think for themselves are not that common…
Do you understand where I am coming from? so there is an element of ‘If i believe in God then i am not sane’ in your perspective.see how your statement would work against itself?(rationalise,delude,and imagine)(refuse to believe because it would make you less than you are)or refuse to believe because on some level,there is fear of ppl thinking of you, how you are thinking of theist now.(the term ‘you’ is used loosely,and does not nesecarily mean you personally) I am sure that happens a lot. Santa is more likely to be encountered in a mall, that’s all.People that believe that a God (a person/being) exist somewhere is as irrational that people that believes that Quarks exist somewhere. -Quantum mechanics is a much more boring story line, with its numerous un-plausible things , but the end result may be some neat computation about a lazer toy, or a nuclear bomb.-Religion are often quite funny, sex, treason, miracle, but the end result is social cohesion, or mass murdering or harboring pedophiles.It’s a matter of taste. I in turn don’t understand why you take that leap. you are a smart fella..you have read my posts..there is a common theme among my posts..the answer to your question is simple..Because i choose to. Not at all, the same principle of asking for evidence is based on all Gods, all of the approximate pantheon of 3000 that humans have invented. 2. Bear in mind, this is not an argument about whether theism is true or not, in this context my concern is more about the application of the word choice; my reason for this is that unless I am somehow rather extraordinary in how my mind works (which is possible but I doubt it), you have no more choice in being a theist or a non-theist than you have a choice in noticing or not noticing something that is right ahead of you. The parallel assumption that since the notion of the God of the Bible is pretty ridiculous that the notion of God must therefore be ridiculous. Originally Posted by NMSquirrel the number one misconception of an atheist..1: Empirical proof is needed to believe in God.do you guys realize what you are saying?you are saying that you will believe in God ONLY if you have NO choice but to believe.you ask for evidence and proof, you do not want to be given the choice to believe. Well science holds a stance that says that the biblical claims of the bible seem infeasible and parallels them with its contradictory style of ‘morality’ and theme as one thing and then concludes the book is written by man. Also, the idea of God’s hand being in so many little things in your life; doesn’t such an idea seem kind of vulgar when you look at His apparently complete absence from so many other’s lives, who suffer terribly from cradle to grave?
No offence. 1, because you choose not to see him..2, atheist misconception # 4.. If ‘proof’ means 100% true then nothing in the universe that we come to understand is 100% true, general relativity for instance can be as close to 100% as 99.99% and indeed as evolution can (which they do) but never absolute ‘proof’, to use the word proof is kind of a misnomer it begs the question and says “well since we can’t be 100% sure science is right, there is an ‘in’ for god”. The presumption that since there is no proof https://essaywriterforhire.com/biology-essay/
of God there is therefore no evidence for God.
5. Then secondly the notion of God and the claim of his existence for it to be accepted wholly by science is to provide evidence for him, I digress the notion of God is ridiculous with certain amounts of scientific understanding. God doesn’t exist because if he did there would be no suffering.this is a logical fallicy..(my parents don’t care for me because they allowed me to get hurt..)if your parents warned you to not touch the flame or else you would get burned and you touched the flame, would it be your parents fault that you got hurt? If you go looking for god and desperately want to find god, chances are you will find reasons to believe in him. There are no place enough in this page to write all the known God, measured and observed, repeatedly.I don’t think God need to be proved more then Santa Claus. The assumption that God must be the God of the bible, or at least an Abrahamic God.2. In reality, any person’s interpretation of their god is different from the next. But still, people group themselves with certain religions and variations on those religions.
God is an example, I believe in the word God, the notion, because a lot of people use it contently to describe a LOT of VARIOUS thing (culture dependent). Originally Posted by KALSTER How sure are you that the God you believe exists is the God of the Bible? Why should I believe something exists that has virtually no evidence for it’s existence? Simply because I would like to is not a good enough reason. While I admit this may be a significant digression (in which case I do apologise) I would like to touch upon – and in some degrees question – the word choice in this context.Now I certainly admit there may be people who truly do have a choice in whether or not to believe, and if there are I actually kind of envy them, because I was never really given this choice – my own state of belief was never a choice, it was always a conclusion.Back when I held some slivers of a theistic belief, it was because the model I had of reality led to that conclusion.
The presumption that since there is no proof of God there is therefore no evidence for God. I would describe it as saying you have a choice whether 1 + 1 = 2 or 1 + 1 = 5; no matter how much you might tell yourself you have chosen the latter, it requires some rather significant mental gymnastics to convince yourself that it is the truer statement. Those groups share belief in a central set of tenets, tenets that define the god they believe in.