What Do You Consider To Be The Most Powerful Arguments For Your Belief Or Lack Of Belief? (America, ghosts)

[TKramar]

Originally Posted by justme58

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

From dictionary.com

Faith

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Based on the biblical definition and the dictionary defs above, faith is not something associated with atheists.

One does not need faith to not believe in a deity

One does not need faith to not believe in the tooth fairy

Atheists do not have an article(s) of faith.

Atheists draw conclusions based on the evidence presented and form a verdict of plausibility/truth.

Theists apply faith to believe in the conclusions and then try make the evidence fit the conclusion.

I think definitions 1 and 6 definitely describe atheists. I actually think #2 applies also, since they don't have any "logical proof" that God does NOT exist, but I won't push it. A belief system that revolves around denying the existence of God. That's atheism.

[DJRR]

Originally Posted by Mooseketeer

Of course we cannot empirically disprove the existence of god/gods. One can never prove a negative. If it doesn't exist , it doesn't exist. It would be difficult to come with proofs for the non-existence of something.

Agreed, but you are begging the question. Your belief has no firmer foundation than anyone elses.

The onus surely is on those who are claiming a positive to come up with physical tangible proofs and irrefutable evidence.

Totally disagree with this.

1. Why isn't the onus on people who are disputing the entire history of human civilization. I know of no culture that is not religious.

2. No tangible irrefutable proof is possible. When God spoke directly from heaven some "said it thundered".

3. These proofs are abundant in the Bible. Jesus appeared to many people, up to 500 at one time, ate, walked through walls, let people put their hands in his nail prints, etc. All things consistent with a physical resurrection, but some still do not believe.

I think the very vast majority of Atheists I know will accept that they are only 99.99999999 % sure there is no God. Anything else to me is absurd and arrogant. But I can not only assess the likelihood of a deity given all the data I possess and make a decision based on logic by drawing certain conclusions. I will not deny there is a teeny-tiny minuscule, microscopic chance that I may be wrong but not big enough for me to even consider it as a valid assertion of existence.

That might be a reason you find no evidence

As an Atheist I see no differences between any faith and do not assign them different "stars" of merit. As long as I am concerned there are no such things as supernatural being, whether trolls, fairies, gods whatever shape or form they take.

Totally disagree with this too.

1. Some faiths like the tooth fairy are obviously made up
2. Some religions like Scientology are obviously man made and false

If I was looking for truth I would look for a faith that:

1. Was historically based
2. Was logically consistent
3. Was consistent with current cosmology
4. Knew things that humans cannot know - i.e. prophecy, etc.
5. etc.

The standard for proof would be beyond a reasonable doubt. Not irrefutable evidence.

Philosophically speaking you are strictly correct that Atheism is still a "belief" but one based on a certain amount of logic .

Agreed, but not compelling logic to me. Just another failed faith.

If god/gods exist then maybe they should come out and settle the score once and for all. It would take them a few seconds rather than playing mind games with the billions of little human ants he/she/they created.

I have never liked being manipulated and yet I am expected to believe in a creator who does nothing but manipulate his creation. Someone omnipotent, and omniscient and yet who has little respect for his creation, expecting praise and unconditional love based on a fuzzy feeling.

I find it hard to believe that the creator of the Universe woudl behave in such a petty, needy fashion. That alone tells me that there is no god as there would be little logic to a supernatural being of such power who has nothing better to do with us than seeing how far he can push us.

This is your personal opinion and is really of no value to the discussion. You have no reason to believe why God should act in a certain way. What you are saying is that you don't believe in God because he does not act like you think he should. BTW the very fact that you have the opinion shows that you have a concept of God that you are trying to escape - see second answer. Why are you trying to escape when so many have tried to find?

[DJRR]

Originally Posted by dcashley

One thing I noticed on this thread: Believeres and non-believers alike are emotional, yet both rely on logical arguements. Why can't a believer say, "I beleive because my relationship with God makes me feel ...." and why can't an athiest say, "I don't beleive in God because the idea of doing so makes me feel...."

Neither side really has a cogent arguement...

I see two issues:

1. I take offense when people say believers are illogical. Most of the great minds of human history are Theists, so it does not strike me as a compelling argument.

