jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (986 posts)

When a non-believer says they have looked God, how did they do it?

  1. Claire Evans profile image90
    Claire Evansposted 3 years ago

    We hear often of atheists claiming that have looked for evidence of God but can find none but what would convince them? How do they go about investigating? How do they expect believers to prove it to them when it can only be proved to oneself and not by another?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I ask believers for evidence all the time, but they always fall short. Do you have any? There is no reason why a God wouldn't be able to supply evidence.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is no reason why he should supply evidence, either.

        1. krivera08 profile image91
          krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          When you want someone to believe in something, it's not surprising that they would want evidence for it. For example, with the issue of evolution. Scientists are able to provide the evidence needed to prove that evolution exists. This is why many people fall short on the belief that we came to exist through God's creations. There is no evidence to prove that we were created by him, except what other religious people have said in the past and what they have written in the bible. It's even more contradictory that the bible was written by different people, rather than by Jesus Christ himself, who was believed to be the son of God. Other cultures during that period had already created forms of writing, yet he did not find the means to write the bible himself. In addition, the only real "evidence" that people are able to provide to support their beliefs is the bible, which in turn, has many contradictions in itself, and therefore can not be that reliable. Not to mention, everyone interprets it differently, and no one can say for sure what is it's true teachings.

          I am an not an atheist because I believe science can disprove God. The burden of proof lies on religion and the people who believe in God. If you propose that something exists, you must provide the proof in your defense, of its existence. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe you. I was raised as a Catholic, I separated from the church when I no longer agreed with their views. And I became an atheist, when I no longer had a belief there was a God.

          1. janesix profile image60
            janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You seem to assume that I care whether you believe me or not.

            1. krivera08 profile image91
              krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't assume that you care at all, like I don't care if you continue believing in what you believe. My response was to your statement about God not needing a reason to provide "evidence." Assuming, by some miracle he existed, he would HAVE HAD to provide some sort of evidence, in order for humans to believe in him and learn his original teachings. Otherwise, we can assume humans from the past have made everything up. So either he provided evidence about his existence to the people of the past or humans made him up. Concluding from that, if he was able to prove his existence before, than he can easily do it again. Otherwise, he can not condemn someone for not believing in something that ever made himself known to them. Not one thing in my entire life has proven itself to show that he has ever existed, therefore, I do not "believe" he exists. I lack that belief, because there is nothing to believe in, according to my views.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                God provides evidence to whom he wishes to believe in him, to the extent it takes to convince the individual he is real.

                1. Jerami profile image78
                  Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That is why it doesn't make sense to me that the God I have a relationship would burn those that he doesn't give faith to  ,, for not having faith.

                  1. janesix profile image60
                    janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I don't believe in eternal damnation either

                    In fact, it seems he treats those of true faith pretty harshly at times

                    as if he were testing us for something perhaps

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's because you have no relationship, it is all make believe.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  lol Still pretending you're special? lol

                3. 0
                  bibleblogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The present believers were once non-believers, and that is the evidence for the existence of God in their life. And do not think that God is a man, to discuss godly things in the ways of the man. If you believe in God, it is well and good. And if you do not believe in God, do not fight for something you do not believe. It's funny to see people arguing about something they think do not exist.

                  1. krivera08 profile image91
                    krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I do not fight for what I do not believe, I simply responded to her statement.  I fight for what I do believe, in the freedom of religion and in the freedom FROM religion. To want to project religious view unto others, when they are not part of the religious group is wrong. To want to deny the rights of people because their god tells them to, is wrong. I do not believe there is a god, therefore, I should not be obligated to follow his laws, as if he existed.

        2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          janesix
          If he expects people to believe he exists he does need to provide evidence. Particularly if not believing is a sin to him. This silly game of hide and seek is nonsense if the stakes are really that high.

          Why should any of us believe what you guys say about this god? You got the info from dubious sources. You choose to believe even if there is no evidence.

          Claire Evans
          As to your question and your assertion that one can only convince themselves, that's the problem here. If I have to convince myself that a god exists regardless of real tangible evidence then I'll have to pass.

          Confirmation bias is a problem in this world, not a solution to anything. I can probably convince myself of anything if I want to enough. But that does not make it true. There in is the problem and your answer. Many atheists like myself hold truth above all else. You don't need faith for facts.

          If you don't have facts you have speculation. What is the point in belief in either case? None. It won't get you the facts you don't have. It won't get you truth,

          If god were a fact there should be evidence of it. There isn't. So I wait and see if any shows up.... I don't hold my breath.

      2. 0
        Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Well, let me give you a semi fallacious reason (Note... I am not trying to be condescending or sarcastic with my response so if you take it this way I apologize up front. I am trying to be reasonable but also slightly humorous). It all comes down to belief. I'm going to break it down in three parts

        1) First you must believe that a God exists, or at least the possibility. Atheism, by definition, is a lack of belief in a god or gods.... (strike one)

        2) You must believe that evidence of God is available.. Since atheists lack a belief in the existence of God, It could also be reasoned that atheists lack a belief in the availability of evidence.... (strike two)

        3) You must also believe that whatever evidence that is provided to you is (or could be) sufficient enough to prove the existence of God (any god). So if premise 1 is correct (definition), and premise 2 is logically sound enough to be correct, then it could be reasoned that it doesn't matter what evidence is presented it will not be sufficient enough (strike 3 .. And we're out of options)

        Now for myself, I have reasoned something out about you based on these premises and previous conversations that I've seen you having with other believers. It would be increasingly difficult to prove the existence of God to you because of the above premise as well as your opinion that some believers suffer from a delusion of sorts. Because I think that if someone would tell you what you want to know that you could probably find a logical explanation for how they got that information and if God himself were to come down and show you stuff that you would have yourself psychologically examined.

        Again, I'm not sure what specifically you would be looking for and I'm not trying to sound condescending. I apologize if you take it that way.



        I think one of the biggest issues is in trying to apply physical logical evidence to an ideal that is meant to be illogical. God is an entity that defies logic, which adds mystique and thus increases his power (so to speak). There is power in things that are unknown. Once everything about God becomes known (so to speak), then God no longer become all powerful

        1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
          Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          "Once everything about God becomes known (so to speak), then God no longer become all powerful"

          What a silly thing to say. No sillier than saying god is meant to be illogical, of course, but pretty silly.

          I'm not being insulting here. You are just retelling very common misconceptions and fallacious arguments. It's not your fault.

          If there was a god, do you honestly think it couldn't make itself very clear to anyone it wanted to? What little power you think your god actually has if you believe that. That our lack of belief would be so strong that we would refuse to believe in it even if it proved to be the truth,

          Fallacy. Why? Because lack of belief is not belief. I don't believe in Bigfoot but if it were found and proven to exist then I would have no choice but to accept, rather than believe, that it is the truth.

          True atheism simply lack belief that there is a god. It does not believe in the lack of a god. There is a big difference. I can neither prove nor disprove a god. No one can. But neither can you prove or disprove that I have invisible pink squirrels in my attic. I would hope that you would lack belief that there are even though since the nasty little buggers don't even leave pink poop you will never prove that they do not exist.

          Right, you don't care, so that's the difference. You do care whether there is a god or not. You want there to be one and you find evidence in your own life for it. That is called confirmation bias. You confirm your beliefs by attributing events in your life to the existence of a god.

          Beliefs cause bias. Lack of belief helps prevent it. We are all susceptible to it so any tools that help us fight it should be welcome. The problem is that religion is based on belief and confirmation bias.

          Were god to come to me and show me in no uncertain terms that it is god then I would have to accept it as truth.

          Fallacy: No you do not have to decide there is no evidence for god because you lack belief in god. That would be a silly way of going about things. An illogical way. You look at the evidence provided and weigh it. You go through it logically. Then you discover its veracity or lack there of.

          The problem for most theists is that they can not get their head around the idea atheists do not value faith and belief. Theists think it is the best thing since sliced bread. Atheists see it as the giving up of logic, and indeed that is what you claim you need to do to believe.

          I'm sorry but the world is too full of ideas that contradict each other and claim to be the truth. The world itself is more complex that we ever imagined. If you rely on belief you have no hope of finding the truth.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Wonder of wonders!  It lives!  Hello, my friend.  smile

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hello Motown. I do stop by once in a while to throw my pearls such as they are when time permits. Glad to see you are still stalking these illustrious halls. Hope you and yours are doing well.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We are all well.  And I miss you! 

                big_smile

          2. 0
            Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No insult here.. I understand why you would say that



            Note, I did say it was semi fallacious.. One thing I said was believe in God or the possibility of God. I recognize the difference between the "hard" atheists (those who state with certainty that there is no God) and those who simply lack belief but do not definitively state there is no God (which there are a few of you here).. This statement shows that you fall in the latter category so I'm sure that you would accept if God revealed himself.



            Sorry, I don't remember stating at all that God has shown himself to me or that he has done something major in my life.. In fact, I haven't even stated too much what I specifically think regarding God other than there are some that call to him wayyy more than necessary. You might have me confused with someone else.. I am a firm believer that the more you operate in principles, the less you need miracles.. Also, I have stated several times here on HP that I admit that I could be wrong regarding my beliefs..

            Not sure how many forums you follow that I have posted on, but if you see this in me, then unfortunately yyou have not read enough of my replies..

            1. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
              Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well as my comment to Motown above suggests I don't have a lot of time lately to avail ,myself of the pleasure of the HP forums. Wish I did.

              But my comment was not meant to imply that you thought god had shown himself to you. I was replying to your idea that implied that atheists hold a belief that causes confirmation bias to the point where they can not accept even the possibility of a god. That idea is clearly wrong because atheism is not a belief. "Hard" atheism is as untenable as theism, and the weakest possible position. .

