Why do/don't you believe in God

by LouBelle 153 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  zen,

  sorry for the overlapping post.

  nicely said, BTW.

  TS
• 

  daystar

  I think He's an imposter, if you want to read the Bible in a literal sense. I do not think He is eternal or omnipotent. He may live much longer than you or I. He may have much more power than you or I ... and in the perspective of Biblical writers, His powers may have seemed omnipotent and His lifespan may have semed eternal ... but I'm not buying that part.

  Dan-o, you sound like a Gnostic. JHVH was actually evil, only thought he was really God.
• 

  daystar

  zen nudist

  so, I had to ask myself would a real honest, loving father resemble a con artist or an honest dealer?

  are you making the assumption that such a being would entertain such values? What says God is honest or loving? The bible?
• 

  hmike

  I do believe in the existence of the God of the Bible.

  I'm late getting in on this thread because I needed time to put my thoughts together--I don’t see a quick and easy answer, and it's been a long time since I've addressed this issue in the personal, non-apologetic way that LouBelle asked for.

  First off, I see plenty of good support for the Bible as a reliable document. I'm not going into specifics here because that would become an apologetic approach, and it would be way too long. (Maybe someday one of us can put together a post to address all the historical and textual issues.) All the arguments I've seen that attempt to explain the Bible as based on mythology, or that is has been corrupted, or is a fabrication, are based on circumstantial evidence--they only give possible explanations, some of them based on how it appears other ancient documents developed--but there is no solid evidence that demonstrates those processes happened here. There is no "smoking gun." There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge of ancient history, and there are different ways of filling in those gaps. What you fill them in with determines how you interpret the whole picture, and what criteria are used to fill in those gaps are based on presumptions and preconceptions. So, at the very least, what we have is a stand-off between the differing positions.

  Another reason is that, having been a Christian for over 30 years, and having studied the Bible for so long with the objective of understanding it as it was intended, having applied my life to it and having made all my major decisions based on its wisdom, my understanding can accommodate all the traditional objections people have. What I see often happening is that people will construct a God--create God in their image--and then judge him by their standards. They find him wanting because He didn’t do what THEY expected him to do according to THEIR concept. So, they reject this God, who is not really the God of the Bible. So, it would be OK to reject this false god except that they mistake him for The God. I just try to let God be who He really is.

  Now here's an odd perspective for you. Atheists claim that deists believe in God because they WANT to, or because they NEED to. I can see living a life without God--it can be done, sure. For me, I believe in God because I CAN. What I mean is that many people have so much emotional baggage, or have accepted so many intellectual obstacles to faith that it is impossible, or undesirable, to believe. There simply are no barriers in my thinking to keep me from believing--it feels very natural. Has it always been comfortable or painless? No. But it has been good. It’s a positive and dynamic force in my life. Whatever fleshly sacrifice has been needed has been worth it, even if just for this life.

  Finally, there is a practical reason concerning the afterlife. If I’m wrong, and there is no God and heaven, when I die, there’ll be nothing, and I won’t be conscious to know one way or another. (Unless there is some kind of non-Biblical afterlife consciousness, in which case, if I’ve lived a good life, I should be OK, right?) On the other hand, when the atheist dies, if he or she is wrong about the God of the Bible, and there is a hell, they will spend an eternity of consciousness in despair and torment. Now that may be easy for some to downplay now, but it doesn’t sound too pleasant to me. It’s a big gamble, with the highest possible stakes.

  We can all write about the reasons why we believe or don’t--we can attempt to justify or explain it--but the bottom line is that some of us simply do or don’t for reasons we aren’t even aware of or have control of. I used to think that a good-enough argument, a good-enough sales pitch, could convince any skeptic to believe. It would be just a matter of finding the right approach. I’ve long since abandoned that idea because I’m convinced there are factors at work behind the scenes, influencing our decisions, that we cannot acknowledge. I don’t want to get into Calvinism, or predestination, or determinism, or anything similar, but some people are going to believe and some are not, and we don’t really know why. My wife has a Jewish friend who for most of her life rejected Jesus as Messiah. My wife, a believer, remained her friend and would patiently and gently bring up the subject on occasion. Then, one evening, my wife told me that her friend turned to Christ. Her friend said, "It’s all very clear to me now." I can’t explain it, but I believe there are some in the forum now who consider themselves atheist who will one day change their perspective. And then, there are some who will not…ever. If I can issue any kind of challenge, it’s to always continue to examine and question and research, and try to see things from the other perspective, regardless of where you stand. Don’t think you have all the answers, or know it all, or have come to the only possible model of reality—the universe is too big for that. I read skeptical material and amend my understanding where I see it’s justified. I’m even willing to acknowledge that--gasp!--I could be wrong. In any case, learning with humility should continue for a lifetime. Ultimately, only we are responsible for the decisions about life we make--we shouldn’t let someone else make them for us. If, at the end, we’ve done our best, well, that’s all we can do.

