# Dear Atheists, Questions From A "believer" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159 "2003-10-29T03:14:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/221 "2003-11-10T07:35:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by gum \* > \*\*yes dear. _pat pat pat_ \*\* Gee, thanks sweetie. Quit it. You’re messing up my hair.🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Bill\_H](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a5b964/32.png) [@Bill\_H](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bill_H)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/222 "2003-11-10T07:49:13Z")
**IWLN** wrote > [@](#): > > The foundation or basis of my belief is God. A belief in anything does not entitle one to commit violence, break any laws, etc. If I were a killer and an Atheist, it would not mean being an Atheist is my excuse for killing. I can’t think of even one Atheist who has killed in the name of Atheism. I can think of a number of Believers who have killed in the name of god. Muhammad, the founder of one of the largest religions immediately springs to mind, but I don’t want this to have a racial slant. The religion isn’t really the killer, it’s the blind faith in any religion that is. > [@](#): > > (If there were no religion,) Muslims and Jews would still fight over borders, because each would have their own perfectly rational reasons. This may or may not be true. But it avoids the point that many many conflicts in this world involve “god-given” territory. Maybe the Jews and Muslims wouldn’t be fighting without religion, but it’s a certainty that they are fighting with it. > [@](#): > > A stronger belief in God, not religion would make people like John Edward unnecessary. I’m afraid the need for each is the same. If more people believed in John Edward, perhaps we’d have fewer wars. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/223 "2003-11-10T07:58:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Urban Ranger \* > \*\*The good people at Jesus Seminar, and I think most of them at the Hebrew University (IIRC the name correctly), and a few others. > I love to leave them alone, except that there are always Christian proselytizers around. Also, I see Christians have their minds hobbled by some outdated dogma. Yes, I pity you, that’s why I am trying to beat some sense into you. > “Open” is not the same as “gullible.” There are loads of crackpot pseudoscientific mumble come out all the time. We just laugh at them. Therefore, just because something cloaks itself with science does not mean that they are accepted without question. \*\* Okay, I only made the religious scholars crack because I was trying to look something up and found too many different answers. On a site where many of the debates are about God, you’d having a tough time with the “other side”, without us. We have our purpose and so do flies. I don’t need you to try and beat any sense into me. Priceguy is hard at work. I don’t think I’m gullible, but I was naive to think I could slip in, ask a few questions and slip away. Just remember dirt can’t say “I told you so”. 😉 IWLN ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/224 "2003-11-10T09:15:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > I prefer Long Island ice tea, if you’re taking orders. Whoah! Better take it easy with those, or you’ll start seeing other things besides God.😃 (Sorry, I don’t know how to make 'em) > [@](#): > > I was disputing the part about it being “the beginning of the universe”. Oh, I see. Yeah, don’t get confused by that. The big bang is the “beginning” of time only in the sense of it being a terminus, NOT in the sense of being an origin. Most cosmologists will tell you the universe doesn’t have a beginning. Since you looked at **Sentient’s** thread, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. > [@](#): > > Where do you think our energy goes, when we die? It dissipates into the atmosphere as the body cools. (The atmosphere actually becomes warmer by an infinitessimal degree!) > [@](#): > > I gotta stop that sarcasm thing while I’m here. Either that, or use Mr. Winky.😉 > [@](#): > > Okay, emotions. I don’t consider the basis of my belief is solely emotions. I still believe my belief is made up of multiple factors. I know you think “feeling the presence of God” is purely an emotional thing, but it’s not. I’d ask you what those other “factors” are, and what “feeling the presence of God” entails, but I’ve had this conversation with enough theists that I can predict what will happen: You will most likely either decline to answer, or the answer you give will be inadequate when viewed by any objective standard. I will then point out the indadequacy, and you will become offended and mistakenly assume I am making fun of you. If I had a nickel for every time this happens: A theist claims to want to understand where atheists are coming from, and why we don’t accept his “personal evidence” of God, but when we explain it, he gets offended. > [@](#): > > I’ve only been called a moron once. Not by me. > [@](#): > > But I knew when I touched briefly on life events, feelings or anything like that I was leaving myself open to it. No you haven’t belittled me, but I can imagine from your side when I broach certain topics, I’m going to hear about it. Again, if you want to know why I lack belief in God, how else can I explain it to you? Slight coincidences don’t prove anything - that’s the only rational way to look at it. I’m sorry if that offends you, but I think I have a right to disagree with you. > [@](#): > > I think you have selection bias bias though. Many believers want to believe in a purely perfect sweetie pie guy (I do want to), but they need to get a grip on reality. There are more energies/forces at work in this world than God. Think what you like, but the fact is that people believe all sorts of unsubstantiated things. Gamblers think some sort of mystical force can affect which card they are dealt depending on which seat they occupy at the table; pedestrians think the traffic light will change faster if they push the button over and over when they actually only need to push it once; superstitious people believe that spilling salt will bring them bad luck. Demonstate that stuff with a repeatable, double-blind study and _then_ maybe I’ll believe it. Sorry, but _I’m_ not the one with the bias. Anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it. > [@](#): > > We’re living a physical life here and I don’t get why anyone thinks it is supposed to be perfect. It is a very short span of time when you compare it to timeless. Haven’t most of us learned how precious the good is because that isn’t all we know (old argument). I still believe we’re here to learn as opposed to being pre-programmed zombies. I have had bad and yep grumbled to God, but finally figured out what I could learn from it. I think a good part of this leg of the journey is on our own and bad is very relative, with this part being more like being in labor, it hurts like hell, is over pretty quickly, you don’t remember how much it hurt and you get something good from it. > > As for under-whelming experiences, I only gave you a few off the top of my head things. My life has been filled