              However, religious belief  does tend toward creating confirmation bias, so it sounded to me like you were projecting that theistic failing. How you personally deal with the problem is of course not known to me. specifically why you believe in a god of some sort and what that god might look like to you is admittedly unknown to me. unfortunately for the purposes of debate, there seem to be as many versions of theism as there are people who hold to it.  I can only go by the content of the post I read.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Thanks for the clarification... I agree with your assessment regarding confirmation bias.

            2. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Before stating whether this "god" thing exists or not, what is this thing? Won't we have to first agree upon the meaning of the word before debating whether that thing exists or not? For me the universe, all the stars and planets and satellites that gave rise to life and us, is god and hence definitely exists[ I don't think you want a god which is an "it", which do not think or talk or do not have emotions and is not benevolent and do not interfere in human matters]. But I presume what you mean by god is a super-man (as) described in the bible who sits on a throne in no-no land and created the universe somewhere in the past. As it is a statement made by you (or some humans who had as much knowledge as we, if not less, about the subject), we have to analyse it logically and rationally before accepting it as valid and you can clearly see that the statement is illogical.
              If I make an illogical statement and ask you to accept it as truth, will you accept it(even if I show you an ancient book that supports it, though scientific evidences support the contrary)?
              So 'god' as you say it definitely do not exist.

              1. 0
                Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Fair enough, But that has no relation to what constitutes "hard" atheism.. Hard atheists do not believe in any higher force as God. You do presume much. When have you heard me say I believe in a God that interferes in human matters?

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I haven't, that's why I said I 'presume' you talk about biblical or similar god.
                  Regarding higher force, isn't it too vague a term? Thunder,  lightning,  fission,  sun, wind are all higher forces and atheists accept that. But is that god? You still haven't clearly and unambiguously said what you mean by god. In my second definition you might have noticed that  'interfering in human matters' is optional. Creator is illogical but was the main meaning.

              2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Through deductive reasoning rather than inductive reasoning we can say that certain forms of god can not exist, such as a perfect god or an all powerful god etc.

                But we can not conclude that no god exists either inductively or deductively unless one were to pop its head out the sky and say high or in some other way make its existence known as fact.

                I think there are subjective reasons one would want to believe in a higher power of some sort even if that power is the nature of that which we and all things  are made of. Pantheists hold that position while still being atheists. Objectively, of course we have to realize that benevolence requires some form of thought or deliberation which we do not generally ascribe to natural processes.

                Yet for the purposes of our objective existence nature is objectively as well as subjectively benevolent despite the fact that it is not a conscious benevolence. It provides us with all we need to continue our existence, which it facilitates. Our benevolence toward each other is just a reflection of those processes, not something special only attributable to human subjectivity.

                But you are also taking the Ignostic position that states that any talk of god is meaningless unless it is first clearly defined and its definition is falsifiable.

                I find myself agreeing with both positions.  If god is defined as that which produced all of this, then the nature of energy/mass qualifies as god and can be proven to exist, where as the conscious version of a separate god that plays hide and seek can not. So barring future evidence to the contrary one would have to deduce that currently the strongest position to hold is one of lack of belief in conscious god, or an acceptance of the fact that we in all likelihood come about through natural, not supernatural processes.

                1. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Thank you, that more or less summarises it. As each person's god is different, a pantheist god is exact opposite of a theists' while a deists lie some where in between, it's better to define beforehand what each mean by 'god' before embarking on a debate about each's position.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Therein lies the issue of sorts. Religion in itself by one definition refers to an individual perspective of God and the belief system and practices that correlate to it. Unfortunately, society (and others) seem intent to only define religion in regards and relation to the group of people that believe and congregate in worship (or like I like to think of it as the "mob mentality"). This is what has led to different conflicts because even some believers attack each other at times when they disagree over God to the point that they say that a specific idea of God is the wrong one.

                  2. Slarty O'Brian profile image87
                    Slarty O'Brianposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Right. And to complicate matters even more, as I stated in a previous post: every person really has their own definition of god, even if they belong to a specific denomination. Even the fundamentalists all have their own individual version. It's a lot of work to first have everyone you talk to define exactly what they mean by the word god before debating them, but doing otherwise is a game of hit and miss.

                    Forums like this do not lend themselves well to in-depth discussion and mutual understanding before the debate. We all tend to throw things out there and hope they apply to some one, even if not the person we are talking to.

                    Such are the limitations of non-formal debate forums.

                    But on the other hand, formal debates tend to be too structured and restraining. We  can't have it all, I guess. And I enjoy all the misunderstanding and passion these forums generate. They are a study of chaos. in which the militant atheists and militant fundamentalists battle for the prize of church vs state, democracy vs theocracy; a battle every reasonable person has a stake in regardless of their theology or lack there of.

                    In the end, that is what these debates are about, not whether a god exists or not.

      3. Jerami profile image78
        Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I know that I’m not going to express this as well as I’m thinking it, but here goes anyway.
        If my beliefs are anything close to being right  ????
        That we are spirit beings first, and this spiritual existence is as it is written in Rev. 4:4 “ … thou hast created all things for thy pleasure ..”   And in the beginning God said let US make man in OUR own image.
        I think you and I were there and WE are the we in that statement. We created this illusion that we call reality.  There has to be this diversity, and conflict here in the illusion of reality which we are constantly in the process of creating or there wouldn’t be any difference between this reality and the one we came from.   
        Would you want to go on a vacation to stay in a house that looks just like your own house? And would you do all the same things that you always do when you are at home?  If you would (?) Then you have wasted your vacation time.  If we all agreed on everything, and if we had all the answers, the value of this experience would be lost. 
        So enjoy the time we have, eat drink and be merry, if that is what floats your boat?
        But remember, there are some souls that find pleasure in stealing some one else’s.                                   Don’t be like them!

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Sorry Jerami, but spirits have never been shown to exist.

          1. Jerami profile image78
            Jeramiposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is right, I agree with you, every time we cut a bird (or anything) open looking for it, we can't find it.
            And when we keep cuting and it dies, we see no difference except the heart quits beating. So there must not be such a thing as life or spirit.  Has anyone ever seen life?   NO  we only see the affects which are present when life is present.   And sense we can not see "Life" itself, we can not examine it to see how complex it really is. Does it have multiple aspects?
            Like not being able to cut open an onion, not knowing how many layers it takes to be an onion.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              But we DO see "life".  We often watch a chemical process proceed.  We can watch organisms reproduce.  We watch them respond to stimuli and eat.  We can even watch a beating heart or other muscles contract.

              What else is "life"?  Spirit?

              1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                But life is more than chemical processes. How does a mush of grey matter encode memories, thoughts, consciousness? How do non-sentient electro-chemical-processes result in sentience? How do the non-sentient mathematical patterns encoded in rhythmic pulses of air, aka music, result in an emotional stimulation? Where does a sense of beauty come from and why is the World and the universe beautiful?

                If life consisted merely of biology and a need to survive in the given environment, then concepts such as sentience, beauty, emotion are redundant.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  They are redundant. Us understand them is a by product of evolution. Building and using tools and weapons requires a complex brain. Our brains evolved to do those task to survive. Evolution is ongoing. Each generation gets taller and smarter.

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Therein lies our difference. You see sentience, beauty and emotion as redundant, preferring to boil life down to evolutionary devices. This definition of life is much poorer.

                2. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  "How does a mush of grey matter encode memories, thoughts, consciousness"
                  Through chemical processes.

                  "How do non-sentient electro-chemical-processes result in sentience"
                  Through chemical processes

                  "How do the non-sentient mathematical patterns encoded in rhythmic pulses of air, aka music, result in an emotional stimulation"
                  Through chemical processes

                  "Where does a sense of beauty come from and why is the World and the universe beautiful"
                  Through chemical processes

                  If you want exact, minute, details at the atomic level you will need to have a far greater knowledge of biology than I (or anyone else) does.  For a generalized answer, though, we can see electrical and chemical changes occur in the brain, telling us there is a chemical process going on, which basically answers your questions.

                  Concepts of "sentience, beauty, emotion", being nothing more than a specific grouping of chemicals in the memory of the brain tissue, probably ARE redundant to survival - a side effect of other changes or groupings that DO add to survival rates.  Actual emotion, as opposed to the concept of emotion, is probably a different matter just as the others are as well.

                3. krivera08 profile image91
                  krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Evidence from a large number of brain imaging studies has shown that, in humans, the insula, and especially its anterior part, is involved in emotions and emotion recognition. Typically, however, these studies revealed that, besides the insula, a variety of other cortical and subcortical areas are also active.

                  The way we perceive beauty is also vastly determined by our environment. We are highly influenced by others in the perception of beauty. Yet some things appeal more to others, and their influence may grow on others, leading to a growth of the people that may consider it beautiful. Imagine the qualities you hold that would make a woman beautiful, now another person might change that list by one or two, and another by adding something new. The cycle continues to change till the point that the list is completely different. Why? The way they perceive beauty is different because of the environmental influences. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is patently absurd, Jerami.

              There are volumes of work written on life, based on experiments, research and observation, so much one could not go through it all in a lifetime.

              There is nothing on spirits, nada, zilch. That's because there are no characteristics or properties, observations or anything else to write about other than ghouls and goblins.

              A very poorly thought out post, Jerami. I can't believe I had to actually explain that to you.

              1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know that spirits are not composed of dark matter? Both are unproven and as yet undetectable. It's the old 'just because we can't measure it, it doesn't mean it does not exist' argument.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Dark matter is detectable and measurable. Spirits are not.

                  1. 0
                    Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    That's a bit of a stretch.

                2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Dark matter has properties and characteristics that are measurable, gravity being the most pronounced. How do spirits fall within this category?

                  1. Disappearinghead profile image90
                    Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Dark matter has been hypothesised to account for the lack of observable matter. It has not been definitively found or measured. But then you knew that.

          2. kess profile image61
            kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            What did they show that led you to believe such a thing...

