Pendleside Festive Dingbats C/D 6Th Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Belief Is Not A Choice
159 Answers
Our beliefs (or non-beliefs even) are based upon our present understanding of available evidence at any given moment in time.
I don't believe in fairies because I am not presented with any evidence (at this moment in time) that would satisfy me that fairies exist. That could change if evidence became apparent, or even a possibility!
Likewise for Unicorns, Thor, the Bermuda Triangle or Dracula.
So the question is, how can I believe in something that I evidently *CAN'T* believe in?
I dont dismiss the Bible/God/Christianity etc because I WANT to. I dismiss it all because I CAN'T.
What is so hard to understand?
What would make an atheist a believer?
I dont know. But an Almighty, Supreme being would know. And he hasn't showed up yet to convince me....
I don't believe in fairies because I am not presented with any evidence (at this moment in time) that would satisfy me that fairies exist. That could change if evidence became apparent, or even a possibility!
Likewise for Unicorns, Thor, the Bermuda Triangle or Dracula.
So the question is, how can I believe in something that I evidently *CAN'T* believe in?
I dont dismiss the Bible/God/Christianity etc because I WANT to. I dismiss it all because I CAN'T.
What is so hard to understand?
What would make an atheist a believer?
I dont know. But an Almighty, Supreme being would know. And he hasn't showed up yet to convince me....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A question I would always like to be answered by an atheist/non believer. If when a person dies and an atheist answers RIP in response.
Why would they say or write that sentiment? Surely if they have no belief or faith then they surely should assume that a body is just a frame of bones and skin. No soul to rise or descend to the next life.
Is this not pure hypocrisy. Why would a dead form not rest in peace. What is going to trouble a corpse? Any suggestions from any atheists.?
Why would they say or write that sentiment? Surely if they have no belief or faith then they surely should assume that a body is just a frame of bones and skin. No soul to rise or descend to the next life.
Is this not pure hypocrisy. Why would a dead form not rest in peace. What is going to trouble a corpse? Any suggestions from any atheists.?
Retrocop, the absence of belief in supernatural gods doesn’t not preclude a suspicion of the existence of a ‘soul’. Why should the concept of a soul - the very essence of a human being - an accumulation of the multitude of emotions individually experienced throughout life - necessarily require the existence of a supernatural god? Nature isn’t supernatural so perhaps a soul is just an unseen, unknown, element of nature. Just a thought.
https:/
These philosophers can read.
These philosophers can read.
I'm never sure of the point in having a debate over a text I don't believe has any relevance, but still: A quick glance at commentaries on Isaiah 45:7 reveal that TheLand has a point, eg:
// ... and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. // (Matthew Henry)
// Moral evil proceeds from the will of man, physical evil from the will of God, who sends it as the punishment of sin. // (Cambridge Bible for Schools)
etc., all of which make the distinction that TheLand is making. It's also a well-known aspect of theology and philosophy that a distinction can be drawn, at least somewhat, between moral and natural "evils"; in that sense, I don't see that Isaiah 45:7 should be overly troubling in the context of the Old Testament God. The verse doesn't differentiate because its audience will have understood its meaning; "There is no thought in the O.T. of reducing all evil, moral and physical, to a single principle," as one of the references above has it.
All of this is moot, but it does TheLand, and philosophy in general, far too little credit to suggest that they hadn't noticed that verse and given it some thought.
// ... and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment. // (Matthew Henry)
// Moral evil proceeds from the will of man, physical evil from the will of God, who sends it as the punishment of sin. // (Cambridge Bible for Schools)
etc., all of which make the distinction that TheLand is making. It's also a well-known aspect of theology and philosophy that a distinction can be drawn, at least somewhat, between moral and natural "evils"; in that sense, I don't see that Isaiah 45:7 should be overly troubling in the context of the Old Testament God. The verse doesn't differentiate because its audience will have understood its meaning; "There is no thought in the O.T. of reducing all evil, moral and physical, to a single principle," as one of the references above has it.
All of this is moot, but it does TheLand, and philosophy in general, far too little credit to suggest that they hadn't noticed that verse and given it some thought.
Theland, //My beliefs are purely biblical// you say … until the bible says something you don’t like, and then, despite your contention that you don’t accede to other people’s versions of religion, you fall back on an assortment of proselytizers in order to attempt to endorse your denial. There is no ambiguity in Isaiah 45.7 - none whatsoever. God said he created evil.
