The Long and the Short of it.

[Paul the Human]

This is for you, Paul, on the subject of personal experience and the Bible.

1. The lessons in the Bible are ones that can also be learned and believed by examining the real world, adding to the amount of personal evidence I talked about earlier.
2. I learned these lessons on my own after I began to re-evaluate my world view and found them to hold true to what human nature is.
3. I had an experience in which I found what I now believe was what is known as the 'Holy Spirit' inside myself for guidance and strength.
4. I have since had further experiences which I can only attribute to God and the Holy Spirit, as I have learned how to understand what that means.
5. No atheist argument or perspective has been able to satisfyingly explain or attribute these events to anything else other than God.

Thanks, Watson. As you are well aware, I could give you counter arguments to each of those reasons, because I have the 'atheist perspective'. I will not waste your time doing so, in deference to number 5. I do appreciate that these are your reasons for believing, whether I hold those same views or not. That difference in conclusions is the thing that has me baffled. What makes you and fr0d0 believe it, while I (and those like me) do not? What is the difference that causes that to happen?

[Watson]

An interesting question, which I'm afraid I can't answer at this time unless I have more data from you, or from other atheists.(It's a personal question, you see.)

I don't know you in real life, and I don't know how you were raised and taught. If I met you, I could probably make a far better assessment of these things than Ican through the internet, and if we were real life friends, probably even better.

Given this information first-hand, from you, would be helpful in discerning where you are different and why. What experiences made you atheist? What experiences led you to believe that atheism is the correct view-point? Furthermore, what experiences led you to believe the way you do about the world itself, and how do you judge these experiences to be accurate?

This is probably the biggest stepping stone to discerning where you are different and why you came to the conclusion that you did.

[Paul the Human]

Heheh. Well, I'm not really asking why "I am different" any more than I am asking why you are. I am asking why atheists and theists have come to totally different conclusions when presented with the exact same information. What is it that causes that to happen? Perhaps it is neuro-psychological. Perhaps it is environmental. Something is causing one set of people to believe something that others see as a nonsensical fairy tale.

You would say it is god causing it, perhaps... and I would laugh that off. There is some sort of difference in our psyches, I think.

[Ace Otana]

What are the reasons you do not?

There is no evidence to suggest that there is such a thing. Plus, I dont like the idea of a reality where god exists or that some afterlife exists.

There is evidence to suggest that the universe can exist without the need for a creator.
Also, god's personality does not fit something that is supposedly all knowing, all powerful....perfect in other words. He seems too stupid to act the way he does and his demands and rules are just pathetic to say the least. Rules that were made not through reason, but sheer madness.

[Watson]

I wouldn't suggest it is God causing it...I might be inclined to suggest to you that, as I understand God however, it might make sense to you if you were to believe more so than it does when you don't believe. And yes, I might suggest that your lack of belief in God is what causes your confusion...but I would not expect you to agree, nor would I suggest it was 'God causing it.'

Careful there, by the way, when you suggest it might be neuro-psychological; you are one step away from the "It's a mental illness to believe/have faith" idea, which is one that I'm none too fond of for it's extreme presumptions and...well, it's a wholly different issue.

Belief or non-belief, it is something far too personal for someone else to dictate how it works. Your non-belief is a result of you, and your perception of the world round you, whereas my belief is a result of me, and my perception of the world around me. We have different perspectives because, well...we are different people. I do not think it can be rationally, logically, or scientifically explained, but can only be personally explained.

[Paul the Human]

Careful there, by the way, when you suggest it might be neuro-psychological; you are one step away from the "It's a mental illness to believe/have faith" idea, which is one that I'm none too fond of for it's extreme presumptions and...well, it's a wholly different issue.

I did not mean to imply that belief (or non-belief, for that matter) is the result of any mental disorder or anything like that. I mean that belief or the lack thereof could be the direct result of brain chemistry and the mind's interpretation of it. The part of the brain that generates feelings of religious faith might be more clinically dominant in some people that it is in others.

That's the point. I'm curious as to what causes that difference. At times it seems that a very conscious choice to believe (or not) is being made, but that belief (or lack thereof) also seems far more deeply ingrained than that in most people.

[Watson]

And this is where we would likely disagree entirely, Paul. I believe that that choice is in fact being made, and that some are simply more convicted about their choices than others. Some make up their minds and choose whole-heartedly to believe in that choice, while others are rather self-conscious or unsure of themselves and as a result, the choices they make.

It's a personal matter, and a result of personal choice. Those are my thoughts on it.

[Paul the Human]

Okay. So you believe, because you have chosen to believe. That works for me. It does nothing to convince me that you are correct, but at least you know why you believe and I can hold a measure of respect for that.

I do not feel, however, that I have chosen to not believe. I was told there is a god and I said, "Really?". I looked into that claim and have yet to find a reason to believe that it is true. I suppose that could be called a personal matter. I made the choice to hold onto my rational and logical perceptions and not simply believe what others tell me without question. I just find it to be a mystery as to how someone can choose otherwise.

And those are my thoughts on it. I guess that's that. *grins*

[Watson]

I, too, when told that a God exists said 'Really?' and then continued to examine the arguments and ideas surrounding this idea before coming to my conclusion. Though I would hardly call belief in God a 'conclusion'; it allows for many more questions to be asked of the world, at least for me. I continued to question this belief and still do. I hold onto rational and logical perceptions and do not accept without question what others tell me; however, if I find reason to accept and believe what I am told, then I may. If I persnally find reason not to believe, then I do not believe.

*shakes hands* And that probably would be that, Paul. If you have any other questions I'd suggest bringing them up; I like this topic, haha

[fr0d0]

I agree that this describes how many people probably come to 'believe' the bible, but I contend that a desire for belief and a willingness to accept outrageous stories at face value, must exist first. I do not have that capability. I have read both bibles (and parts of that Mormon thing) more than once and have been exposed to choice portions from both sides for years and years. I have had it explained to me by those who 'understand' it.

I still don't believe a word of it. Back to the why such differing conclusions?

There's the crux - to you they are outrageous stories. I accept them to be pertinent to what they describe, and completely coherent. I have no magical powers for this - this is straight forward deductive reasoning. When I decide to trust it and act upon it, THEN I step into belief.

Both bibles?

You're trying to demean my opinion by suggesting that they ("outrageous stories") are clearly outrageous to everyone, which obviously they are not. And as far as I know, there isn't a single shred of evidence to discount a single word of it. So applying your own logic for the dissmissal of something based on no evidence... how about applying that measure equally here, and accept that the bible can be interpreted logically?