            1. janesix profile image60
              janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              ATM only believes what scientists tell him. A couple hundred years ago, ATM would still think you were nuts if you told himthings were made out of protons and neutrons. he might even think the world was flat.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Actually the church backed both the flat earth theory and the four element theory and rejected both of those scientific discoveries that you mention.
                The fact we know those things is down to scientific research.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I know that. We've known those things for thousands of years.

                  Wasn't mainstream however,and that wasn't my point in the first place. Which is that ATM and people like him will only believe what they are told by authority.

                  1. Josak profile image60
                    Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    on the contrary they believe the things told to them by people who are doing legitimate research on a scientific basis.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Projecting your own ignorance onto others and how you are told what to believe does not equate to what others actually understand and how they go about understanding.

              2. kess profile image61
                kessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                He has the ability to argues with any and everybody, most scientist included.

                Any self-respecting scientist will quickly reject ATM even when he speaks for them.

                He has perfected the art of closing the eyes and shouting NO.

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Could you have told more obvious lies? What compels you to lie? Your religion?

              3. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It was the Christians who thought the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth. Questioning was not allowed.

                1. janesix profile image60
                  janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  That's true, and I elaborated on that above.

                2. 0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  HAHAHAHAHA!!!  I read this and thought it said it was the CANADIANS who thought the world was flat.  I was slightly confused!

                  smile

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, Mo, look at the surface of the water in all the lakes that abound in Canada..... each surface is dead flat..... so the world must be flat!   It's bleedin' obvious.

                  2. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think some do eh.

              4. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That was an incredibly lame and pedestrian attempt at an insult, almost as lame and pedestrian as the rest of your posts. big_smile

          3. Mike Marks profile image80
            Mike Marksposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            depends on your personal definition of "spirit"... when I look at my partner and I believe the science that says she is not actually a physical being but an energy being, a community of atoms held together by a force, and that she exists in a field of energy, and that I too am a field of energy, and we are interfacing with something termed "senses" that give me an illusion of physicality that allows me to function with my partner in this field in a certain functional way, the energy I term floor beneath the energy I term feet allowing me to get from here to there with stability etc., and yet there is no physicality only fields of atoms touching fields of atoms with subjectively defined barriers, and I touch my partner, and something I term "rationality" gives me a concept I that I can interprete all this energy into a workable physicality to interact myself with all the rest in a certain way, while all the while knowing my perceptions are tainted by this "rational" concept that disallows my seeing the actual energy form of myself, my partner, the floor, the earth, I don't look for a rational explanation from this physical delusion... I look at the energy form of my partner and I see a spirit that can never be destroyed and may retain its individual identity as long as it remembers itself.

        2. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The "let us made God in our image" actually comes from the pagan version of Genesis, the Sumerian one, where the gods made humans.

      4. 60
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        God could supply evidence, which begs the question why are you asking us?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because he doesn't exist? tongue

          1. 60
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            He does for many more people than not, at least in the U.S. I know that doesn't prove anything but I'm not trying to.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Rapidly changing, I believe the rate of Christianity is falling at about 1% yearly in the US.

              1. janesix profile image60
                janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not everyone who believes in God is a christian

                1. krivera08 profile image91
                  krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  True, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus Christ is his savior. Those who do not believe in that, are not Christians and fall into other forms of religion or are simply theists.

                  Edit - In addition, I would also like add Atheists, agnostics, etc. As I am an atheist, I am not a christian, since I do not believe in god or that Christ was a son of god and savior, etc. I do not, on other other hand, deny there was someone who did exist as Jesus and managed to start the religion of Christianity.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ugh.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Because some of you claim God answers all their prayers and they have real conversations with God. So I ask them to ask there God for evidence, but nobody ever produces anything.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image90
            Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think if any Christian was really honest with themselves they would acknowledge that their conversations are one sided affairs. Subsequent to their prayers they may get anything from a hunch to a very strong impulse that cannot be ignored, to do some action or say something. Now if they go with the hunch or very strong impulse and the end result is that some event takes place that would support their belief that God was directing them, they cannot be mocked for believing that God talks to them. Taken over a period of time, these scenarios build up to the point where it seems logical to the believer that by ordinary chance the results would not have come about by happenstance. Thus they draw a correlation between the initial prayer, the hunch/impulse and the resulting event.

            Now after all that I include myself in the 'they' and the 'them', but I'm not personally comfortable wearing the 'Christian' moniker as I do not follow the doctrines of the evangelical Christian.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              We all have hunches that lead us sometimes to something wonderful. Not taking credit for our decisions  and attributing them to something else is dishonest, as dishonest as blaming the devil when mistakes occur.

      5. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It's because there is no direct evidence.  What may be evidence of God will just be interpreted as something else to the non believer.  It is true that God can provide evidence.  He just needs a willing heart.  People often like to make excuses why something that has come into their life is not from God.  It has to be something else.  When God knows someone is not interested in serving Him then He cannot be known to them. 

        To add, non believers like to ask for evidence of miracles in the sky and then they will believe.  Many witnesses Jesus' miracles and still did not believe.  Some saw Him die and even when He rose from the dead.  They still rejected Him. 

        The bottom line is the will.  Is one willing to abandon one's entire life to Jesus and obey His every command and deny the beckon of the world?

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          They why do people claim prayer works? Why do they claim God answers prayers? Why do they claim they communicate with God? Don't you think if God wanted everyone to be his puppets he could make it so?

          The real reason no evidence can be found is because the relationship some are having with God is entirely in the mind. If you were/are in contact with God why not ask him to supply evidence for those who don't believe to save their soul?

          1. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why do they claim prayer works? Because it does. There is no such thing as a prayer unanswered.  He may not reveal it to us immediately but rather when the time is right.  And often we don't like the answer we get to our prayers.  When one completely abandons their life to God they will notice that everything they come across is blatantly from God or Satan.  You can then observe how the two counter each other and then you begin to see just how much God loves us.   Unfortunately, you find out just how much Satan hates humanity either.  God does not want puppets.  He wants us to love Him.  He could force you to worship Him right now but that would make Him a tyrant.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              No revealing himself would not make him a tyrant and prayer doesn't work as evidence to the Christian population in both hospitals and jail.

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What made you come to the inference that prayer doesn't work because there are Christians in hospital and jail?  This statement is vague so please elaborate.

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Christians are very well represented in hospitals and jails. If Christian prayer worked they would not be.

                  1. 0
                    Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You don't understand. If you read the bible it is full of God's followers being imprisoned for their faith, even tortured and dying for their faith. *This world is not the finality of our days and God obviously knows that. He knows that this life is a drop in the bucket. It is eternity He wants us to live for. *None of us... believer or non are exempt from suffering. I wish if you could understand anything, you could understand that. We live in a fallen world... all of us together. We are all appointed a life here on earth and a life in eternity. God will not make life on earth Heaven, free of suffering, free of pain... He only promises Heaven for those who believe.

                  2. Claire Evans profile image90
                    Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    You've completely missed the point.  No wonder you are atheist, who strangely attends mass.  You have no clue what true Christianity is about.  Why should God bail out a Christian in jail? If one breaks a leg, do you expect God to mend it on the spot? Can you just imagine what the world would be like.  We'd treat God like our genie.  I pray yet I landed up in hospital recently.  My pray made my hospital stay a most valuable experience.  God helps people through others.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, tens of thousands of children are not happy to not have their prayers answered while they breathe their last breaths dying of starvation while other Christians who pray for God to find their lost car keys are forever grateful when found.

               

              That would be insane.



              He is a tyrant, that's why your God is rejected.

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                God gave the gift of children to people and unfortunately they suffer the consequences of their parents transgressions or lack of faith.  It is sad that many people like those in Sudan who are starving never had the chance to know Jesus but God can help through others who create feeding programs.  God has to work through the actions of others.   The reason why there is such thing as starvation, etc, is because of our sin.  Every evil act empowers Satan and that makes him more powerful in controlling the world.  So every-time we do something wrong we played a hand in the suffering in the world. 






                Why?





                You sound like a child.  Does Jesus sound tyrannical to you?

      6. Trichakra profile image61
        Trichakraposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Do you have evidence that god does not exist?

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          This is an argument that's been thrown around in HubPages so many times, yet never resolved because the answer is so obvious.
          That "God" you refer to has no physical attributes according to the fanatical people who do the arguing and ask the question...no sense of sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch.  Neither is that god visible or touchable.. " He" is not proveable or dis-proveable. That god does not exist except as imagination in the believer's mind. 
          Have you access to other evidence ?  Something that would convince the ultimate skeptic?

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Look at how religiously spiritual this quote by Dr Michio Kaku is ( a modern day high ranking mathematician and inventor of string theory):
            "In string theory, all particles are vibrations on a tiny rubber band; physics is the harmonies on the string; chemistry is the melodies we play on vibrating strings; the universe is a symphony of strings, and the mind of God is cosmic music resonating in 11-dimensional hyperspace."
            This is science and religion merging together.
            Celebrate it.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Only in your mind!

              1. Live to Learn profile image82
                Live to Learnposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Well, then it would be in the minds of billions of people. In the minds of the lion's share of humanity on the planet.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes, and each of those minds sees "reality" of "God" slightly differently; no two imaginations will be exactly the same. The closest they will get to being similar is if their imagined reality is guided by some outward metaphor, such as a statue, painting, sculpture of Jesus, the Buddha, Virgin Mary, an abstract emblem, an animal (like Ganesh, for example). Each and every one of these metaphors appeals to the mind in some way.  It will lead to and guide the mind into believing God is like this or like that. Yet still the individual's mind is left to fill in the desired details - still it's only a metaphor.  God has no reality except in the mind, because that God has no form, not finite - infinite.
                  No one can direct your mind without your permission and you will not direct mine without my permission.
                  Believe what you wish, you own your thoughts.
                  Wishing you well as you explore....