2. I think non-believers take offense when people question their morality or intelligence when they do not believe something that appears obvious to believers.

Personally I would say I believe because of the many compelling facts that surround the person of Jesus Christ. However, logic will never bring anyone to salvation. Logic brought me to the edge, but I still had to jump into the unknown. When I leapt I met Jesus and he was just as promised. That logic and emotional discovery have now fused into a living faith that I cannot deny for better or worse. My life has been changed forever.

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by justme58

faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Faith

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

For me just the opposite is true. I am a practical person. It wasn't until i could see evidence in material form and tangible results in my life, that God proved to me its existence, and that God was worth my attention. I don't do faith. I am interested only in results.

Until God proved to me consistently and repeatedly, through things that were very much seen, and in material evidence, including health, money, advancement at work, job success, financial increase, i had no religious truck with god whatsoever.

I don't take anybody's word for anything. I need to see results. PERIOD. That's all that matters. Ever. In anything. Most of my life (which sucked in terms of job, money, health, and happiness by the way) I didn't do god at all. And my life got progressively more in the toilet, decade after decade after miserable decade.

But, I reasoned, if there were ways of improving my life, my health, my well-being, my success, my peace of mind, my bank account and my happiness, I would be an absolute fool not to avail myself of them, or at least try them out. Besides I had tried all the "thinking" things and I was getting sicker and poorer and more miserable and more frustrated.

I will take all the help I can get. Especially when it's free
If it works, which it does, I keep doing it. That's all the proof I need. I'd be foolish not to use something that improves my quality of life immensely. It's a no-brainer.

[DJRR]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

I would say the real question is "Why does it matter if another doesn't believe exactly as you believe?" Whatever the faith or simple belief of another, it does not change my beliefs, so why would I care if someone on the other side of the country (or the other side of the world) doesn't share my beliefs?

Because of an unpopular topic called TRUTH. Ultimately you are correct, I don't care what anyone believes. "Everyone rises and falls to his own master" and "All will stand before the judgement seat of Christ to give an account for things done in the body."

However, it would be irresponsible to know the Truth and not try to share it. In fact, Christians are commanded to share it in a respectful and patient manner always ready with an answer so that some may be brought to repentance. It is the same as if you had a cure for cancer. It would be irresponsible not to share it with others, even if no one wanted or believed in the cure.

[dcashley]

Originally Posted by DJRR

I see two issues:

1. I take offense when people say believers are illogical. Most of the great minds of human history are Theists, so it does not strike me as a compelling argument.

2. I think non-believers take offense when people question their morality or intelligence when they do not believe something that appears obvious to believers.

Personally I would say I believe because of the many compelling facts that surround the person of Jesus Christ. However, logic will never bring anyone to salvation. Logic brought me to the edge, but I still had to jump into the unknown. When I leapt I met Jesus and he was just as promised. That logic and emotional discovery have now fused into a living faith that I cannot deny for better or worse. My life has been changed forever.

Emotions, not logic is what's important here.

If you take offense, then perhaps you should not be on a forum for debating.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by shawn_2828

I guess my question would be why would someone have to argue for what they believe?

Wasn't the OP's question or purpose, shawn. This is an open discussion with a well-stated question. Anyone can participate if they choose to. There was no requirement that you argue or convince anyone. Just that you provide, if you choose, your most powerful arguments for your beliefs or lack of same.

Seems pretty straightforward.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by DJRR

Because of an unpopular topic called TRUTH. Ultimately you are correct, I don't care what anyone believes. "Everyone rises and falls to his own master" and "All will stand before the judgement seat of Christ to give an account for things done in the body."

Or not, by my equally-powerfully held personal beliefs and convictions. Not gonna happen for me, because God doesn't exist. For me.

However, it would be irresponsible to know the Truth and not try to share it. In fact, Christians are commanded to share it in a respectful and patient manner always ready with an answer so that some may be brought to repentance. It is the same as if you had a cure for cancer.

You mean, the sorts of things, via irrepressible, patient and incontrovertible evidence and careful study that science has already brought to our base of knowledge (cancer cures, etc.)?

