Resoning for belief in God

[Edwardo Piet]

If you do first year psychology, they teach you your surroundings have a very large part to play in your beliefs. If you are not taugh religion as a child, you are more likely to not believe in it.

But 'surroundings' and 'upbringing' and 'culture' sure isn't as hell going to effect me now (regardless of if it did or didn't before).

Because there's good reasons to believe in God, and bad reasons. If they're valid reasons to believe God actually exists then it counts as evidence. So the only good reason(s) is(are) evidence.

And I know of no evidence. ZERO.

EvF

[fr0d0]

But my reasons are valid. My reasons are based on the fact there is no evidence of God.

But the point is your reasoning leads you to believe what those surrounding you believed. Subject closed.

I have good reasoning for my beliefs too. You won't accept that this is possible, whereas I accept your position fully. And I'm not talking the 'E' word here, because that is a bollocks red herring. Something you're chasing that isn't there.

YOu don't become an atheist because of your surroundings Fr0d0. You become and atheist by yourself, it's not like you get brainwashed like religious people do. It all come down to reasoning, logic and knowledge. We all make up our minds in the end.

I wasn't brainwashed. Some atheists may be brainwashed. That doesn't alter things. Fact is, and this is all I'm trying to say, is that observably, people follow the reasoning of those around them. I'll start a poll.

[Edwardo Piet]

But my reasons are valid. My reasons are based on the fact there is no evidence of God.

But the point is your reasoning leads you to believe what those surrounding you believed. Subject closed.

I could end up believing differently to them though...there is a such thing as a minority you know...you get atheists that come out of Christian families, atheists that lose their faith in Christian familes...

And you get Christian families and one (or more) of the children end up growing up atheist, etc, etc.

What is your point? The point is I don't believe in God because there is no evidence. And whether I was effected by my surroundings earlier because children are or not is irrelevant...I mean...unless you have another point? What is your point? (Unless you are just stating the obvious I.e: 'people tend to end up believing in things similar to what those around them believed' - the thing is this isn't fixed you know, and it's still just that, what 'tends to' happen).

Because what others believe, that in and of itself, does not effect me now. I need evidence - whether people around me are believers or skeptics, I still need evidence.

I have good reasoning for my beliefs too. You won't accept that this is possible, whereas I accept your position fully.

Well I accept your RIGHT to your opinion. But I wholeheartedly disagree with it and I am just trying to discuss about it.

And I'm not talking the 'E' word here, because that is a bollocks red herring. Something you're chasing that isn't there.

Well...two things then:


1. IF you believe God actually EXISTS without any valid reasons to believe he does...then you are believing in something's existence without any valid reasons! That's damn irrational!
If you have no valid reasons to believe in his actual existence but...you just 'believe anyway', you can call it faith, you can call it whatever, but that's bloody irrational!! I mean if you admit (and believe) that there are no valid reasons to believe in God's actual existence but you believe he does anyway...that's damn irrational!!.

2. IF you DO have valid reasons to believe that God actually EXISTS then that DOES count as evidence at least of SOME form (i.e: Non-empirical). So where is it?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Yeah you COULD believe anything. I did say this is a generalisation and they're just that. Not hard rule.

Personally I think a belief position has to be rarer, as non belief is the default position. What influences you though is the reasoning you're exposed to. To you belief is wholly irrational, but how much of that rationalisation is absorbed? ...is my point.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well all I know is that there is no known evidence (or valid reasons therefore) to believe that God exists....

And if there were VALID REASONS to have FAITH in God then it wouldn't be faith because with the valid reasons already there would have to be evidence (because if the valid reasons WERE valid then that would count as evidence) - so you couldn't have faith because the valid reasons would count as evidence, and if there's evidnece, there's no faith (because faith is without evidence).

EvF

[Giff]

Faith is as you say without evidence. However some religious people it's not have to do with evidence or if they are right or not. It's about "experience god thru others" , "life itself is god" and "it's about love and understanding". That's a definition I've heared of that belief and faith is, and the unkown is also god of course, according to some.

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok interesting...I'll respond to these 3 hypothetical points:

1. If you 'experience God through others' but that's not actually evidence that he actually exists then why do you believe he does?

2. if 'live itself is god' then what's the difference? Aren't you basically calling 'energy' "God" or something like that? Just using different words...kind of like pantheism, etc?

3. If God='love and understanding' then aren't you simply using the word "God" FOR love and understanding? I mean isn't it just using different words again? In which case what's exactly the difference in actual REALITY? If there's still no evidence that any "God" actually exists..then what's the difference?

Haven't we already god words for love and understanding...E.G: Love and Understanding? Lol - isn't love and understanding love and understanding? Where does God come into it.

The first 1 isn't evidence the other two seem kind of meaningless because they appear to just be sneaking in the word "God" to mean things that already have meaning...as if it supports God's existence when they're really just using "God" to mean stuff that already exists...so that's not reason to believe (i.e evidence) that he actually exists anyway. It's just bullshit.

EvF

[g-mark]

]But 'surroundings' and 'upbringing' and 'culture' sure isn't as hell going to effect me now (regardless of if it did or didn't before).

What world do you live on? This is untrue.

Also, my point has nothing to do with the subject of 'god'.

[Edwardo Piet]

No it isn't untrue....

Everyone in the world could be theist (or at least those around me) ...I'm still gonna be atheist...

Everyone in the world could be ATHEIST (or atleast those around me)...once again, I'm still going to be atheist.

I need evidence. And there is....ZERO.

I'd have to lose my mind for it to be otherwise. I need evidence.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Well all I know is that there is no known evidence (or valid reasons therefore) to believe that God exists....

And if there were VALID REASONS to have FAITH in God then it wouldn't be faith because with the valid reasons already there would have to be evidence (because if the valid reasons WERE valid then that would count as evidence) - so you couldn't have faith because the valid reasons would count as evidence, and if there's evidnece, there's no faith (because faith is without evidence).

EvF

Haha! Good one

But... LOL

Only provable evidence discounts faith. Reasoning for God's existence (for they are many ) prove nothing.