with awesome things, but someone who doesn’t believe in God can come up with dozens of other explanations, even I can. Still going to be grateful to the God that allowed it all to happen and glad that I get to be where I am, so we can debate it and not have to hide our beliefs. I thought you weren’t going to witness.:rolleyes: > [@](#): > > From what I understand, God did in a more substantial way let people know he was there up until a couple of thousand years ago. Only rumors and scripture though, don’t know for sure. That didn’t seem to work much better. I know you’re sick of Occam’s Razor, but doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that those are made-up (or at least elaborated) stories, than to suppose that God _used_ to perform miracles, but inexplicably gave it up, coincidentally right at the time when people are starting to question His existence? Besides, you seem to alternately put stock in the Bible and then turn around and say it’s not reliable. Make up your mind. > [@](#): > > Maybe since many aren’t sure of God, you get to avoid the being “willfully disobedient”. And that would be advantageous to God because…? > [@](#): > > I don’t know. I can only use parallels of my life. When my husband came along, if I hadn’t been open to love, I would have missed out on one of the best experiences of this life. You seem to be implying that one can’t be open to love unless one believes in God. I assure you that’s not true. > [@](#): > > I think we’re supposed to be open to God and then he’ll do the hard part of letting you know him. But what does “being open to God” mean? Isn’t that just another way of saying you have to believe in God first? That’s a big part of the reason I don’t buy it - you have to believe in God before God will give you a reason to believe. A little too circular for my taste. > [@](#): > > I have spent very little time on any type of message board, so all of the abreviations and sweet little jabs, like the Strawman, Scotsman, etc.; Yeah, sorry about that - I couldn’t resist. It’s sort of a running joke around here that theists invariably resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. ---
**Author:** ![Dunderman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecb155/32.png) [@Dunderman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dunderman)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/225 "2003-11-10T15:38:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **You continue to lose me every time on this one. I am not being deliberately obtuse. When I look at these types of events, they were racist, wanted political prisoners freed or were just filled with hate. The foundation or basis of my belief is God.** No, it’s not. God is what you believe in; he cannot possibly be the basis of that belief. You stated earlier that the basis of your beliefs is feelings and emotions, plus some “personal proof” that you refuse to divulge and therefore has to be treated as nonexistent by me. And I’d still like to know how you can be so sure that you’re right and they’re wrong. > [@](#): > > **A belief in anything does not entitle one to commit violence, break any laws, etc. If I were a killer and an Atheist, it would not mean being an Atheist is my excuse for killing. That’s lame.** I’ve never said it was an excuse. It’s not. But it is the reason they do it. > [@](#): > > **Do you not want to be free to chose your own morals and thoughts or do you just want to chose for everyone else?** I definitely don’t want some ancient ghostwritten books dictating my morals and thoughts. > [@](#): > > **Are you convinced that thought and actions that aren’t strictly arrived at with pure logic have no value or are destructive?** No, they can have value, and they don’t have to be destructive. If, for example, a Christian nurse goes to Africa to help sick children because she believes God wants her to, that’s just as good as if an Atheist nurse does it just because she wants the children to be better. > [@](#): > > **Help me here. Define your opinion of my “basis for belief” one more time and tell me what the evil people’s “basis for belief” is or how it correlates.** Here’s your own definition of your basis for belief: > [@](#): > > Knowledge has come from receiving personal proof, from faith in parts of the Bible, feelings, he’s with me, he answers my prayers in amazingly specific ways, I feel him, I see evidence of him. I have learned more of him through my child. I have felt him touch my face when I was grieving and felt the magnitude of his love. I am filled with happiness, anticipation, peace and love. Since you still refuse to tell me about the personal proof, I’m forced to ignore it. What’s left is feelings and emotions. That’s the same basis any religious person has, including the people you call evil. It’s an exact correlation. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **Time and time again, you acted as if William himself matters, even after having been explained to that he doesn’t. Several times. As you were told, I would have adhered to the principle under any other name. Instead of attacking the principle and explaining why you don’t think it’s valid (as you apparently don’t), you chose to attack William of Occam. Then you accused _me_ of holding up the source as validation. I’m still waiting for your retraction of that.** > > I did explain why it’s not valid. It does provide a “best guess”, but not always the right answer. It has it’s uses, but not for all situations.\*\* Why not? Can you give me anything but unfounded assertions? > [@](#): > > **I didn’t accuse you of anything. I gave you my opinion. Accused is completely different than a flip comment and then a question. Keep waiting. I think I’ve said this before that I already agreed I shouldn’t have knocked the source as part of my disagreeing on the principal. It was not a personal attack or a lie. You brought it up, not me. You opened that door for debate.** Bull. Shit. Sorry if I offended you. You asked me why I held up the source as some kind of validation. That is a direct accusation towards me of holding up the source as some kind of validation. I trust you’re able to see that. Throughout my posts I made very clear that William of Occam was utterly irrelevant and not even the source of the principle, just of its name. You cannot possibly have missed that, and the only conclusion I can make is that you lied. > [@](#): > > **Pulling in a later part of your post as an example. If some derelict on the street or me:p, the lady with her brain falling out, were to tell you HIV doesn’t cause AIDS; IMHO you probably wouldn’t bother to even investigate. Because the person who gave you the information was not particularly credible. You might not see it as a worthwhile investigation.** This seems like a good point, but you have to agree that it’s miles and miles away from not accepting Occam’s Razor because one guy who liked it was kicked out of the Catholic church. > [@](#): > > **Again, she politely declined. A lie is a false statement with deliberate intention to deceive. So even if you think I made a false statement, if you look at it rationally, you don’t know my intent. We will continue to have a different opinion on this. If I said I lied, it would be a lie.