And those irrefutible proofs of Evolution, the ancient age & geo-chronology of the Earth, and other factual evidence that sort of fly in the face of a no-questions-asked faith in Christ? Like those sorts of answers?

By your idea of a patient sharing of knowledge, shouldn't we atheists then also feel compelled to share our rationales and information with christians?

Because, right here, you say...

It would be irresponsible not to share it with others, even if no one wanted or believed in the cure.

To me the cure is truth, not a supernatural fantasy that completely lacks any evidence other than the sincere longings and hopes of many people.

If you chose to minister to me, I get to counter-minister to you. Fair enough?

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by DJRR

Because of an unpopular topic called TRUTH. Ultimately you are correct, I don't care what anyone believes. "Everyone rises and falls to his own master" and "All will stand before the judgement seat of Christ to give an account for things done in the body."

However, it would be irresponsible to know the Truth and not try to share it. In fact, Christians are commanded to share it in a respectful and patient manner always ready with an answer so that some may be brought to repentance. It is the same as if you had a cure for cancer. It would be irresponsible not to share it with others, even if no one wanted or believed in the cure.

But to 'share the truth' does not mean shoving it down another's throat and insisting they must believe it just because we, as Christians believe it to be true. Why can we not simply show our beliefs in the way we live our lives, explaining more to those who ask about it and leaving those who are not interested to their own beliefs? And you would also lose some people in your analogy simply because they would be demanding proof of your claim to have a cure for cancer. And that is what you get when you demand that others listen to your explanation of the truth; you find others then demanding proof that your beliefs are any more the 'truth' than theirs are.

I find my brother's brand of evangelism to be much more palatable as well as more fruitful. He waits for others to approach him with questions about why he always seems so content, no matter what is going on in his life. He then explains that he is Christian and has put his faith in Jesus. If that satisfies, he goes no further. But usually it brings more questions, at which point he pulls out the Bible in his back pocket, show's them a few well chosen passages about the love of God and the message of Christ concerning Salvation, then hands them the Bible (he always carries extras) and leaves them alone to study it on their own. Or, as he puts it, he get's the heck out of the way and leaves the rest of it up to God. He knows of at least three who joined churches and were baptized within a year of such unplanned meetings. (He's a trucker who crisscrosses the country many times in a year's time.)

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by DJRR

1. I take offense when people say believers are illogical. Most of the great minds of human history are Theists, so it does not strike me as a compelling argument.

What is not a compelling argument by rational standards would be to say that many minds of the past were theists, so that therefore makes Christianity valid. Hmmm.....

Plus, I'd probably want you to prove, staistically, that "most" of the great mind of history were Theists (You capitalized it. Is this a new movement we haven't heard off yet?)

Most important people, especially in the historical past; statesmen, politicians and leaders, have always allied themselves rather automatically with the Church, and have claimed Christianity to be on their side.

Why? They either did believe in it because of a lifelong exposure coupled with Churchy incantations of fear and sin,

or...

They realized the power factor that came with being a visible believer. whether they truly were or not. Bill Clinton comes to mind.

But there are many famous true atheists as well.

I'll start with Helen Keller's famous quote because it sums it up well for me as well:

"There is so much in the bible against which every insinct of my being rebels, so much so that I regret the necessity which has compelled me to read it through from beginning to end. I do not think that the knowledge I have gained of its history and sources compensates me for the unpleasant details it has forced upon my attention."

But, a quick list of a few more folks you may have heard of and might even find intelligent. These are not so "ancient and historic", but are more modern, esp. in their thinking and approach to functional logic:

Abe. Lincoln _________ Albert Einstein

Aldus Huxley _________Ernest Hemingway

Ayn Rand ____________Ben Franklin

Carl Sagan ___________Bertrand Russell

Clarence Darrow ______Voltaire

Galileo ______________Nietzsche

George B. Shaw ______C. Darwin

Rifleman (ooopsss... sorry. I thought I might slip it in there unnoticed...)

Anyhow, I feel like I'm in not bad company here. You might think otherwise.

The difference between this crowd and the more theist folk? These guys in my list, as you might be aware, are or were all quite the independant thinkers, quite happy to go against the established cookie-cutter grain and herd mentality. Brave New Worlders, to paraphrase Aldus.