Is Belief in God Delusional or Non-Belief?

[Kenny]

Okay -- it is the Claim that it isn't possible to know for sure that God exists. Well -- either He does or He doesn't.

Excellent point! Logic 101

And since we have a book that says He Does exist -- then obviously He Does.

Of course! It’s that easy. Oh wait; there’s another book out there that says he doesn’t….. Darn back to square one.

And we Can see His 'handiwork' as we observe nature.

Thats probably just a matter of perspective.

And the positive effect that He has on the lives of those who Do believe.

I wonder if it is just the belief that causes people to change. I know people who worship something that you and I both would agree doesn’t exist, and their life changed as well. Perhaps believing in something bigger than yourself can cause a change in behavior. What do you think?

K

Sorry to jump in. I just want to say, I think you have a point. Faith in something greater has produced changes in people's lives. It's like mankind may have some hardware that is programmed to respond to a belief in a higher power or purpose. Even Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts spirituality as a need for self actualization. For me, there being some correlation between 'belief in something bigger' and 'change for the better' is a point to acknowledge in its' own right. The "Why" or "Who" behind it is another discussion.

What I find curious is hearing out spoken atheists and well credentialed researchers like, like Richard Dawkins having so much to say about God.

Richard Dawkins said "I am a secular Christian” at the launch of the first volume of his memoirs, An Appetite For Wonder....." Wonderment around the truth of God and 'hope' in God are not notions that are far apart. After all Dawkins was raised a Christian.
http://www.strangenotions.com/is-richar ... istianity/

Having atheists like Dawkins writing books such as "The God Delusion" is kinda like having modern scientists wasting their time robustly refuting flat earth, or Thor's hammer being responsible for earthquakes and writing books about it. Why bother, if the notion of God is so ridiculous to them? Perhaps this behavior is reflective of an inner struggle they themselves prefer not to deal with.

I think one thing to keep in mind, the change that results in believing in something bigger than yourself is not always a good change. Too many people have done this which resulted in them joining some cult, terrorist organization, or gangs.

As far as atheists like Richard Dawkins putting so much effort talking about God, I don’t think it is God they have a problem with, but those who believe in God, whom they have to deal with daily.

Ken

[RickD]

ken wrote:

As far as atheists like Richard Dawkins putting so much effort talking about God, I don’t think it is God they have a problem with, but those who believe in God, whom they have to deal with daily.

What?

You're saying that Dawkins is so ignorant about what atheism is, that he'd spend his life trying to disprove the existence of God, because of fallible people who believe in God?

Kenny,

Do you really believe Dawkins is an atheist, and spends his life trying to disprove God, because of some ignorant theists he has to deal with?

I give Dawkins more credit than that.

You are basically equating Dawkins with ignorant atheists who won't believe in the God of the bible, because people like Benny Hinn misrepresent God.

I hope you can see how silly that is.

[Mazzy]

Okay -- it is the Claim that it isn't possible to know for sure that God exists. Well -- either He does or He doesn't.

Excellent point! Logic 101

And since we have a book that says He Does exist -- then obviously He Does.

Of course! It’s that easy. Oh wait; there’s another book out there that says he doesn’t….. Darn back to square one.

And we Can see His 'handiwork' as we observe nature.

Thats probably just a matter of perspective.

And the positive effect that He has on the lives of those who Do believe.

I wonder if it is just the belief that causes people to change. I know people who worship something that you and I both would agree doesn’t exist, and their life changed as well. Perhaps believing in something bigger than yourself can cause a change in behavior. What do you think?

K

Sorry to jump in. I just want to say, I think you have a point. Faith in something greater has produced changes in people's lives. It's like mankind may have some hardware that is programmed to respond to a belief in a higher power or purpose. Even Maslow's hierarchy of needs puts spirituality as a need for self actualization. For me, there being some correlation between 'belief in something bigger' and 'change for the better' is a point to acknowledge in its' own right. The "Why" or "Who" behind it is another discussion.

What I find curious is hearing out spoken atheists and well credentialed researchers like, like Richard Dawkins having so much to say about God.