** What did you do then? You uttered a demonstrably false statement that you, provided your brain was working at at least half capacity at the time, knew was false. What is that if not a lie? > [@](#): > > **This is totally an aside, are you referring to the release of Sarin gas or is this a different incident?** I don’t actually know if it was sarin, just that it was some kind of nerve gas. It was the Aum Shinrikyo cult. Not that it matters, they’re just an example. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > **No way for you to know. But if my posts are guided by anger or other irrational emotions, it should be easy for you to poke a hole in their logic, shouldn’t it?** > > Simple. But I’ll do it later.\*\* Looking forward to it. Why not do it now? > [@](#): > > **You would have to back up your statements of not believing in God.** I have. There’s no reason to believe he exists. > [@](#): > > **You can’t prove to me he doesn’t exist, nor can I prove to you he does. No breakthrough. Remember this is about backing up all of our statements with proof, not just likely or unlikely.** You added “with proof”. Besides, you do realise the impossibility of proving a negative, don’t you? You do realise that the burden of proof lies on the person introducing the extraordinary claim, don’t you? You do realise that the baseline assumption has to be that a certain entity (in this case God) does not exist until we have evidence indicating that it does, don’t you? > [@](#): > > **Why do you have to choose since you don’t have enough information. Scenarios where you have to consider which is more likely are not proof. You can still be wrong. Why not just say you don’t know, if you’re unsure. I’m not unsure. If you are, why play mind games.** Of course I don’t _know_. I’ve never claimed to. But you have to explain why you, without a shred of evidence, believe in something incredibly unlikely. Of course it’s possible to be wrong. If someone had come up with relativity prior to the Michelson-Morley experiments, that person would have been dismissed via Occam’s Razor. It just doesn’t happen all that often, and the great thing is that the ninety thousand people coming up with completely crazy and wrong theories were also dismissed via Occam’s Razor. Generally speaking, it works. If it fails once in a blue moon, that’s no reason to throw it out the window. > [@](#): > > **IMHO, You have not backed anything up.** What factual, provable statements have I made? How can I back up a negative? The burden of proof is on you. > [@](#): > > **Bringing in any other name or source doesn’t work either unless they or their ideas are proven fact.** I haven’t brought up a single name or source once. > [@](#): > > **Your dreams are not rational. If you somehow managed to remove all religion from the world, don’t you realize there would still be evil people, pure evil.** Why? What rational reason is there to be evil? If everyone were to understand that the good of the group is the same as the good of the one and were able to view the world rationally, I can’t see why evil would exist. Of course, there’d still be emotions and mental illness and I’m not saying it would be a perfect world. But you don’t see too many secular humanists killing people. > [@](#): > > **Many people have dreamed about making “the perfect world”, or at least a much better place. Usually this was about “peace and love”. Just as unrealistic. Muslims and Jews would still fight over borders, because each would have their own perfectly rational reasons.** Such as? If they were rational, they’d stop dividing themselves into Israelis and Palestinians and just live together. Problem solved. > [@](#): > > **Religion can have very little to do with God. \** These are all baseless opinions. > [@](#): > > **You seem to think that being rational isn’t subjective.** Correct. It isn’t. > [@](#): > > **Our experiences make rational different from person to person. You want people to think like you do. It’s just not going to happen.** Your opinion. I don’t share it. > [@](#): > > **No, you can’t “convert” me or anyone who truly knows God.** Believes in, you mean? > [@](#): > > **People like me (plural me) don’t affect you. I would sing at your wedding if you married him. Politics has interfered with gay marriages more than “religion”.** No. There’s no rational reason to stop gay marriage. Yet it happens. > [@](#): > > **Yes, there are some very vocal anti-gay opinions, but the general “religious” population wouldn’t try to stop it.** Cite? > [@](#): > > **This is IMHO only from all of the people I’ve known over the years. The “typical” sentiment is they don’t want to know what you’re (plural you, not necessarily you) doing, but don’t dispute your right to be together. Not phobes, just can’t identify.** Maybe you meet such people because you are one? That does not, emphatically not, mean that such people are in a majority in any way. > [@](#): > > **Do you believe that your idea of rational will be the same as the next “rational” person.** Yep. > [@](#): > > **By the way, I did see a homeopathic dr. I called her my voodoo dr. because I was such a skeptic. She really helped me with one medication, but in general I’m more comfortable with traditional medicine, even though it hasn’t been much help. Using pluralities, I should still be seeing the homeopathic dr. She was too “New Agy” nice; so I found a place to order the med.** One data point doesn’t prove anything, a controlled study does. I’m sure I can find someone who claimed he cured his obesity by eating goose grease. That doesn’t make goose grease an obesity cure. > [@](#): > > **Using the same standard of proof for buying a car or finding water, deciding whether to turn left or right, many things make sense. I’d like to know if you used pluralities for picking your mate or girlfriend/boyfriend.** In an amorous relationship, emotions are extremely important and in fact a big basis for having a relationship to start with. In this case I do let my emotions guide me (although not entirely, no matter how happy I feel looking into her eyes I won’t have a longterm relationship with her if she’s a Nazi or something). > [@](#): > > **If so, how? Is who you love, always rational? When you care about people, do you only care about the one’s that pass your test? Only asking because of God and love. Don’t answer if you feel it’s invasive.** Don’t worry. > [@](#): > > **Give me a break. You’re telling me you don’t think trying to be nice and respectful is a negative?** I am indeed. > [@](#): > > **The two answers below were in reply to my rational statements about not wanting this debate to be nasty.** That’s not what you said. You got into stuff about respecting your right to believe and the like and telling me how mean and nasty I was, just because I attack something close to your heart. Well, I’m sorry, but you did start this debate about religious beliefs. You have to expect them to be attacked. > [@](#): > > **Everyone should be rational because you want them to be.** No, because it would be much better for everyone. > [@](#): > > \*\*Many rapists don’t make a choice. They are mentally ill. This is not a choice. Their illness makes them evil. \*\* Irrelevant. Please don’t introduce unnecessary elements into the debate. > [@](#): > > **I don’t believe your “typical” religious person fits into the mentally ill category.