  Thanks to LouBelle for posting this topic. I suspect it will go on for a while. There are some who haven’t posted I would like to see get in.
• 

  mad max

  I get scared not to believe in God, then sometimes I am not scared.

  Sometimes I do believe, sometimes I dont.

  I want to believe, as someone else said in this post "becacuse we feel protected and safe".

  Want to believe so I can hope that my life will run smoothly (for a change), also it gets very tirying to do, say, feel, the wrong thing.

  Want to believe because of creation (of babies) that is a wonder, because of the happiness and joy one can get from saying to yourself "I have the Holy Spirit" but then again, do I. as well as the above. Also it feels good that there is a Higher Power that should make you feel that he is looking out for you and their is a PLAN for you. That is what I have learned just recently (but don't know how true that is) but want to believe that one is specail in God's eyes and yes he did choose me to follow him.

  But on the other hand don't want to believe in God so that I can carry on thinking and doing waht I WANT without feeling bad. (these days do not feel gulity, like I was being a JW) just sometimes feels bad that I am not really following God.

  Sorry worked late tonight and got carried away with the above, sort of went off thread. Just all quite in this place.
• 

  Daunt

  mad max you seem to be jumpy. That is the one thing that really made me cringe about religion. One minute you can be the most holy person in the world "Knowing" that this ruler is the true ruler of the universe and that this world is just a manifestation of him. Yet... have a few bills come your way you can't pay or depression hits you and you question the existence or the benevolence of your God since you and millions of other people in this world are suffering horrible deaths. In reality, the latter position is just as valid as the former position. Both of these positions are based on a book that has no touch with reality unless your own mind puts it there in some fanciful way of some sort. This stance is very unstable unless you can force yourself into any which way through telling yourself that this is the truth over and over and over again. And understanding this "truth" because you read it over and over again. Quite frankly, this isn't study, this is self indoctrination. I can make a book just as long as the bible and it will be just as valid as the bible. The only thing that will hold it back is individuals who will not let go of their old beliefs for this new one because they have "faith" when it's just as valid as the bible. This way of reasoning is just not productive to humanity because there will never be any advancement. We will continue to believe in this God-think (and throughout history forcibly shunning anything against it) for hundreds of years until some brave soul will step in with some secular reasoning.
• 

  tetrapod.sapien

  hey hmike,

  you know me. i can't help myself. i would like to reply to several of your points, whether they were personal or not. and as you know, there are many lurkers on this site. and i think you really summed up why some people believe in god and the bible.
  
  

  There are a lot of gaps in our knowledge of ancient history, and there are different ways of filling in those gaps. What you fill them in with determines how you interpret the whole picture, and what criteria are used to fill in those gaps are based on presumptions and preconceptions.

  the world of secular history has more or less discredited the apologies. just by virtue of the fact that secular archaeologists do not dig with bible in one hand, and trowel in the other, makes them more credible than biblical archaeologists, since they are more objective. they are not massaging data to fit their paradigm. and the same goes for secular historians.

  also, gaps in knowledge mean that we have to fall back on probabilities in making assertions. and in probabilities, objective folk, like scientists, use parsimony. just because there are gaps, does not make apologetics right by default. if anything, apologetics are worse off because of the gaps, since secular history is the discipline creating the gaps in the first place, not the apologetics
  
  

  First off, I see plenty of good support for the Bible as a reliable document.

  i would like to see secular support for this statement, since secular historians have proven themselves honest, while apologists ruin their reputation with the mental gymnastics required to fall onto their side of the argument.
  
  

  They find him wanting because He didn’t do what THEY expected him to do according to THEIR concept. So, they reject this God, who is not really the God of the Bible. So, it would be OK to reject this false god except that they mistake him for The God. I just try to let God be who He really is.

  if he hasn't shown himself, then what else do we have to go on than what is written in the bible? and, i will note, that many atheists have already studied the bible. it should be no mystery why they reject it. to assert that it is mysterious why some reject the bible while others accept it, is to cloud the issue with mystery. there is no mystery. it's nice that you know so well, what god wants to be, and is. join the club of billions of other humans who think different versions of the same thing.
  