                  1. Oztinato profile image82
                    Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Dr Kaku is starting to use the word "God" quite a lot these days. I'm sure he is being cautious too because atheist media, as the good Dr has carefully insinuated, are similar to the persecutors of old, only in reverse: this time they will devour any suggestion that God exists with ridicule and exclusion.
                    The Hindus say the real God doesn't have a "form" as we know the term. Now that maths is beginning to offer real "maths proofs" we can see the similarity to these ancient concepts (unless we are blind to the facts).

    2. A Troubled Man profile image59
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Any evidence would be fine. What have you got other than the Bible?



      Sorry, but that's not true simply because the only folks who appear to have "proved to oneself" their God's exist are those whose religions were handed down from their parents; ie. indoctrination.

      Why then have Muslims or Jews or Buddhists or (insert any of the hundreds of religions and gods purported to exist) never found the same proof as those who claimed they did?

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        People have converted to Christianity.  Why have they done so? You assume all Christians have been indoctrinated since childhood.  There's a difference between teaching and indoctrination.  That's not to say no child is indoctrinated.  You can sometimes tell when you confront an indoctrinated person about their religion and they only respond with scriptures, throw in a couple of threats and cannot be reasoned with at all. 



        Buddhists don't believe in God as I understand it.  They believe they can achieve divine consciousness.   I think most Muslims and Jews, and this can include many Christians, are afraid to question their religion because their parents wouldn't approve of it.  In the case of Judaism,, I've been told a Jew will be ostracized by the Jewish community if they convert to Christianity.  So it is pretty amazing there are so may Jewish-Christians out there.

        Satan can also pose as God.  He can pretend to be God and so the Jews and Muslims may believe they are having a relationship with God.   It is difficult to see through Satan's deception all the time.

        1. A Troubled Man profile image59
          A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You describe your posts well.



          lol Such childish nonsense.

        2. krivera08 profile image91
          krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You are proof of the sad reality many people see when it comes to religion. Everyone believes their religion is right and that "their" god is the real god.
          And if by some possible small minded chance that one even existed, I would not call him a god. As Epicurus said, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

          1. 0
            Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Cause that's His name.

            You nor any philosopher (using the mind God gave him to think with, of which he is using maybe 7%) gets to decide what God should do. That is simply one of those statements ppl who do not know God use to try and disprove His existence or that He doesn't care. The believer at this point offers a little insight into God to help understand why there is suffering in the world, and then the non believer rebuts the point. It is circular and seems to come to no end.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I confess to having trouble with this as well.  The biblical God was deserving of nothing more than being stoned Himself, and the Muslim God is little better.

              The Christian God of today has improved a lot, but is still unworthy of either our worship or adoration.  Looking around the world it is a far better place than it once was, but if God is watching over it all then either His purpose here is not one I would call moral or He is not the omnipotent God portrayed by Christians the world over.

              At least that's what these eyes see; closed eyes or eyes blinded by a desire for eternity will see something else.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I wrote a hub called The students of Newton Ct. I hope it offers some insight.

                Night folks. smile

            2. krivera08 profile image91
              krivera08posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I don't know where you got an education, but to claim that we use 7% of our brains is ridiculous. Brain scans have shown that no matter what we're doing, our brains are always active. Some areas are more active at any one time than others, but unless we have brain damage, there is no one part of the brain that is absolutely not functioning.

              A god is omnipotent and eternal. If a god exists and it chooses to continue watching while many suffer from starvation, abuse and other forms of pain and chooses not to do anything about it, he is not worthy of being called a god, let alone, be worshiped.

              In every religion, god has done things that would get any human sentenced to prison for life or worse, yet, in every religion, people continue to worship that god. If you wish to believe in a god who has committed atrocities and such, then by all means continue to worship and praise him. I do not believe that there is one, and if there was a chance he existed, I would never praise him.

              1. 0
                Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You're super nice.
                Yeah, apparently it is a myth... who knew. Well, I promise not to perpetuate it anymore. It's lucky that you have studied the brain extensively and could provide that information for us. You are surely a neurologist?

                1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  It is common knowledge. Try reading another book instead of just the Bible.



                  Kids in high school are taught that fact. smile

            3. A Troubled Man profile image59
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is pure nonsense, we use all of our brains, not 7%.

    3. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Most people read holy texts, attend services, often they were believers to begin with (like myself) but changed their mind over time.

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think most people deconvert because they have had some sort of bad experience with Christianity.

    4. 0
      riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      On the contrary,
      When a believer says they have looked God, how did they do it? Where did they look for god? Weren't they finding reasons and explaining incidents to fit their preexisting world view handed over to them by their parents?

      Confirmation bias. Accept a statement as true and then contrive facts to fit that.

      1. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        But how do they go about trying?




        You could call it confirmation bias but I think from age 7 I intuitively knew God.  I also thought the OT stories were strange, too.  I didn't believe it nor disbelieve it which is strange for a 7 year old to take a neutral stance.  I never looked for God.  I just knew.  Ironically it is the devil that made me know more about God.  You cannot know good without evil. 

        I've always been curious about those who weren't born into Christianity and then convert later on.  They don't have confirmation bias.

        1. 0
          riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No human being intuitively know about god, what they know is authority, the more evolved and complex form of imprinting that happen in 'lower' animals.
          You should just as well be curious about those who born to Christianity and turned to other religion. That is confirmation bias. Say some bad happened to someone. They prayed to some god but nothing happened. Somebody advice them to go to some shrine, and the problem is solved they automatically attribute power to that shrine and becomes 'believers', if not they try something else. Given enough time most human problems go away or cease to become problems and gods get a win-win situation.
          Then given human nature, fanatical religions like christianity and islam get more followers who are more biased and who tend to do any explanation based on that bias. They satisfy the human need to follow and conform.

          1. 0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You and I don't see eye to eye on much; but I see belief as more than a need to conform. Too many people believe without participating in the rituals associated with religion. Belief fulfills a basic human desire to be loved unconditionally. Actually, it is more of a need. Believers pay lip service to mandates set forth by their God. Those rules apply to others. Whatever their transgressions, they are forgiven because they have received that unconditional love. We serve the purpose, to the believer, of validating their belief structure. You can chalk it up to confirmation bias, but they see it as little more than actions and behavior patterns foretold playing out.  It isn't confirmation bias anymore than any other entrenched position on unanswerable questions. Without proof, preponderance of evidence prevails. Few, after coming to a cosmic conclusion, allow the weights on the scale to change drastically. Whether they be a believer or a non believer.

            Chalking belief up to imprinting negates any effect of individual thought and contemplation. Don't you think that summarily dismissing the input of another negates some value of your argument? It makes it sound as if you have no interest in their input. From that position, why would they see your input as anything other than biased?

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "You and I don't see eye to eye on much; but I see belief as more than a need to conform. Too many people believe without participating in the rituals associated with religion'
              Belief, I agree, is not only about the need to confirm. It also about the psychology of having a parent. For individual people there may be some other reasons too, but for the majority it is about conformity and parenting. In a limited forum I cannot discuss about every possible reasons(there are reasons which I do not know), so I confined to the major reason for the majority, especially that one which is relevant to this forum.
              "believe without participating in the rituals associated with religion"
              Yes there are people who do that, but religion is not about ritual, it is about "grouping". Rituals are made for in-group cohesion and out-group exclusion. Though we say there is a religion for every person, religion is about groups.
              "after coming to a cosmic conclusion,"
              There is no "cosmic" question, answer or conclusion, only clarity and precision in ones thoughts and words. Rest are all mere opinions, and it is over opinions we fight.


              So what are you saying, a 7 year old child has intuitive understanding(got because of their physiology/anatomy) of god, an age where the child know nothing about god other than what is taught by their parents, or children think and have an understanding about god?
              I was replying to her comment saying that at 7 yrs of age she had an intuitive understanding about god. Pre-adolescent children in most part of their life(except for a brief rebellious stint between 2-4) conform to what their parents do and behave. Any animal that has a dependent child teach them and that is one of the survival advantages of animals that rear their young, including humans. Small animals like chicken or deer do it more simplistically(which is really called imprinting-accepting as parents the first seen object and following it, by the scientists), while we primates do it more elaborately and instead of simply following we copy and remember.
              An adult "belief" is usually not different either. People, in general, get their ideas from their parents and cling to it without much deliberation. A few people who think about it are not the rule, but the exemptions. And every human group is an example of it, right from the Spartans as the 'Spartan way of life' to the Americans as the 'American way of life'. The people who think differently are ostracised from Pausanias to Salk, while those who conformed are embraced right from Alcibiades to the present, thought it is the people who thought differently that brought change to the society.
              So when somebody talk about "intuition"(about religion) it is what they got from their parents they are talking about, especially if it is about a seven year old kid.

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If indeed religion is all about conformity, why then in this religiously 'enlightened' day and age, where one might encounter a far larger number of non-believers, from family members to friends to employers, etc...why are there those who continue to maintain their belief and practice it openly despite ridicule?

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This day and age where 70% of people are still Christian, but yes now that it's not almost everyone the rate of Christian belief is decreasing by 1% yearly and speeding up.

                2. 0
                  riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are they being ridiculed by their co-religionists or others? Religion is about in-group conformity.
                  You didn't notice the part where I said that those who do not conform are the ones who bring about change. If you are a Christian you believe that jesus and his followers had a different view than the jews, a community to which they belonged too, but had the same view among themselves for which they were ridiculed yet brought a change in a century.

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Ridicule from everyone, really...their brothers and sisters in faith give them crap for kindness and respect they may show to anyone not of the faith...the unbelievers continue to call them deluded, unevolved, etc...

                    There is a time when one's faith (religion) if you prefer must simply be held between that one person and God, whether or not it conforms ANYWHERE.

                    "Be good to others and the planet."  is the only "religious" expression that seems acceptable to anyone anymore.  Which, on the surface, is quite logical and tolerant.  It's one's motivation for doing so that constantly comes under fire.

                    Trust me - religion is just not always about conformity.