** Nor do I. > [@](#): > > **Life is not necessarily OK, logical or rational. It is subjective depending on our own personal experiences.** Depends on what you mean by “life”, exactly. > [@](#): > > **What if you’re wrong?** If I’m wrong I’ll go to Hell and show God the finger on the way there for giving me this brain and then punishing me for using it. > [@](#): > > **Unfortunately, I don’t share your hope that the world will be a better place. It is what it is. You can only try to help one person at a time, create tiny ripple effects. That’s about it.** If enough people do it, it’ll be enough. > [@](#): > > **There have always been wars, murders, people who take advantage of each the gullible ones. If everyone tried harder to be decent, moral, good, it would be a better world. That is rational.** Yes. We agree. > [@](#): > > \*\*Taking God out of the equation won’t serve that purpose. \*\* Taking all irrationality, including God, will. I have explained why above. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/226 "2003-11-10T16:14:47Z")
> [@](#): > > God either is or isn’t an unnecessary plurality. I think God is, and you haven’t so far shown me a single shadow of a reason why he shouldn’t be. This isn’t a question of opinion, it’s a logical default. It is incumbant upon _you_ to show why God is necessary. You can’t just assert that you “think” God is necessary. That shows a misunderstanding of necessary pluralities as they pertain to logical discussions. You actually have to demonstrate _why_ the plurality is necessary. Simple assertion is not argument. Thus far, humans have not discovered a reason why it is _necessary_ to hypothesize “God.” You keep insisting as much yet you haven’t offered any reason why. Arguments from assertion don’t work very well in this forum. You are expected to support your assertions with logical argument if not factual cites. Anything less is just witnessing not debate. If you want to witness, that’s fine and this _is_ the forum for it but you should at least identify that as your intention so that others will not mistakenly assume that you are interested in pursuing a systematic debate. ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/227 "2003-11-10T16:28:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > **The “Christians” that are opposing gay marriages or bombing abortion clinics do not believe in God** > … > **A stronger belief in God, not religion would make people like John Edward unnecessary.** > … > **No, you can’t “convert” me or anyone who truly knows God.** You’ve said you can’t prove God to anyone, yet you somehow are sure that you “know” God, and these other self-proclaimed Christians do not know, or believe? Would you say that those Christians are liars for saying they believe in God, or that they are just mistaken? How can beliefs of yours, derived mainly from emotions and feelings, lead you to **knowledge** of others’ emotions and feelings? I hate to repeat what others have asked, but I think this is important: How is it that you **know** your belief in God is 100% correct, you “know” God, while others, who profess the same emotion/feeling-based belief as you, are incorrect in saying they believe? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/228 "2003-11-10T18:28:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > Arguments from assertion don’t work very well in this forum. You are expected to support your assertions with logical argument if not factual cites. Am not! Am not!😉 ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2003, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/229 "2003-11-10T23:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by Bill H._ > I’m afraid the need for each is the same. If more people believed in John Edward, perhaps we’d have fewer wars. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/230 "2003-11-11T06:11:17Z")
BLOWERO > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > **Whoah! Better take it easy with those, or you’ll start seeing other things besides God.😃 (Sorry, I don’t know how to make 'em)** Hey if I only see the good stuff, then why not? **Oh, I see. Yeah, don’t get confused by that. The big bang is the “beginning” of time only in the sense of it being a terminus, NOT in the sense of being an origin. Most cosmologists will tell you the universe doesn’t have a beginning. Since you looked at Sentient’s thread, I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.** I don’t feel confused by that. In my puny opinion, the BB was just the beginning of “our time”, our little continent in the universe. A catalyst for our physical world. The “big universe” that we are in still doesn’t have clocks. Seems like it would only be necessary in places where there are expiration dates. Hey, I can’t prove that either. **It dissipates into the atmosphere as the body cools. (The atmosphere actually becomes warmer by an infinitessimal degree!)** Well I sort of agree, except I think our energy has a definite destination. So you think you contribute to global warming and I think I’m re-uniting with the “big energy”?😛 **Either that, or use Mr. Winky.😉** Okay, I’ll try. But Mr. Winky still gives me nightmares. \*\*I’d ask you what those other “factors” are, and what “feeling the presence of God” entails, but I’ve had this conversation with enough theists that I can predict what will happen: You will most likely either decline to answer, or the answer you give will be inadequate when viewed by any objective standard. I will then point out the indadequacy, and you will become offended and mistakenly assume I am making fun of you. If I had a nickel for every time this happens: A theist claims to want to understand where atheists are coming from, and why we don’t accept his “personal evidence” of God, but when we explain it, he gets offended.\*\* (Cheerful tone:)) I’ve pretty much tried to answer everything, even when I know it sounds stupid or “out there”. I have no pride issues on this. Sure wouldn’t be here if I did. If I weren’t certain of God’s existence, I would possibly feel offended or have a problem with being made fun of. Not saying you are, but come on admit it, I crack you up sometimes. I crack me up too. I said from my first answers to questions posed and many times after, I can’t prove God, not by any objective standard. I recognize that the debate that developed from my original questions has never been about proving God. It has mostly been from you(plural again) on “how can you possibly believe in God”? Totally understandable question. From my perspective, logically I can understand why you don’t believe and from the side of me that “feels God’s presence”, I can’t understand how any one can not believe. So you’re not going to get a nickel from me. I’m not going to go into “other factors”. No point, because it is subjective. As far as what “feeling the presence of God” entails, I could sort of try and explain, because it definitely feels physical **and** emotional, but I think it would be similar to trying to explain what an orgasm feels like to someone who hasn’t had one. Okay, stop right here and realize I was not comparing God to an orgasm, just the difficulty of explaining a physical feeling. Even describing what a broken leg feels like, doesn’t convey itself well. If I went into a verbal description, I’d deserve every bit of hilarious torment you could dish out. I’d love to know how those other poor people described it though. I’ll have to go thread searching again. **Again, if you want to know why I lack belief in God, how else can I explain it to you? Slight coincidences don’t prove anything - that’s the only rational way to look at it. I’m sorry if that offends you, but I think I have a right to disagree with you.