Matt the Medic

I think this thread would go a lot smoother if everyone were to stick to the topic as provided in the original post and not second guess other users' motivations or intentions. Thanks in advance,

Matt, pd/grd moderator

Kassiana

I believe based on subjective personal experiences that you may dismiss out of hand if you like. They didn't happen to you, after all, and you are not me.

IsItJustMe

I understand this, and even respect it, subject to my giraffe caveat, above. But I would be curious to know more about these experiences.

David B

I care about it because I'm a caring sort of guy, and the damage it does upsets me.

http://www.infidels.org/electronic/e...n/stories.html

Try reading some of these stories, and see if it upsets you

David B

Evacuate

Same here

DBT

You may think that something is true, and it may prove to be right or wrong - but it is not necessarily a case of belief.

To believe something is true rather than simply thinking it is true, is distinguished by the degree of conviction we have.

belief;
2 -Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

3 -Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.


Thought, (thפt)
v. tr.
1-To have or formulate in the mind.

2-To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through.

3-To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.
To judge or regard.

ComestibleVenom

I don't believe in God for many reasons. Currently foremost because I have seen him. (Inasmuch as one can be said to "see" God. Perhaps grokked is more like it, although that doesn't carry the potent sensory connotations.)

diana

What Jobar said. Except that inverse square law stuff. I don't savvy that.

But the distinction he made between believing on experience (to include provability/logic) and believing things on faith is crucial.

I've discovered over the course of time that I am incapable of believing in anything supernatural. I seriously cannot imagine a single thing that would convince me that God exists. I ask Christians what could convince them that God does not exist, and (so far) have been told the same thing: nothing would unconvince them of God's existence. In a strange way, I understand completely while I don't understand at all. In this way, we're just alike: neither of us is capable of changing our fundamental assumption concerning reality. I have a fundamental assumption that everything we experience has a natural explanation; they have an equally fundamental assumption that God exists.

I could witness something I don't understand and cannot explain, and would go to my grave wondering why I experienced it and what had caused it; I cannot imagine anything that would convince me to plug the hole of my ignorance with "God." I've been told in no uncertain terms that I'm a hypocrite for saying this, that if I were the apparent recipient of a miracle, I would believe. I think that's untrue. After all, no matter what happens to Christians that is inconsistent with their belief that God is looking out for their best interests, is loving and all-knowing, etc, rarely if ever convinces them that God is a figment of their imagination.

d

Zeichman

I affirm both of those doctrines. I don't know of any laws of physics, biology, chemistry or otherwise that are broken by the incarnation. I certainly don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, that he broke scientific laws performing miracles, etc. I do think the incarnation is irrational, however, but does not break any laws or theories of science.

I suppose I am very liberal. Two days ago my mom kept asking me if I was an atheist when I was explaining my thoughts on miracles.

danrael

Since you are a non-believer, your question can also be directed at yourself, as you stated that the post is directed to both believers/non-believers. So one can also ask how non-believers rationalize their dis-belief, even though they may agree that their scepticism is irrational? Can we all see that both belief and scepticism are two halves of the same coin, and that both are taking positions which cannot possibly be verified due to the nature of the positions being held? The real question here is, before one adopts any "position" at all, is exactly what compels one to choose one particular postition over another in the first place? Would it not be wiser to say: "I neither believe, nor not-believe? In so doing, now one can, instead of taking up some position in need of defense, simply look directly into the nature of Reality itself from where one originally sits, without belief or scepticism distorting one's view? Belief and scepticism both require the additonal element of thought; looking directly into the face of Reality is done without thought. We can liken the process to that of a perfectly polished mirror which reflects exactly and only what it sees; no more and no less, with nothing in between to distort the reflected image. There is no thought, opinion, conjecture, concept, doctrine or belief about that which is being reflected; there is only pure reflection.