          2. Claire Evans profile image90
            Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            But God doesn't abide by the rules of logic. 





            I think the very reason why people intuitively believe there was a higher power right from mankind's origin says we have some inkling.  Scientific studies suggest syntax (the way in which words are put together to form phrases and sentences), semantics (the study of meaning in language forms) and the basic rules of grammar are encoded in our DNA.  I believe it is in our DNA to believe in a higher being especially if the claim of DNA being responsible for intuition.

            http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/20 … 45642.html




            It's obvious because former Christians are disillusioned.  I don't know any former Christians claiming that Allah is the true god unless they marry a Muslim.




            Christianity is a fanatical religion? So are all Christians fanatics?

            1. 0
              riddle666posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              God can be an illogical idiot, that is not what I'm saying. I am asking about you . What you say must be rational and logical otherwise what you say will be nonsense and will be treated just like if you say "earth is flat".

              There are NO scientific studies to suggest religion is inborn. What studies suggest is that most human beings follow authority and are afraid of power. They earlier were afraid of natural power like thunder which was anthropomorphed when priests took over.
              And human beings have no intuition about higher power but what they have is a great respect and trust in authority(part of the herd Mentality
              And there are no scientific studies that prove dna is affected by words. Dna is affected by radiation(not frequency but higher frequency light like uv, or x ray or gamma...), chemicals and physical medium like viruses..
              Then I'll have to say that either your knowledge about the world around you is painfully limited or you take a blind eye seeing only what you want to see.


              Unfortunately most christians are. Though may not go about killing others as they used to do, but they are.

            2. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Claire, now you are very confusing.   You state frequently your beliefs in spiritual things, concepts that are very ethereal, that cannot be confirmed in reality, and you seem to base much of what you say and write on those beliefs.

              Yet now you bring in ideas about DNA, etc.   All the knowledge we have about DNA and anything else biological, physical, chemical, is derived out of good, sound, careful, disciplined scientific exploration. 

              You mix god and science, yet tend to deny the good logic of the latter.

              1. Claire Evans profile image90
                Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Just refresh my memory, what logic of science have I denied?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You will continue to believe what you want, Claire.   Logic?   Find your own.

                  1. 0
                    Deepes Mindposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    We all must find our own logic, Jonny. Otherwise how can we live the best as we can?

    5. tsmog profile image85
      tsmogposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Claire for asking this question.

      I have for you a possible means of providing answers. I think, although unsure this treatise answers the questions you offered for pondering. Dialogue may or may not proceed. Yet, this was written for an audience of one - Claire, inspired of another, and open to subsequent readership and peer review.

      The overall picture painted seems to be does god or God exist with an, and, added saying provide evidence as in empirical and not rational. Or, the colloquialism “Seeing is Believing” is the premise where “See” represents the five known senses and excludes the possible of a both skeptical and speculative sixth.

      Asking of privilege I shall quote a modified answer shared at the Answer section of HubPages. A rational thought  process offering the logic of mathematics seeking knowledge of god or God as an “is.” Seeking to demonstrate further an empirical acknowledgment with acceptance and of those only is the purposeful pursuit of this treatise.

      Some clarifications may be in order. First, toss religion out the window. That is of groups and is in regard of many things especially morals and ethics as a portion of philosophy. This treatise seeks to offer science – simply, a means to test the hypothesis with empirical methods, for discovering that empirical knowledge. Through language, logic, and mathematics this presentation seeks that end.

      Remember to have fun, fun, fun . . . one smile at a time . . .   

      Philosophy has these main parts or parcels:

      Per: Lander University, South Carolina, USA
      Epistemology: the Study of Knowledge
      Metaphysics (Ontology): the Study of Reality
      Axiology: the Study of Value (of two parts)
      Ethics
      Æsthetics

      Per: University of Oregon
      METAPHYSICS -- why and how people have reality and being 
      ETHICS -- why and how people are moral and have moral systems 
      EPISTEMOLOGY -- why and how individuals know 
      AESTHETICS -- why and how there is beauty and the arts 
      LOGIC -- why and how there is logic and reasoning.

      Not as acquainted with Eastern Philosophies, although of knowledge, as with Western I shan’t walk that path, yet do defer to those of more knowledge. However, the jest seems to be only something of god or God as believable as in seeing as in empirical.

      A given is with philosophy that is processed as Epistemology. Remember we threw religion out the window and not of need seeking the empirical of god or God as believable.

      The Question from the Answer section asked is, “Is it wrong NOT to believe in God? The supplemental to the question is of religion so not needed. The proof offered is:

      Q-1: Is it wrong NOT to believe in God?
      Statement A-1 = It is wrong to believe in God.
      Statement B-1 = It is "Not" wrong to believe in God

      Remove - "it", with knowledge "It" is equal

      A-2 = To believe in God is Wrong
      B-2 = To believe in God is Not Wrong
      Next,

      "To Believe in", is equal, therefore exclude them
      A-3 = God is Wrong
      B-3 = God is Not Wrong
      Now,

      Remove "God is" with knowledge "God is" equal.
      A-4 = Wrong
      B-4 = Not Wrong
      Then,

      Remove "Wrong" with knowledge "Wrong" is equal.

      The null set, or without elements, or zero, or nothing prefaces "Wrong" with Statement A-4.
      Not, or negate, or minus, or subtract prefaces "Wrong" with Statement B-4

      Does the "Null Set" ( Ø ) equal ( = ) "Not"(  ~ ) becomes the question as all else is equal.

      Consider, A "Null Set" is without anything or elements. Of essence is a Vacuum before introducing something. Or, with synonyms; space, nothingness, emptiness, and etc. Some may say "void of void" or an enigma.

      Consider, "Not" ( ~ ), when with, a word or something, has meaning as "not Equal." ( ~= )

      Does "Not Equal" mean "Opposite?" Consider these; Not Equal with mathematics as language is ( <> ) or ( ~= ) and a few more symbols. The empty set with mathematics as language is ( Ø ). Opposite is ( - ). Where opposite means those elements that are not in the set of "same as" or the opposite of Opposite ( - ) is a positive represented by ( + ).

      Conclusion: "Not equal" does “not” mean "opposite" . . . Or, ~=, ~, -

      Or, "Not" must have something to be operative as a function with and of meaning. If "Not" means to negate, then there must be something to negate.

      If "not" means to be unequal, then there must be something not to be equal with.
      Next,

      A-5 = To believe in God?
      B-5 = To believe in NOT God?
      Both cases says "To believe in" and "?" are equal, next remove each.
      Discovered is,

      A-6 = God
      B-6 = NOT God

      Premise: For B-6 to be True, or NOT God is true, then God must be or equal to something, even if nothing or is anything.

      Now, defining “Something” we discover a Pronoun = A thing that is unspecified or unknown.

      Finally, we can say, god or God is “something.” That is a thing (defined as a noun being an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to) that is unspecified or unknown.

      With a leap of faith or frankly if chosen one may say it is a multiple and not one, since it is prefaced by “Some.”

      Thus, the question now becomes of belief while remembering we seek the empirical or "See is Believing."

      Let’s seek answers with questions. Experiment. Then evaluate those answers of the experiment.

      A) If a car honks its horn, a person is not deaf, is next to the car, does that person hear “Something?”

      B) If a person looks at a car and see it has four wheels, a body, and is painted does that peson see “Something?”

      C) If a person is driving in a car, reaches downward to the center console, grasps a 32oz. cup of real sweet ice tea, then sips that through a straw, does that person taste “Something?”

      D) If a person slides their fingers along the paint of the car, feels a slight to big dent, does that person feel “Something?”

      E) If a person buys a brand new fresh car, gets inside and says, “I love the smell of a new car” did that person smell “Something?”

      F) If any or all of those can occur with the possibility of probability then we have a rough idea if not specific without further proofing that “Something” exists.

      Verified with veracity while having a degree of validity through empirical knowledge. The proof does occurs within time, is of space, and is matter. Although temporal at best, there is always the memory of the experienced offering inference the next will be the same of “Something” as experienced.

      However, to this point a definition of “Something” has been the allusion of an experience as everyday events regarding a relationship with a car. That said, it is still relative to the desired means for empirical truths as experience that “Something” does in fact exist.

      Definitions thus far are god or God is “Something.” A hypothetical proof is offered with this treatise. Next, the individual or group of individuals will have to seek that definition of “Something” for self or as selves. Ponder, “believing is seeing.” If one does experience "Seeing is believing" discovering "Something," then its equivalence, god or God, is demonstrated as also being.

      The question at this juncture is defining one or the other or both. That as a whole is the many other different parts of Philosophy inclusive of religions.

      Conclusively, one may with liberty state freely religion is of no matter with god or God as god or God is simply “Something.” Religion follows “Something” as seeing believes. Therefore religion does not lead. Religion only defines god or God as “Something” having been seen as temporal, while now believing of “Something,” even if just anything or nothing.

      Tim

    6. 61
      abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Faith to God and Religion in general is based on belief. If you do not believe, there is not much solid evidence to go against your disbelief. As a devout Christian, i consider miracles, which there are many which provide solid evidence. If you believe these are just scams or nonsense, you should know that many atheist scientific groups have looked in to the more modern and still existent miracles such as the cloak of Juan Diego of Guadalupe and cannot make sense out of them scientifically. Outside of miracles, there is really no hard evidence. But that is what faith is all about.

      1. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The question is why you believe something is a miracle simply because it is not readily understood by science? Gravity is not completely understood. It must also be a miracle.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's going a bit heavy, ATM,  lol

      2. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So it all boils down to your need to believe in miracles, etc.   It's more about your psychology than anything to do with a "god" or "heaven" or "life after death,"   

        When the religious individual can come to understand the depths of him/her self, then the need for religion diminishes considerably, if not completely.