** You have **every** right to disagree with me. Not offended. **Think what you like, but the fact is that people believe all sorts of unsubstantiated things. Gamblers think some sort of mystical force can affect which card they are dealt depending on which seat they occupy at the table; pedestrians think the traffic light will change faster if they push the button over and over when they actually only need to push it once; superstitious people believe that spilling salt will bring them bad luck. Demonstate that stuff with a repeatable, double-blind study and _then_ maybe I’ll believe it. Sorry, but _I’m_ not the one with the bias. Anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it.** I did always wonder why they push that button so much. Thought it was just impatience, not a belief they could affect the light.🙂 The only thing I’m saying about bias/bias is, you can’t prove God with good things that happen and you can’t disprove or deny a God because bad things happen. Neither is by itself rational. You can with those bad things form an opinion that either religion (some) really got God’s personality wrong or there isn’t a God. **I thought you weren’t going to witness.:rolleyes:** “Hey, cheap shot”, she cried shrilly. :rolleyes: I was answering a question, may have slid off point slightly. I have never brought my beliefs up without some sort of question or invitation. I’m not a hi-jacker. I’m not, I’m not. **I know you’re sick of Occam’s Razor, but doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that those are made-up (or at least elaborated) stories, than to suppose that God _used_ to perform miracles, but inexplicably gave it up, coincidentally right at the time when people are starting to question His existence? Besides, you seem to alternately put stock in the Bible and then turn around and say it’s not reliable. Make up your mind.** Story has it(I wasn’t there) that people were denying his existence even when some of those miracles were going on and way before that. I said the Bible was not infallable. I’m trusting a little divine intervention to help me, but hey I’m not infallable either. I am picking what makes the most sense to me. That doesn’t close my mind to everything. There is still a lot to learn. God’s not one of them(for me), but I’m pretty flexible on the rest of it. **And that would be advantageous to God because…?** Seems like it would be advantageous to man, not God. Shouldn’t have went there though. I actually really do believe we’ll get more information. **You seem to be implying that one can’t be open to love unless one believes in God. I assure you that’s not true.** No, didn’t mean that, but love isn’t very rational. Love is about self-esteem and life experiences. If I would have used the “razor” when I met my husband, I would have kicked him to the curb because my last few partner’s had each cheated on me and each had vindictive ex-wives. My hubby had a vindictive ex-wife. **But what does “being open to God” mean? Isn’t that just another way of saying you have to believe in God first? That’s a big part of the reason I don’t buy it - you have to believe in God before God will give you a reason to believe. A little too circular for my taste.** I don’t think you have to believe in God first. Example. Your mind is open to different theories and thoughts on the universe. You(plural you) find it fascinating and exciting. You don’t even mind if you find out something you once believed is wrong. It’s just a high/rush to get more information on something so mysterious. You’re open to all of these new discoveries, some that seem far-fetched, as you’re trying to understand them. Not circular at all. Not believing, just open to new information. **Yeah, sorry about that - I couldn’t resist. It’s sort of a running joke around here that theists invariably resort to the “no true Scotsman” fallacy.** That’s alright, although I don’t always agree with the Scotsman thing. On the same site: I was laughing my head off because I found the outline, cheat sheet of how an atheist debates a theist. I hope you’re using your own lines. 😃 Then I found the one about how a theist debates an atheist.:smack: Wasn’t quite as funny the other way around. I never would have imagined there were “how to” articles on this. Or why they would be necessary, either way. It’s not a contest, just an exchange, right? IWLN ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/231 "2003-11-11T08:23:08Z")
BILL H. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bill H. \* **I can’t think of even one Atheist who has killed in the name of Atheism. I can think of a number of Believers who have killed in the name of god. Muhammad, the founder of one of the largest religions immediately springs to mind, but I don’t want this to have a racial slant. The religion isn’t really the killer, it’s the blind faith in any religion that is.** I know the Scotsman fallacy is lurking, but I just don’t think it applies here. Blind faith in a religion or philosophy does not necessarily have to do with God. Many evil people have said God told them to kill or even the devil. They’re nuts, not in contact with God. I can totally agree that people kill in the name of religion, God, pms, pts syndrome, jealousy, love, bad childhood, boredom,etc. This is an excuse to kill. It is a human defect. Hitler claimed to be a Christian and somehow managed to rationalize the killing of Jews. Did that make him a Christian or as some Christians have tried to claim, an atheist(couldn’t believe it when I read that on a website, okay the Scotsman fallacy applies here). But no, neither, it made him an insane man. If I believe horses are my god and go kill the meat packers, how are the horses responsible? Okay now I’m getting ridiculous, I’ll stop. **This may or may not be true. But it avoids the point that many many conflicts in this world involve “god-given” territory. Maybe the Jews and Muslims wouldn’t be fighting without religion, but it’s a certainty that they are fighting with it.** Another excuse to somehow make killing noble, territory. All I’m saying is that if someone identifies themselves as a “believer” , it becomes obvious by their actions of violence that they are not telling the truth. Killed in the name of God is like saying you’re drying with water. Although, normally saying God or the devil made you do it, does get you a committment instead of prison time.:dubious: \*\*I’m afraid the need for each is the same. If more people believed in John Edward, perhaps we’d have fewer wars. \*\* I don’t agree. I watched John today for the first and last time. Ugh. Don’t the people on the show realize his whole dialogue is questions and they’re multiple choice? But I don’t dispute someone’s right to believe this if they want to. And I know some of you(plural) see simularities with other “believers”. Not going to debate that(no point). But if we can “come back through”(why would we want to), I’m going to his show. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/232 "2003-11-11T09:04:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Blind faith in a religion or philosophy does not necessarily have to do with God. Many evil people have said God told them to kill or even the devil. They’re nuts, not in contact with God. But how do you **know** they are not in touch with God? After all, blind faith is necessary to believe in God (since there is no evidence of any God). The God of the Old Testament didn’t hesitate to kill false prophets or entire towns or even children. Is that your God? If you say that behaviour is evil, despite the person concerned hearing God’s voice in his head, then you are surely saying there are moral absolutes independent of God. If so, then why do we need priests to tell us how God wants us to behave? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > I watched John (Edward) today for the first and last time. Ugh. Don’t the people on the show realize his whole dialogue is questions and they’re multiple choice? But I don’t dispute someone’s right to believe this if they want to. And I know some of you(plural) see simularities with other “believers”. Not going to debate that(no point). Why don’t believers realise that their Gods are contradictory? Why don’t believers realise that arguments about God’s will (does He want only male heterosexual priests? can His priests marry? does He allow blood transfusions? did He send AIDS as a punishment? is the Pope His representative?) show that there is no true religion, just a bunch of people arguing with no evidence? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/233 "2003-11-11T09:05:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > I don’t feel confused by that. In my puny opinion, the BB was just the beginning of “our time”, our little continent in the universe. A catalyst for our physical world. The “big universe” that we are in still doesn’t have clocks. Seems like it would only be necessary in places where there are expiration dates. Hey, I can’t prove that either. Then we agree. That’s pretty much what we’ve been saying, although I refrain from making any assertions about any realms outside of our universe, since we don’t currently have any evidence for them. > [@](#): > > Well I sort of agree, except I think our energy has a definite destination. Are you referring to the heat energy stored in our bodies? The only “destination” heat has is to radiate to surrounding matter. > [@](#): > > Not saying you are, but come on admit it, I crack you up sometimes. Why are you trying to goad me into belittling you? Does it make you feel like a martyr? I try to respect _everyone’s_ beliefs. Don’t know if I’m always successful, but I try. I don’t shy away from explaining why I believe differently than you, but I don’t see the point at laughing at other people. > [@](#): > > I’m not going to go into “other factors”. As I expected. I’ve read enough of these types of threads to be able to predict some of the responses. You have to realize though, that your claim that there’s more to your belief than feelings/emotions doesn’t carry a lot of weight if you refuse to divulge what the “more” is. > [@](#): > > No point, because it is subjective. As far as what “feeling the presence of God” entails, I could sort of try and explain, because it definitely feels physical **and** emotional, but I think it would be similar to trying to explain what an orgasm feels like to someone who hasn’t had one. But I wouldn’t consider an orgasm as evidence of any supernatural beings existing, either. > [@](#): > > The only thing I’m saying about bias/bias is, you can’t prove God with good things that happen and you can’t disprove or deny a God because bad things happen. But I’m not TRYING to disprove or deny God. I’m simply saying there’s not enough evidence to convince me that God exists. > [@](#): > > Neither is by itself rational. You can with those bad things form an opinion that either religion (some) really got God’s personality wrong or there isn’t a God. Since you looked up “strawman” earlier, you hopefully understand when I tell you that you have created one. I do not believe that bad things _prove_ the non-existence of God. Again, I simply don’t see enough evidence to justify believing. You are imagining a level playing field where IWLN says “Good things prove God”, and Blowero says “Bad things prove not-God”. This is a blatant mischaracterization. I know you don’t like to lose an argument, but you’re just playing a silly child’s game, kind of like this: Me: “You are engaging in confirmation bias.” You: “Nuh, uh - YOU are.” > [@](#): > > **I know you’re sick of Occam’s Razor, but doesn’t it make more sense to suppose that those are made-up (or at least elaborated) stories, than to suppose that God _used_ to perform miracles, but inexplicably gave it up, coincidentally right at the time when people are starting to question His existence? Besides, you seem to alternately put stock in the Bible and then turn around and say it’s not reliable. Make up your mind.** > > Story has it(I wasn’t there) that people were denying his existence even when some of those miracles were going on and way before that. Not really. There weren’t a lot of atheists 2000 years ago. Most people believed in gods; but they didn’t necessarily believe in the _same_ god. And you haven’t answered the question - Isn’t it more likely that those are made-up or elaborated stories? Do you believe all the things Zeus and Apollo did in _those_ stories? Why not? > [@](#): > > Seems like it would be advantageous to man, not God. Exactly; if God wants us to know Him, why would He set up a system specifically designed to allow us _not_ to know Him? > [@](#): > > **You seem to be implying that one can’t be open to love unless one believes in God. I assure you that’s not true.** > No, didn’t mean that, but love isn’t very rational. Love is about self-esteem and life experiences. Have I mentioned that you have a habit of saying you didn’t mean to imply something, yet continuing to imply that very thing? This should be on the Top 10 list of theist misconceptions. Thinking logically and rationally does not mean being devoid of emotions. This isn’t a Star Trek episode. Love is an emotion - it is neither rational nor irrational. Same goes for wonder, happiness, joy, empathy, etc. You do not have to believe in God to be able to love. They are 2 completely different things. > [@](#): > > If I would have used the “razor” when I met my husband, I would have kicked him to the curb because my last few partner’s had each cheated on me and each had vindictive ex-wives. My hubby had a vindictive ex-wife. Wow, are you ever not getting Occam’s Razor. It says “don’t unneccessarily multiply entities”. It does NOT tell us how to enter into relationships. Geez, I sure hope this is just your weird sense of humor again, and that you aren’t _really_ misunderstanding it this severely. > [@](#): > > **But what does “being open to God” mean? Isn’t that just another way of saying you have to believe in God first? That’s a big part of the reason I don’t buy it - you have to believe in God before God will give you a reason to believe. A little too circular for my taste.