Richard Dawkins said "I am a secular Christian” at the launch of the first volume of his memoirs, An Appetite For Wonder....." Wonderment around the truth of God and 'hope' in God are not notions that are far apart. After all Dawkins was raised a Christian.
http://www.strangenotions.com/is-richar ... istianity/

Having atheists like Dawkins writing books such as "The God Delusion" is kinda like having modern scientists wasting their time robustly refuting flat earth, or Thor's hammer being responsible for earthquakes and writing books about it. Why bother, if the notion of God is so ridiculous to them? Perhaps this behavior is reflective of an inner struggle they themselves prefer not to deal with.

I think one thing to keep in mind, the change that results in believing in something bigger than yourself is not always a good change. Too many people have done this which resulted in them joining some cult, terrorist organization, or gangs.

As far as atheists like Richard Dawkins putting so much effort talking about God, I don’t think it is God they have a problem with, but those who believe in God, whom they have to deal with daily.

Ken

You are right, the change is not always good. We shouldn't put labels on minorities or those with mental health issues and use that as an argument for some status quo. People that turn to religion generally demonstrate positive life style changes.

Re Dawkins, for me it does not matter if some scientists have a problem with God or believers. It's good to see them being publicly outspoken because they are very successful at keeping discussion about God alive. Ongoing discussion lends credibility that a notion is still worth discussion and the believers have a belief worth challenging.

[edwardmurphy]

You're saying that Dawkins is so ignorant about what atheism is, that he'd spend his life trying to disprove the existence of God, because of fallible people who believe in God?

Belief in God wouldn't worth debating if it didn't lead to religion and therefore religious people. Some of those guys are a pain in the butt, and a handful are dangerous. Look at belief in ghosts for a decent comparison. Plenty of people believe in ghosts, but their belief is completely innocuous so it's mostly ignored. It's harmless, so who cares?

[RickD]

You're saying that Dawkins is so ignorant about what atheism is, that he'd spend his life trying to disprove the existence of God, because of fallible people who believe in God?

Belief in God wouldn't worth debating if it didn't lead to religion and therefore religious people. Some of those guys are a pain in the butt, and a handful are dangerous. Look at belief in ghosts for a decent comparison. Plenty of people believe in ghosts, but their belief is completely innocuous so it's mostly ignored. It's harmless, so who cares?

Ed,

I don't think belief in ghosts is necessarily harmless. My belief is that ghosts aren't souls of dead people, but evil spirits masquerading as dead people. And by following what evil spirits say, may very well be harmful.

But getting back to what Kenny said about Dawkins and those like him. If Dawkins and other atheists argued only about crazy religious people, and not about God Himself, then I could see what you're saying. But trying to argue against God, because of what others who claim to follow Him believe, or the way they act, is wrong.

It would be like me arguing that Hillary Clinton didn't exist because BLM is a bunch of kooky racists, that follow her. It's just absurd.

And Ed,

Just think about this. Maybe as Mazzy said, arguing about God comes naturally to us because first, God exists. And second, God has given us a spiritual nature that seeks Him out. Just like our bodies crave healthy food to nourish us, our spirits crave a relationship with God. And just as we can fill our bodies with Twinkie's, soda, and candy, we can choose to "fill our spirit" with false gods, that don't nourish us.

Simply, we as humans argue for and against God, because He exists, and He has given us a desire to know Him. Some like Dawkins, continue to ignore what's right in front of them.

[edwardmurphy]

But getting back to what Kenny said about Dawkins and those like him. If Dawkins and other atheists argued only about crazy religious people, and not about God Himself, then I could see what you're saying. But trying to argue against God, because of what others who claim to follow Him believe, or the way they act, is wrong.

It's a bit awkward trying to explain Dawkins' beliefs and motives. I'm not one of his disciples and I haven't read much of his work, so I don't really know. Anyway, my guess is that he thinks that the idea of God is supernatural nonsense, but that his motivation for attacking the concept so vigorously is that religious adherents do a lot of harm. I'm sure that he also thinks ghosts, unicorns, and pixies are nonsense, too, but regards them as harmless nonsense and not worth confronting.

So really, he's not attacking the existence of gods based on their followers, but rather because of them. Make sense?

[RickD]

But getting back to what Kenny said about Dawkins and those like him. If Dawkins and other atheists argued only about crazy religious people, and not about God Himself, then I could see what you're saying. But trying to argue against God, because of what others who claim to follow Him believe, or the way they act, is wrong.