        1. 61
          abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          No, it is faith that drives my belief.
          Simple fact is, when asked for solid evidence, miracles are the only material of substance.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your "faith" is your need.   What you believe satisfies your need.   For others their need might be different from yours.... their "faith" will represent their needs.

            In your case, judging by the content of your posts, you seem to need to convince others of your beliefs, in order to confirm in yourself that you are right.

      3. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Do you have a peer reviewed scientific journal posted by an impartial source about this miracle that you're claiming atheist scientists have examined?  I'm sorry, but I'm not just going to take your word that it exists, it's been examined, and there are no natural explanations.  I've never even heard of it.

        1. 61
          abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You have never heard of the miracle of Juan Diego?
          Why don't you look it up, i did in fact read about it a year or two ago.

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I will look it up, but what I'm looking for is actually a scientifically peer reviewed journal on it.  You stated that it has been investigated by atheist scientist skeptics - I want to see their findings.  Has it been submitted to any of the supernatural challenge areas that offer a million dollar prize for anyone that can demonstrate a supernatural claim?

            1. 61
              abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am 100% sure i saw a document by some international science group about this, but i completely forget what it is called.

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                when you find it again, let me know.  Then I will read the journal, look at its references and its credentials and find other information that may refute it.  I am fully willing to look at any/all evidence that is presented to me, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going to accept someone's word on it that it's out there, and it doesn't mean that I'm necessarily going to buy it.

                *edit* i did a quick google search, and the only things I were able to find was the Wikepedia page (which provided a brief overview of the controversy over whether juan diego actually EXISTED) and investigations by the roman catholic church on his elevation to sainthood.  No scientific journals.  No peer reviewed research.  It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, if You believe you saw it - but if you're positing this as proof of god because of a miracle, then the burden to provide the evidence falls to you.

                1. 61
                  abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You could look it up yourself, but i will go through the trouble anyway.....
                  i will post if i find it...

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I did.

                    What I don't understand is how there CAN be scientific, peer reviewed journals for an event that happened in the 16th century - from a person that historians debate the existence of.

                  2. 61
                    abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Scientists certify Our Lady of Guadalupe tilma

                    Our Lady of Guadalupe
                    Touring professor cites validations for cloth's authenticity
                    By Ramon Gonzales, Western Catholic Reporter| Vegreville, Canada, WCR, 06/13/07 -- In 1531, the Virgin Mary appeared to Mexican peasant Juan Diego. To prove to all that the apparitions were real, the Virgin imprinted an image of herself on Juan Diego's tilma, a thin cloth made of cactus fibres.
                    This type of tilma normally decays in 30 to 40 years. But Juan Diego's tilma is still miraculously intact and the same as it was when he wore it.
                    Over the centuries, many have expressed doubts about the divinity of the image, but Prof. Victor Campa Mendoza has no doubt whatsoever.
                    "This is not a human act but an act of God," he says in Spanish, adding he has accumulated enough evidence to prove it.
                    The first is in Revelation chapter 12 which speaks about a woman remarkably similar to Our Lady of Guadalupe, including the fact she was accompanied by the sun, the stars and the moon and that she was pregnant.
                    Four-petal flower
                    According to the Nahualt culture, Juan Diego's culture, Our Lady is pregnant in the tilma. This is clear by the shape of her waist and by the four-petal flower resting on her womb, which in Nahualt culture is a symbol of pregnancy, Mendoza said.
                    A professor of ethics at the Technological Institute of Durango, Mexico, Mendoza has done extensive analysis and research on Juan Diego's tilma for the past 30 years and has written several books on Our Lady of Guadalupe, including the Mantle Codex, the Nican Mopohua and his latest, Guadalupan.
                    He is currently on a speaking tour of several U.S. and Canadian cities. Blessed Sacrament Parish in Wainwright sponsored his trip to Alberta. He made presentations at parishes in Edmonton, Wainwright, Lloydminster and Vegreville.
                    In a brief interview in Spanish and during a PowerPoint presentation for 35 people at St. Martin's Parish in Vegreville June 12, Mendoza spoke candidly about Our Lady and gave further evidence of the supernatural origin of her image. He used a large canvass of Our Lady for the presentation and with a large ruler he pointed to details in the image.
                    Carlos Lara of Wainwright, who interpreted the presentation, said in his native Mexico Our Lady is popular and nobody questions the divinity of the tilma. But presentations like Mendoza's are necessary for skeptical westerners.
                    The universe
                    Mendoza noted Our Lady's tilma shows the radiant rays of the sun surrounding her as she appeared, wearing a blue-green mantle that depicts the universe.
                    Also fascinating is the pattern of stars strewn across her mantle. According to Mendoza the pattern mirrors the exact position of constellations on the day her image appeared on the tilma, Dec. 12, 1531. He used a graph to prove it.
                    It has been found that by imposing a topographical map of central Mexico on the Virgin's dress, the mountains, rivers and principal lakes coincide with the decoration on this dress, he said.
                    The fact that the tilma has remained perfectly preserved since 1531 is a miracle in itself, according to Mendoza. After more than four centuries, Juan Diego's tilma retains the same freshness and the same lively colour as when it was new.
                    Analysis shows that there is no trace of drawing or sketching under the colour, even though perfectly recognizable retouches were done on the original.
                    He said a professor from NASA conducted an independent analysis in 1979 and concluded that there is no way to explain the quality of the pigments used for the pink dress, the blue veil, the face and the hands, the permanence of the colours, or the vividness of the colours after several centuries, during which they ordinarily should have deteriorated.
                    Much research has also been conducted regarding mysterious images that appear in Our Lady's eyes. The images reflected in her retinas are of the moment when she left her imprint on Juan Diego's tilma and Mendoza showed enlarged pictures of those images.
                    Peruvian Jose Aste Tonsmann, an expert in digital image processing, produced them. The figures in Our Lady's eyes' reflection show the people historically known to have been present at the unveiling of the tilma in 1531 - Bishop Zumarraga, his interpreter, Juan Diego and several family members.
                    Further proof of the supernatural origin of the tilma comes from St. Luke, who in 71 AD painted a portrait of Our Lady that is remarkably similar to Our Lady of Guadalupe, noted Mendoza. "This is a true sign that this an act of God," he said

          2. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I'm guessing that unless a person is Catholic or Mexican, they may actually be ignorant of the miracle of Juan Diego.  It's not like he's a pop culture reference or anything.

            1. 61
              abt79posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              True. He was just a poor man.

    7. gabgirl12 profile image61
      gabgirl12posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The burden of proof lies on religion. There has been a conditioned 'respect' for faith and when the 'nice' approach doesnt work, the shunning, hell-fire or 'god just doesn't like you enough to talk to you' which conveys a sense of rejection approach is often sought. When you boil milk, the impurities rise to the surface. I question the reasons for religion, but I have stopped questioning the 'existence' of god. The concept of 'god' is relevant to society but that doesn't mean god exists. God will only be relevant if god was real. If god was independent of humanity then religious people wouldn't go out of their way to make it seem like is 'rejecting you' when they say things like 'well he reveals himself to whom he wishes'. That's not an answer, that's just an assumption of favoritism. That's just someone giving someone else crap because they have flat out rejected their 'belief'. End of story.  If anything politics and religion always seem to bring emotions in to play. It makes a great article in the news, but it really just pointless on a forum.

    8. Kiss andTales profile image23
      Kiss andTalesposted 8 months ago in reply to this

      Very good question , but atheist come in verities
      Example. We have Atheist that believe in deities or
      Customs of ancient rituals but not the God and Author of the bible.
      Then you have Atheist based on being turned away from God because of the bad examples of Christians. And those who have lost faith in God because of their own personal judging of him.
      So this is certainly like a doctor and many different patients who are certInly different in mind and body. A doctor can not treat them all the same with the same medicine . what is good for one could be poison for another.
      Doctors have to talk to their patients and ask questipns to u understand the problem.
      There are Atheist who want to know truth. , but the ones who are angry do not want to know because
      Being a Atheist does not matter about proof its about why should they belive and respect the position of God.
      And Atheist who say and live without God in the family because they like it that way. Because the written morals of God does not fit ones lifestyle but is condemned.
      So no matter what you may say to a certain Atheist about the subject it will not change
      That is a inner battle they must conquer.
      On the other hand there is a rare percent that really need more convencing of the truth.
      Which I have read they recieved.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        K&T, I am a-theist And have no need a god or an obscure book of ancient writings.
        I am not sick therefore not in need of a doctor.
        I did not turn away from your god because of "bad" christians...but would please tell us what those types of christian do to make themselves "bad."  Are they the ones who are full of self-deceipt?
        I am not immoral and do not stand to be judged, either by a ruthless tyrant of a god as depicted in your bible, or by any one of those Bad Christians.
        I am fully conversant with my "Inner Self," who is teaching me new things every day.  It is here that I find my Judge, fair, honest and forthright.
        Much more up-to-date than any out-dated ideas of a god that is past it's use-by date.

        1. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 8 months ago in reply to this

          You say you have no need for a god yet you will never be perfect and never do any wrong doing? Don't you need some saviour to redeem you of that? Unless of course, you don't want to and being in a position where you never sin again is not important.  Sin has bad repercussions and can destroy other people's lives. 

          Who is your inner self? That reminds me of New Age Lucifer worship.

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            That's right Claire, no need for a god.  How are you to judge perfection?

            Of course I will engage in wrong doing.  Wrong in relation to my neighbour; wrong in relation to the welfare of other species and the world scene.  Like you, I am only human.   But I do not need some "saviour,"  all I need is the courage and tenacity to face my mistakes, own up to them and do my best to right any wrong.  Of course this is a responsibility that I cannot avoid.   But it cannot be placed upon the shoulders of any other person, living, dead or imagined.

            There is no need of a fanciful, imaginary "saviour,"  the sort you have been convinced of.  You make your choices, I make my own, thank you.  I am free of that nonsense.  It could only be relevant if there was some kind of physical existence following death.....but there is NOT, so forget it.