  

  Now here's an odd perspective for you. Atheists claim that deists believe in God because they WANT to, or because they NEED to. I can see living a life without God--it can be done, sure. For me, I believe in God because I CAN.

  and this is different from WANTING to, how so? there are lot's of things i CAN do, because i WANT to, or NEED to.
  
  

  Finally, there is a practical reason concerning the afterlife. If I’m wrong, and there is no God and heaven, when I die, there’ll be nothing, and I won’t be conscious to know one way or another. (Unless there is some kind of non-Biblical afterlife consciousness, in which case, if I’ve lived a good life, I should be OK, right?) On the other hand, when the atheist dies, if he or she is wrong about the God of the Bible, and there is a hell, they will spend an eternity of consciousness in despair and torment. Now that may be easy for some to downplay now, but it doesn’t sound too pleasant to me. It’s a big gamble, with the highest possible stakes.

  Pascal's Wager. It's no dazzling argument.

  ever try reversing it? it's silly actually. the wager has been shown to be fallacious many times over since it was penned in the 17th century by Blaise old boy. incidentally, it was originally developed for catholics. are you a catholic? try this on for size:
  
  

  • if god exists, he will reward atheists for using their given brain power and critical thinking ability in the afterlife, as so will be rewarded. credulous religious folk will be punished for believing without any evidence to back it up, as god appreciates those who use their "talents" well, and honestly.
  • if god does not exist, it's no loss to an atheist. whereas religious folk will have lost an entire lifetime that could have been more noble and enlightened than believing in some nomadic tribal mono-god, and proselytizing or praying five times a day.

  plus, there are hundreds of religions. which one do you propose is the right one? yours? if not, then it is equally probable that if it is another religion, you will go to their version of damnation for being whatever you are. or what if the universalists are right, and you're wrong? then that means we are both going to heaven, yes? you'd think god would favour those who fearlessly followed wherever reason led them, rather than those who practised blind faith.

  really though, pascal's wager does not prove theism true, but rather it's an appeal to greed with the threat of force.
  
  

  If I can issue any kind of challenge, it’s to always continue to examine and question and research, and try to see things from the other perspective, regardless of where you stand. Don’t think you have all the answers, or know it all, or have come to the only possible model of reality—the universe is too big for that. I read skeptical material and amend my understanding where I see it’s justified. I’m even willing to acknowledge that--gasp!--I could be wrong.

  so, let me get this straight. you believe in the god of the bible, because all of the skeptical and secular material that you have read is lacking somehow? you admit that you could be wrong, and this makes you look pretty good, (like an atheist), and yet you believe in the god of the bible for no other reason than objective, A through Z critical rationality has led you here?

  if you already see belief as such a mystery ("I’m convinced there are factors at work behind the scenes, influencing our decisions, that we cannot acknowledge."), then how are you to know for certain that you have gone from A to Z, critically, fearlessly and objectively, without worrying at all that you will lose your personal relationship with your deity?

  TS
• 

  AlanF

  
  I don't believe in the existence of the Christian God (aka the God of the Bible) for a variety of reasons:

• This God is described in the Bible as a monstrous killing machine.
• This God is described as childishly capricious, and in fact, prone to many of the worst human failings.
• This God is called "the God of love" but demonstrably does nothing about the universal pain and suffering of animals and mankind. Such pain and suffering has existed for the hundreds of millions of years of the existence of macroscopic life.
• This God is claimed to be one who answers prayers, but demonstrably does not answer most prayers.
• The history of Judaism and Christianity refutes the claim that following these religions results in greater good for mankind.
• This God expects frail humans to worship him despite flimsy evidence of his existence and benevolence, and in spite of the above fatal problems.

I don't believe in a personal God of any sort for two basic reasons:

• There is very little solid positive evidence (virtually all evidence I've seen advanced by believers amounts to wishful thinking, assuming the conclusion, special pleading, ignoring facts, and so forth).
• There is a great deal of solid negative evidence (e.g., no one can demonstrate having had two-way communication with any personal God).

As for the argument that if a complex universe couldn't come into existence on its own, then it must have been created -- bollocks! Who, then, created God? Note that claiming that "God has always existed" solves nothing, because it answers nothing, anymore than saying "the universe has always existed" answers anything. It's simply a statement of belief. The notion that "physical law requires a lawmaker" is easily shown to be a misunderstanding of what "physical law" is (I won't go into the details here).

Nevertheless, I'm not an atheist, in the sense that I reserve that there may exist some creative force or entity that I cannot understand, which initiated our physical universe. But I consider the possibility low, and consider myself an agnostic.

AlanF