It's a bit awkward trying to explain Dawkins' beliefs and motives. I'm not one of his disciples and I haven't read much of his work, so I don't really know. Anyway, my guess is that he thinks that the idea of God is supernatural nonsense, but that his motivation for attacking the concept so vigorously is that religious adherents do a lot of harm. I'm sure that he also thinks ghosts, unicorns, and pixies are nonsense, too, but regards them as harmless nonsense and not worth confronting.

So really, he's not attacking the existence of gods based on their followers, but rather because of them. Make sense?

No.
He's not attacking the existence of God based on His followers, but because of them? "Based on", and "because of" mean the same thing, don't they?

I don't follow Christ because of who his followers are. I'm a Christian because of who Christ is.

[Mazzy]

But getting back to what Kenny said about Dawkins and those like him. If Dawkins and other atheists argued only about crazy religious people, and not about God Himself, then I could see what you're saying. But trying to argue against God, because of what others who claim to follow Him believe, or the way they act, is wrong.

It's a bit awkward trying to explain Dawkins' beliefs and motives. I'm not one of his disciples and I haven't read much of his work, so I don't really know. Anyway, my guess is that he thinks that the idea of God is supernatural nonsense, but that his motivation for attacking the concept so vigorously is that religious adherents do a lot of harm. I'm sure that he also thinks ghosts, unicorns, and pixies are nonsense, too, but regards them as harmless nonsense and not worth confronting.

So really, he's not attacking the existence of gods based on their followers, but rather because of them. Make sense?

I was surprised to read this back in 2014..."“I would describe myself as a secular Christian in the same sense as secular Jews have a feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies,” said Dawkins." Dawkins said he had an “Anglican upbringing” but chose atheism in his early teens after learning about Darwin’s theory of evolution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay- ... stian.html

It's a shame really, as one does not have to be a creationist to be a theist. Dawkins made a decision based on a theoretical perspective. Fortunately he is either not prepared or unable to deny his Christianity totally. I wonder if that could be God giving Richard a poke in his conscience.

[crochet1949]

If I could back up for a moment to a comment that Kenny made -- about the book saying that God Doesn't exit. What book are you referring to?

[edwardmurphy]

No.
He's not attacking the existence of God based on His followers, but because of them? "Based on", and "because of" mean the same thing, don't they?

I don't follow Christ because of who his followers are. I'm a Christian because of who Christ is.

Ok, I'll try it a different way.

I think that Dawkins dismisses gods because he thinks they're supernatural nonsense. I think that Dawkins attacks gods because gods are the foundation of religion and he thinks that religion is dangerous. If he didn't think that religion was dangerous then I doubt he'd attack gods any more vigorously than he attacks leprechauns and pixies.

Clear?

[Kenny]

So really, he's not attacking the existence of gods based on their followers, but rather because of them. Make sense?

I think you make an excellent point, as I alluded to earlier, which is why he spends so much effort trying to convince those who believe that God does not exist

Ken

[RickD]

No.
He's not attacking the existence of God based on His followers, but because of them? "Based on", and "because of" mean the same thing, don't they?

I don't follow Christ because of who his followers are. I'm a Christian because of who Christ is.

Ok, I'll try it a different way.

I think that Dawkins dismisses gods because he thinks they're supernatural nonsense. I think that Dawkins attacks gods because gods are the foundation of religion and he thinks that religion is dangerous. If he didn't think that religion was dangerous then I doubt he'd attack gods any more vigorously than he attacks leprechauns and pixies.

Clear?

Ok. But he would see religion as dangerous because of the evil people do in the name of religion, correct?

So, isn't that the same thing as judging God because of those who follow Him?

In other words, if I steal a man's clothes, hat, sunglasses, gun and car, and use them to rob a bank, is it fair to attack that man because of my crimes?

Or maybe Dawkins and others, think that the God of the bible condones evil? And that would be blaming God for their faulty biblical interpretation, as well as not understanding who God is.

Still not a good argument.

[Kenny]

If I could back up for a moment to a comment that Kenny made -- about the book saying that God Doesn't exit. What book are you referring to?

I am sure you are aware of the countless books written by Atheist that conclude God doesn't exist aren't you? I'll bet a few of 'em are even written by Richard Dawkins. Would you like the whole list or just the top 10?

Ken

[crochet1949]

Let's just go for the top ten

[Kenny]

Let's just go for the top ten

Gotcha! (LOL)

K