            The concepts of sin, and redemption, and fear of eternal punishment....these have been designed and imposed by those fellow humans who would control you.   They want to control your mind; your every day life, every minute, every action, every desire.   Power of you and over you.  If you wish to jump onto that train for the remainder of your life, you are free to do so.   But count me out.  I reject it, as you know me of old. 

            Now, finally, you don't know anything of the "Inner Self?"   Go back to all the stories about Jesus.  If we can accept any of it as historical, he was speaking of the Inner Self all the time.  He spoke of the "I AM."  That is the Inner Self.  "Just as I Am, without one plea."   You can explore your Inner Self at any time, any place, just as and when you have a need.  There you will find the truth of your Self.   That is the God Within.  Not separate from the World of which you are a part.  It is totally free of political influence.  Free of religious dogma.  Free of Ego.  Free of the fear of sin and eternal punishment.   These latter are man-made, for human use/misuse.

            Please don't make the mistake in thinking that I speak from a position of self-ishness, which is ruled by the ego and wants power over others.  I speak from a Self-awareness.  This is a never-ending pursuit, on the life-long journey.  Full of awe and wonder, full of excitement, it brings with it a sober mind and humility.  It is 100% connection with others, and brings the realisation that we are all interdependent upon one another.  If there is anything I can still connect with in the New Testament, it is the perception of a wise man who really new the depth of his Inner Self.  But he would have been horrified to know that, 2000 years hence, people would be worshiping him as a God.   

            New Age Lucifer worship?  I know nothing of this.  Have you first hand experience in that field?

            1. Claire Evans profile image90
              Claire Evansposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              The problem is that you will never get to the stage where you will stop sinning.  That is inherent evil in all of us.  That's human nature.  Since we can never stop sinning, we can never be with the Father in heaven.

              Your attitude of, "I don't need a saviour" matches that of New Agers. 

              SIN AND SALVATION

              "In New Age writings, we search in vain to find references to sin. Because New Agers believe that each person is god, they don't believe in sin as the Bible defines it. Any lack a person has, they say, is a lack of enlightenment. Their solution is to alter that person's consciousness so he will think properly about his oneness with the Force, or the impersonal presence. Because they explain away sin, they have no need for salvation in the biblical sense. In their minds, any salvation would simply be a more complete unification with the One."

              They also believe in this "inner self" thing. That is the god within.

              http://www.bibleprobe.com/new_age.htm




              And you know for a fact there is nothing after death?



              There is absolutely no doubt that the Church has used fear to control people.  Yet, this is not God trying to control people.  Separate the Church from God!



              More New Age thinking:

              Jesus, in New Age thinking, is not the Son of God. He's only God in the same sense that you are god and I am god. He's not the Savior of the world. He's a spiritual model of a New Ager who tapped into divine power in the same way that anyone of us can.

              http://www.valleyviewseek.org/movement

              Of course people would like to be free of the fear of sin and hell.  It makes them not worry about the consequences of their actions. 



              New Ager through and through. Read my articles thoroughly.

              New Age Lucifer worship?  I know nothing of this.  Have you first hand experience in that field?

              No, but I've done my research. 

              Helena Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society, was the predecessor of the New Age Movement founded by Luciferian Alice Baily. 

              She quotes, "The Secret of Satan," of the second edition
              of Dr. A. Kingsford's "Perfect Way." in her book, "The Secret Doctrine":

              28, 29, 31. "Stand in awe of him, and sin not; speak his name with trembling . . . . For Satan is the
              magistrate of the justice of God (Karma); he beareth the balance and the sword . . . . For to him are
              committed Weight and Measure and Number."

              http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/upl … vatsky.pdf


              "After Besant, came Alice Bailey and her husband, Foster Bailey, a 32nd Degree Freemason. Having assumed the leadership of the Theosophical Society together, they formulated and built the foundations of what we now refer to as the New Age Movement. They made no effort to conceal their demonic sympathies, and created the `Lucifer Publishing Company`, along with the theosophical periodical `Lucifer`.Acknowledging that the Christian world at that time, had not been sufficiently undermined for their open preference for the Satanic religion, they renamed their project the `Lucis Publishing Company`. In 1922, they set up `Lucis Trust`, which continues to serve as the umbrella organization for a multitude of One World Government/New Age/Occult sects,cults, organizations and programs that are the main players in the emerging new world religion. These include the Arcane School, World Goodwill, Triangles, Lucis Publishing, Lucis Productions, Lucis Trust Libraries, and the New Group of World Servers.
              The `Plan` as revealed by her `Ascended Master` Djwhal Khul, is documented in her twenty four books, which she says were channelled through her by Khul whilst she was in a trance state.

              https://www.google.co.za/?ion=1&esp … 0theosophy

              Now whether you like it or not, you are promoted the New Ager Lucifer worship.  If you didn't even know that you had New Age ideas associated with Lucifer worship, then you certainly don't know you are being duped by the devil himself.

              1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                Claire, you are so funny.  Are you going to produce a main-line movie about this Jonny and his conspiracy with Lucifer?

                I thought Voodoo was primarily practiced in Haiti, but there you are in  South Africa, with very little to occupy your mind but dark, foreboding, fearsome stories about Satanism.

                Have you had a chat with a professional lately?  It seems you have had an interest in searching for your Inner Self, but someone or something has frightened you off.  Please don't allow them to dter you.  There is a chance for you to rise above the doubts and hypocrisy.

                1. Claire Evans profile image90
                  Claire Evansposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Your response clearly indicates my post hit a nerve.  You didn't even address the part where I said your beliefs mirror New Age.  I didn't say you were in it with Lucifer.  It's just that your belief system aligns with prominent New Agers who do.  How nice for Satan that some people think they do not need Christ. It makes his job a whole lot easier because those without Christ are vulnerable. 

                  Jonny, I'm sorry but this is the way it is.  Insults aren't going to make you right.  I suggest you clearly read my links and have a good think about it. 

                  I have put to death my own life and now live for Christ.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    But you, Clair E., live for Christ with 100% of your will. Not all have even 50 % will / desire / motivation and I believe motivation is under one's OWN jurisdiction. We can inspire and we can encourage, but we can never FORCE "belief."
                    TWISI

                  2. jonnycomelately profile image85
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Claire, it is not necessary for me to address that "New Age" which you feel strongly about.  I totally reject your ideas of sin, and the "inherent evil in all of us."   I find your thinking dark and, if anything, pathetic nonsense.  In fact it is rather childish, that is why I found it so funny.
                    There is nothing about your beliefs that I would wish to take on board. That stuff of "God" is a personal concept that serves individuals to their own liking, you are entitled to it.  Preached abroad to all and sundry, it's poisonous preaching, liable to get people into abject depression if they are prone to it.
                    Go your own way, walk your own journey, sort out those negatives which seem to be weighing you down and depriving you of beauty, love and awe.   I hope there are people in your life that you can help, but most likely it is within your self that you need greatest help. 
                    If there was anything that I could offer which would serve good purpose, I would do so, but that is doubtful, so all I can do is wish you well.   If you ever feel like looking into meditative practice, it's still possible you will find your Lord and Saviour there.

          2. Kiss andTales profile image23
            Kiss andTalesposted 8 months ago in reply to this

            Johny you may be a Atheist but your character certainly shows by your words you are not nice , rude , no compassion , arrogant. Not just one time but many times an experience with you. I See no reason from your examples here on hp why I would want to be like you as an atheist. I keep seeing the same pattern in others as well. I wish I could say something positive but you will not let me.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image85
              jonnycomelatelyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

              Kiss & Tales, if you see me as rude and not nice, that is your right.  But I will leave that judgement to others here.

              1. Kiss andTales profile image23
                Kiss andTalesposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                I never said what others believe I am saying my experience with you. And it is not good as your example of a atheist.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Well then, maybe it is what you have portrayed of yourself, and your statements/opinions, which have caused us to cross swords.  It does take two to quarrel, you know.  I don't think you would have felt this way if your attitude had been one of accepting other points of view without trashing them.  I am usually quite gratuitous in the presence of disagreement....at least I hope so.  It is possible for theists and atheists to live lovingly side-by-side....if there is give and take.

                2. Kiss andTales profile image23
                  Kiss andTalesposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                  Example most children want to grow up to be like somebody positive. A good example of what they
                  can relate to with happy thoughts and encouragement , some one that would help them in a positive growth and not crush them in development. I still waiting to hear that from certain people here .mostly I hear critism of why you believe something , name calling, and rebuttals never saying people are right about anything accept what you believe.
                  Is not a good example I would want passed to future adults.

                  1. jonnycomelately profile image85
                    jonnycomelatelyposted 8 months ago in reply to this

                    If you want children to grow up " with happy thoughts and encouragement," I would suggest dropping the sin and punishment part of religion from their curriculum, for a start. 

                    But then, who would want my opinion on that one?  I am only an old guy who's gay and an atheist.

      2. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 8 months ago in reply to this

        Excellent reply.

    9. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      It is a futile thing. As an agnostic atheist, I do not believe in a God based on lack of evidence, especially in a Western sense, and the agnostic part means that I do not think that it is something that can be knowable. So there is no evidence that could prove God, because of the nature of the natural/material world v the "what if"-supernatural/supposed world.

      There is nothing that would prove God but God himself taking on a physical body and coming in a Gigantic form, appearing simultaneously to everyone in an event that would be scientifically unexplainable saying "hey guys! I'm God. I'm actually real." But due to the nature of God according to religion, that won't ever happen because God wants people to believe by "faith."

      1. Kiss andTales profile image23
        Kiss andTalesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        It is hard to believe that people can believe in people places and things they have never seen
        And yet they do not say these are impossible.
        People write on sites like HP but do they think words appear without some one writing?
        Do they say hp is impossible because I never seen
        The owner or owners, No. 
        Another example is if I handed you a dictionary
        Would you automatically think the letters just evolved group themselfs together and made itself a dictionary? No. The book is organized put togathe not in disorder. Neither are the many things we see and touch. Our bodies work by time
        and order as well
        If man can make robots God Almighty is far more a genius then any human on earth because because his creations live and function .

