Arvel Joffi

They say that proof is in the Bible; the events witnessed by the apostles and others prove that Christianity is the one, true faith, and the only way to salvation.

They say that truth is in the Koran; Mohammed gave us the rules that Allah said we must live by, and then ascended to Heaven.

They say the truth is in the Torah.

They say that Buddha spoke the truth, before achieving ultimate enlightenment.

They say the angel Moroni appeared to - hell, I forget his name.

I find it hard to believe that in the 21st century people can just pick and choose any of these they wish, and then claim it as the Ultimate Truth. If a Muslim and a born-again Christian each claim to have felt the truth of the word of God in their hearts, who the hell do they think they are to insult the other by claiming that "they just heard the wrong damned truth?" Confronted with such disparate mythologies, wouldn’t Occam’s razor just slice them all away and leave the world we live in?

I honestly see a lot of arrogance in deciding any particular religion or faith must be one the true way. The book and the priest can tell you about God, but ultimately, you say to yourself and the rest of the world, "Yes. This is the Truth. I have decided." At the point that you decide that you are Paradise-bound, you can no longer rely on the book or the Word of God to support your arguments. You have to prove to the world that you believe it, and that your intellect and insight are worthy of comprehending the fate of Man.

What, to you, proves that God and his Laws exist in the manifestation that you've chosen?

Bree

I think a lot of Christians get their "proof" from personal experience. My mother, for example, really "knew God existed" when she prayed for my grandmother to pull through her heart surgery and she made it. Of course, she died two days later - but that was chalked up to it being "her time" (blah blah blah).

seebs

Nothing proves it; for me, it's just the best available interpretation of the facts. If new data comes along, I'll consider it. I feel that something similar to a monotheistic God is fairly likely; Christianity in particular wins, for me, over Judaism and Islam by a relatively narrow margin. I know many people who have very different models that strike me as also reasonable.

So, to answer your question, I have no *proof*. I have belief, and faith, based on fairly flimsy evidence, that this particular interpretation is the best, and as such, I am alert for improvements in my model.

braces_for_impact

How can you base such an important belief on a 'flimsy model'?

I was going to start a thread on this subject myself, but it seems to fit in well here. It's not my intention to hijack this thread, but maybe ArvelJoffi and I are asking the same basic question.

For myself, after evaluating all the various evidence that all these religions offer, the crux of the matter is this: I find it utterly incomprehensible that an intelligent, reasonable human being can study the same evidence I did and come to a different conclusion. The evidence (or lack of it) that I evaluated led me to atheism. I fail to see how anyone else can come to a different conclusion if they honestly give it any decent amount of thought.

It is not my attempt to insult or say that theists are unreasonable, etc. I just fail to understand how one can do honest evaluation of the topic and conclude a god exists. I was a christian once, very fervently, but as more and more information became available, I realized I had no choice intellectually and morally except to be an atheist. In essence I could not fool myself.

Can any theists here explain how they came to the conclusion they did? I know this is not a brief or easy question to answer...

Faith I suppose I can understand. But faith in these circumstances says to me (in essence) "This is what I choose to believe. I have no evidence, even evidence to the contrary, but I will believe this way regardless."

Arvel Joffi

But don't you see that, in your world-view, a vast portion of the population, past, present and future, are bound for eternal suffering because they don't follow your much-needs-improvement faith? How does this make sense to you?

seebs

Any position I take will be based on a fairly weak collection of evidence, but I'm going to have a position (because, in this case, "I don't believe" is one of the positions), so I'm taking the position that seems strongest to me.

Right. And other people, looking at the same evidence, can't understand how anyone could deny God. I'm the lucky one; I *can* see how people come to all these different conclusions.

1. Personal experience which may differ from yours.
2. Probably brain chemistry.

If you want detailed answers, I answered these very questions at some length in another thread.

seebs

It doesn't, but that's not my world-view. I don't know who goes to Hell, and I have no firm belief that people who disagree with me are damned. I have met a few people who seemed to be bound and determined to resist any possible salvation, but not many. Most people, it seems to me, are sincerely interested in truth, and if they don't find it, it's not for lack of interest.

Of course, I'm an optimist.

Arvel Joffi

What are you saved from, if not damnation? Put another way, you are saved, others are _____________.

seebs

Others are "quite possibly also saved, and it's not mine to judge".

If God wants to save other people, I am overjoyed. If He does so even though they didn't do some particular thing, well, that's good - if He weren't merciful, what chance would I have?

In other words, I'm not a fundamentalist. You'll get the same response, as I understand it, from most Jews; they don't have this "hell" concept. I do, but I'm not qualified to judge who goes there.

Arvel Joffi

I don't mean to offend, seebs, but that kind of belief system sounds like a crutch. It explains the world in a fairly neat package, and guarantees that God loves you; but you don't have to deal with any of the unpleasantries.

Please don't take offense; that's just how it honestly strikes me.