** > I don’t think you have to believe in God first. Example. Your mind is open to different theories and thoughts on the universe. As has already been said - not so open that your brain falls out. > [@](#): > > You(plural you) find it fascinating and exciting. You don’t even mind if you find out something you once believed is wrong. But you seem to think I am closed-minded. I assure you that is not the case. If we find incontrovertible evidence of God tomorrow, I’ll be the first to celebrate. I used to think that time was immutable, but when I found out about the overwhelming evidence that it is not, I was fascinated and excited, just like you said. But sorry, the evidence for God just isn’t there. > [@](#): > > That’s alright, although I don’t always agree with the Scotsman thing. It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It is a logical fallacy. If you say that God-believers don’t kill, and I give examples of God-believers who killed, and you say “Well, they’re not _true_ God-believers”, you are committing an error in reasoning. It’s simply not open to interpretation. > [@](#): > > On the same site: I was laughing my head off because I found the outline, cheat sheet of how an atheist debates a theist. I hope you’re using your own lines. 😃 Then I found the one about how a theist debates an atheist.:smack: Wasn’t quite as funny the other way around.\*\* Are you kidding? Christians have entire _books_ about it. They must have think tanks that sit around all day just thinking up disingenous arguments against evolution and cosmology. And the real irony is, even if they _were_ somehow successful in disproving any scientific theories, it STILL wouldn’t prove God. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/234 "2003-11-11T09:07:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Algorithm \* > \*\*You’ve said you can’t prove God to anyone, yet you somehow are sure that you “know” God, and these other self-proclaimed Christians do not know, or believe? Would you say that those Christians are liars for saying they believe in God, or that they are just mistaken? How can beliefs of yours, derived mainly from emotions and feelings, lead you to **knowledge** of others’ emotions and feelings? > > I hate to repeat what others have asked, but I think this is important: How is it that you **know** your belief in God is 100% correct, you “know” God, while others, who profess the same emotion/feeling-based belief as you, are incorrect in saying they believe? \*\* Because they are not living some of the most important and basic principles of this belief. I could be a self-proclaimed Atheist, but if I went around telling people about my belief in an eternal God and the Bible, it invalidates my claim. You would quickly claim that I wasn’t part of your belief system. I could “say” I believe the ten commandments, which your “typical” Christian would agree on. If I went around murdering, stealing, lying, etc., it would invalidate that claim. I would never call anyone a liar, because I don’t know if it’s a deliberate deceit, if they’re self-serving and have fooled themselves or what their reasoning is. But you must to a great extent represent what you believe, in order to be believable. If you claim to believe in God and then take on the job of deciding who to exclude as unworthy, there’s a conflict. I can’t even judge the ones who do this. I definitely have the opinion that this attitude of judgment has done more harm than any non-believer, saying there is no God, ever could. You are practicing what you “preach”. I have more respect for that. Okay, off the soapbox, I’m sorry. I’m not even near perfect, but I try not to let that ever harm other people. That’s not really about God, that’s just about values. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/235 "2003-11-11T09:26:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Because they are not living some of the most important and basic principles of this belief. But I’m sure they _believe_ they are, as do you. And without any objective way of judging, how do you know _you_ are correct and not them? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/236 "2003-11-11T10:59:18Z")
GLEE > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > \*\*But how do you **know** they are not in touch with God? > After all, blind faith is necessary to believe in God (since there is no evidence of any God). > The God of the Old Testament didn’t hesitate to kill false prophets or entire towns or even children. Is that your God? > > If you say that behaviour is evil, despite the person concerned hearing God’s voice in his head, then you are surely saying there are moral absolutes independent of God. > If so, then why do we need priests to tell us how God wants us to behave? > > Why don’t believers realise that their Gods are contradictory? > Why don’t believers realise that arguments about God’s will (does He want only male heterosexual priests? can His priests marry? does He allow blood transfusions? did He send AIDS as a punishment? is the Pope His representative?) show that there is no true religion, just a bunch of people arguing with no evidence? \*\* See answers to Algorithm. God has always been used as an excuse for self-serving behavior, even in the Old Testament. Of course there are moral absolutes. Belief in God didn’t give us morals. This came from human interaction and modification of our values. Moral absolutes would be more cultural than anything. I attend the Catholic church, but don’t need a man(or woman) to tell me how to behave. I went to confession once(morbid curiousity). Told the priest I had already discussed everything with God and I was good to go. He was chuckling when I left. I hope the pope has his heart in the right place, but he only works for God(I hope). God isn’t contradictory. Man is. God doesn’t exclude who can serve him. There is no rational reason to believe God only wanted hetero, celibate priests. Aids is not different than any other disease. It’s a part of our human evolution and existence. Knowledge of science and medicine evolved too. Why wouldn’t necessary blood transfusions be okay. There is no “true” religion. All have faults because all men do. The religions were created by man to fit their belief system. Doesn’t mean God isn’t true. Just means religion is fallible. I think a lot of the current “rules” for being a good believer are based on customs and taboos from thousands of years ago. God may have wanted blind faith in him, but not in religion. IWLN ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/237 "2003-11-11T11:01:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*But I’m sure they _believe_ they are, as do you. And without any objective way of judging, how do you know _you_ are correct and not them? \*\* Because when they say they are a Christian, there are facts that go with it. Just like when you say you are an Atheist. If all of your actions contradict these beliefs, you may still somehow have the belief that you are, but it doesn’t make it true. If I said I was a lesbian, but only desired men and were repelled by women, I would be acting in direct conflict to the “title”. Saying things doesn’t make it so. Living them at least makes it more likely. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/238 "2003-11-11T11:19:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > See answers to Algorithm. God has always been used as an excuse for self-serving behavior, even in the Old Testament. So how do we tell those who understand the word of God from those who don’t? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Of course there are moral absolutes. Belief in God didn’t give us morals. This came from human interaction and modification of our values. Moral absolutes would be more cultural than anything. Are there world-wide moral absolutes, or loads of systems depending on culture? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > I attend the Catholic church, but don’t need a man(or woman) to tell me how to behave. Do you not obey the Pope? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > There is no rational reason to believe God only wanted hetero, celibate priests. Then why does a large part of the Christian Church say He does? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Aids is not different than any other disease. It’s a part of our human evolution and existence. Then why do some Christians say it is a punishment from God? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > Why wouldn’t necessary blood transfusions be okay. Then why do some Christians say it is forbidden? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > There is no “true” religion. All have faults because all men do. The religions were created by man to fit their belief system. Doesn’t mean God isn’t true. Just means religion is fallible. I think a lot of the current “rules” for being a good believer are based on customs and taboos from thousands of years ago. God may have wanted blind faith in him, but not in religion. IWLN So all religions are faulty? Add to this that there is no evidence for any God, and I wonder how you can be so sure God exists, let alone what He wants. If there is a God, why is He so bad at communicating with us? ---
**Author:** ![Algorithm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/algorithm/32/12204_2.png) [@Algorithm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algorithm)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/239 "2003-11-11T11:33:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IWLN \* > I could be a self-proclaimed Atheist, but if I went around telling people about my belief in an eternal God and the Bible, it invalidates my claim. You would quickly claim that I wasn’t part of your belief system. This is not an analogous situation at all. Saying, “I am an atheist” means “I deny the existance of a God or gods.” Yes, saying you are an atheist who believes in God is contradictory. You are correct there. However, you can’t claim someone who says “I believe in God” is not really a believer, simply because they don’t conform to **your** moral standard. > [@](#): > > I could “say” I believe the ten commandments, which your “typical” Christian would agree on. If I went around murdering, stealing, lying, etc., it would invalidate that claim. Are you saying that the second a God-believer lies they no longer believe in God? Do you have to believe in the ten commandments to be a God-believer? Do you have to believe that anyone who disobeys any of the commandments is a non-believer? > [@](#): > > Because when they say they are a Christian, there are facts that go with it. Just like when you say you are an Atheist. If someone says “I believe in God” the only thing they are saying is that they believe in God. They aren’t saying they won’t bomb buildings or kill babies. You are the one saying that these types of actions are contradictory to belief in God. Please explain **how** you **know** that those actions imply they are non-believers. Please explain **why** you think that those types of actions are contradictory to belief in God. > [@](#): > > Of course there are moral absolutes. Belief in God didn’t give us morals. This came from human interaction and modification of our values. Moral absolutes would be more cultural than anything. But following these cultural moral absolutes is a prerequisite for belief in God? ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2003, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159/240 "2003-11-11T12:00:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic \* > \*\*This isn’t a question of opinion, it’s a logical default. It is incumbant upon _you_ to show why God is necessary. You can’t just assert that you “think” God is necessary. That shows a misunderstanding of necessary pluralities as they pertain to logical discussions. You actually have to demonstrate _why_ the plurality is necessary. Simple assertion is not argument. > > Thus far, humans have not discovered a reason why it is _necessary_ to hypothesize “God.” You keep insisting as much yet you haven’t offered any reason why. Arguments from assertion don’t work very well in this forum. You are expected to support your assertions with logical argument if not factual cites. Anything less is just witnessing not debate. If you want to witness, that’s fine and this _is_ the forum for it but you should at least identify that as your intention so that others will not mistakenly assume that you are interested in pursuing a systematic debate. \*\* I believe I have explained before that I don’t agree that choosing the most likely, but not necessarily correct answer is appropriate. It is a logical tool, I am not denying that. But even without feeling personally certain about God, would probably not apply is to something this important. I would say I don’t know and be willing to wait or look further for the correct answer. Therefore I am debating the use of this tool. This tool is not 100%. That is why I am not willing to consider it’s use. I would not use it to decide if I might have breast cancer either. I feel fine, I’m not in a high risk group, it is unlikely that I have cancer. I would still have a mammogram. I don’t have to prove the necessity of the plurality if I don’t agree the tool is a valid indicator in these instances. These life or death situations should not be left to the most likely assumption. It is similar to a murder trial. If all but one of the jurors thinks the defendant is guilty, that is not good enough. If the other jurors can’t convince the one, they start the whole process over again. Again, I have never held the belief that I could prove or convince you(plural) that there is a God. If someone asks me a question or makes a statement that I consider is incorrect, I’m going to respond. Sometimes an opinion is all we have. Sometimes all I receive back is an opinion. Am I being witnessed to then? IWLN [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dear-atheists-questions-from-a-believer/210159.md?page=13)