        1. lovetherain profile image72
          lovetherainposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          It seems God would be more complex than a dictionary. Who or what created God?

          1. jonnycomelately profile image85
            jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            You have answered this already, lovetherain... The complexity of the human mind created God.   Isn't it great to know we are not being watched by some magical, mysterious, (in some cases monstrous) man in the sky?  smile

          2. Kiss andTales profile image23
            Kiss andTalesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            The best way to  understand your question is written in the bible , he is eternal , and is called the acient of days , As an example I give you a perfect cirlce there is no beginning  there is no end to a perfect cirlcle.
            He also has created heavenly bodies like the sun , moon and stars , can you say who made them, no humans has the power . what is the beginning point of the sun, what is it of the moon. We do not have all the answers but all these things benifit us.

            1. f_hruz profile image78
              f_hruzposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              If your faith makes you think this book is the plain truth because it is the holy word of god, no wander you have no idea about any of the basic sciences, have never learned how to reason for yourself to get a better handle on reality and develop a bit more interest in learning how nature actually does things quite well with no help from any gods ...

              Will you ever have the desire to apply a bit more intellect and develop a critical understanding of reality ... or do you want to continue to be an irrational being following your religious illusions all your life?

              1. Kiss andTales profile image23
                Kiss andTalesposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                I answer to no man for my belief and faith , if you have all the answers to life problems then why in this time has the world gotten worser Why is the earth polluted , crime escalates. Sickness of new diseases increase with no cures. No God will not interfere with humans  to prove what they can do. reality is total failure. Not just in one but many years and records. And to top it all off the reason you do not believe in a creator is because he has not interfered with mans choices and dicisions. Man ruling man has failed.
                With out God.
                Again what I most notice about people who want to analyze christains are very calous, not tactful cruel, if this is what atheist is about it is a bad example of attitude with insults.
                How can you win people over with that. You can't.

      2. Claire Evans profile image90
        Claire Evansposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Faith doesn't mean you just believe despite not knowing if God exists or not.  A child who has faith in his father definitely knows his father exists but does not understand why he does certain things.  He has faith that his father is doing the best thing.  It's the same with God.  I know God exists but I need faith that He will do the right thing for me despite not knowing. 

        It is the Holy Spirit Himself that offers the proof.  There are ways with having a relationship with the Spirit.  The key is to do things that will enable God to enter one's life like killing the ego and ambition and to be prepared to pick up the cross.  That is something a lot of people don't want to do because it's too hard.

  2. 0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    I think they probably looked in the same manner you did. All the reading in the world won't prove anything. All the church attendance in the world won't prove anything. Prayer, in and of itself, won't prove anything. Once you feel that you have felt something you begin to believe. As you feel that this experience is repeated, you believe with more conviction. Once you think you have personally benefited from these experiences you begin to share it.

    Don't dismiss nonbelievers. They share what they think they know, just as the believer does. True faith would, imo, entail accepting nonbelief as just as natural a thing as belief. And embracing it as natural.  Not condemning it as anti God. But, attempting to understand how it is a part of the natural progression of understanding.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image85
      jonnycomelatelyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That is a most enlightened reply, Emile.   Thank you.

    2. Claire Evans profile image90
      Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, Emile, I really do like your comment.  People are born with different levels of spirituality.  Some are more spiritually sensitive than others while others are more logical.   You are right, when we start seeing a pattern then we know it is not coincidence.

      I don't dismiss non believers just because they are non believers.  I do believe that when a believer and unbeliever start petty fights then they ought to dismiss one another and move on.   I believe it is natural to deep down sense a God but also natural to think logically and so they clash.

    3. f_hruz profile image78
      f_hruzposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      A natural progression requires a further development of ones abilities to apply critical thought and an intellectual grasp of objectivity which opens the perspective on a more concrete reality driven by natural forces of which humans are a part of, as are all life forms on this planet ...

      Why do only humans have various religions and made up gods of different kinds? Nothing else in nature seams to cling to super-natural ideas as religious people do, to some degree because of their mystical ideas of an irrational world.

  3. wilderness profile image96
    wildernessposted 3 years ago

    I think the corollary to that question is how do believers expect to convince a non-believer with a continual mantra of 'I feel it', as if that declared feeling will convince the non-believer.

    It doesn't work, so the faithful then says to "Talk to my imaginary friend and you will know", but of course that doesn't work any better.  Without pre-existing faith, there is no God to talk to!

    So the faithless are reduced to looking for physical evidence (non-existent to date) or using their own ignorance to decide that He has to be there because they don't know how things happen without Him to do it.  To a searcher looking for truth this is pretty much a failure as well.

    Eventually it comes down to "Do you want to believe?  Then do so." which is why church attendance is falling.   While few want to die, they are not generally willing to intentionally delude themselves into believing in an imaginary creature just to think they won't die.  Only those that have strong emotional reasons to believe will take that step by ignoring reality in favor of belief.  The believer can't convince them, just as you say - they must convince themselves.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The evidence.

      For me what I see around me, the earth and all that is on it, just because some man said it wasn't so doesn't mean it wasn't, just as these men have conviction in their evidence I have conviction in the evidence I see.

      Just as you (atheists) have conviction in your evidence then I have conviction in mine.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This is in line with my post.  You look at a tree and see, not the tree but "evidence" of God.  It is not, of course, but in your faith you have decided that it is.  You believe it is, without real consideration of even what "evidence" consists of; you want to believe and thus "find" evidence where there is none.  The want overrides rational thought.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          As I said my conviction is exactly the same as yours.
          I am convinced the earth was made and you are convinced it just happened.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There is a wee bit of difference in that I don't care either way.  Rather than insisting that any conclusion conform to beliefs I will try my best to find reality amongst all the lies and mistakes; you won't.  I will look at evidence; you won't.  I won't use my ignorance to form conclusions based on desire; you will.

            So...we both have convictions, but one is formed of ignorance and desire, one is formed out of effort to find what little information is available.  And at the end of the day, when there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion I won't draw one at all; you have convinced yourself of a made up one.

      2. A Troubled Man profile image59
        A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        There is no evidence around you that could possibly in any way, shape or form have anything to do with even remotely suggesting gods of any kind.

        It is obvious from your response that your indoctrinated religious beliefs are in control of your so-called convictions.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Who said I was indoctrinated with religious beliefs? Believing in a superior being has nothing to do with religion even if religion has everything to do with worshiping a superior being.

          My conviction comes from what I see not some theory of happening by those who don't har the same ideas as myself.

          1. A Troubled Man profile image59
            A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That is obvious by your response.



            Except for the fact that is how religion is defined.



            No, it doesn't. It comes from indoctrinated beliefs regarding creationism.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              As your beliefs are indoctrinated by other who believe in a different way..

              I still can not believe that we just happened and evolution is all about how we are supposed to have just happened.

              1. Josak profile image60
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We did not "just happen" but that does not imply a creator a massive number of awe inspiring forces and reactions made us over unbelievable periods of time.

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry, but I do not hold beliefs and I question a great many things.



                Yes, I'm sure your religious beliefs won't even allow you to attempt to understand evolution. Evil stuff. lol

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually i do understand evolution,i have studied it for quite a long time, to me it is nothing more than an unconnected chain of events that those who wish not to believe have come up with to show the non existence of a higher being.
                  Evolutionists/Athiest would have us believe that we are the centre of the universe and i chose not to believe this.
                  I am still questioning exsistance its self and as we know theories can change all the time so i keep an open mind.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Evolution is not a Atheist thing, many educated people of faith understand evolution.


                    You got it backwards my friend. It's Christians and other believers who think this entire universe was created for them, while the rest understand humans are just another species on the planet.


                    It doesn't seem open.

                  2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Many believers make that claim but it is obvious it is just another lie amongst they many they propagate.



                    Exactly my point, not a clue.



                    It would appear obvious your mind is very closed.

  4. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 3 years ago

    When God decides to show himself to you, he will give you exactly the evidence you need to be convinced. It may or may not be different from the evidence he shows someone else.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is unfortunate that God does not think enough of billions of individuals to provide that needed evidence.  Guess He'd rather watch them tormented in Hell.

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It is unfortunate.

        This is the only hell there is.

      2. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What makes you think that god is "nice"?

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Not a single thing.  Every God I've ever heard of was selfish, childish, prone to anger and most of all quite uncaring about the pitiful creatures called humans.  From Thor and Odin to the Christian God of today, their actions indicate these attributes although people often make excuses and claim otherwise.

        2. Claire Evans profile image90
          Claire Evansposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you believe God will enjoy to see people burn in hell?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's funny. You think God is nice because he doesn't want to see the people he sent to hell to burn for eternity in pain?

            1. 0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              If you think living a life devoted to God is a waste of time... what is a life dedicated to mocking a God you don't believe in? It would seem to me a colossal waste of a life.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not mocking any god, just a persons contradictions. You don't see the contradiction?

              2. A Troubled Man profile image59
                A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is a colossal waste of time, but unfortunately believers will not stop acting like kindergarten children or telling us we are all going to roast. Stop the preaching and the evangelism by keeping your beliefs behind closed doors where they belong.

                1. 0
                  Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  tongue

                2. 0
                  Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Is your belief behind closed doors? What's that? You say it isn't belief, but reality?

                  News flash ATM. If you haven't been listening believers are sharing their perception of reality also. If you need to push a selfish agenda, it is your right. But, don't be surprised when you have to deal with other people sharing opposing perceptions.

                  1. A Troubled Man profile image59
                    A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yet, their perceptions have nothing to do with reality.



                    So, reality is now a selfish agenda? lol