Believers VS Non-belivers

[edwardcullensotherwoman]

Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?

It's almost as if those who don't believe (in whatever the subject: angels, God, reincarnation) consider themselves superior to those who do, and view those who do as stupid for doing so.

Surely everyone's beliefs are their own belief and opinion - nothing "woo" can be either proven or disproven, so therefore nobody is right or wrong.

It just seems that every thread that starts "Do you believe" on this board ends up in a bun fight with believes defending themselves against non-believers who tell them they're being ridiculous. The clue is in the title of the board - if you don't believe in anything that's likely to be discussed under that heading, just avoid the board!

holmes

I think the fundamental issue might be that believers think their faith is as valid as non believers lack of faith.

I will come out and say I don't believe they are equal. In my opinion science and evidence based thinking are superior.

I am really not bothered but I would never like to be dismissed, my experiences to be seen as non representative or my beliefs to be ridiculed. No one likes to be ridiculed..

But I do actually like to be questioned, respectfully, I like to engage with people. Even if we have to agree to disagree...for a time at least....

"Why is it that if someone believes in something, they will talk about it as exactly that - something they believe in - and not portray it as absolute fact; yet if someone doesn't believe in something, they will say this as an absolute fact and ridicule those who believe?"

This is really funny

I don't know if the earth was created by a superior being about 4000 years ago and peppered with human beings who will be judged and possibly tortured forever upon their deaths. I just don't buy the hypothesis - i.e. I don't believe in the fairy tale because it is totally unbelievable and has not a shred of evidence to back it up.

However, believers all know that there is a God, who will judge them upon death etc. They have no doubt whatsoever.

Yes I know what you mean, capsium. But somehow that expectation for beliefs to be respected and for them to be held as being equal to non-belief seems shaky when one tries to extend that to ANY potential belief. And yet if you can't do this for absolutely ANY belief (however unusual/minority/outlandish) then where does one draw the line?

I would like to think that I would never outwardly ridicule anyone for their beliefs, but I have certainly come close to expressing total astonishment at some (e.g. a religious former colleague who recently told me she had not allowed her children to read Harry Potter because it contained some real spells which could be dangerous...)

"I have got to (just) say that I think my (Christian) faith is superior, as it is God given"

Riddle me this: What is the difference between fiction or a delusion and a circular belief with zero evidence that your belief in God is given to you by God?

I have plenty of doubts, Cote - in fact I'd be deeply suspicious of a Christian who said that they 'knew without doubt' because that smacks of brainwashed lack of thought. Doubt is good and the other side of the coin to faith.

I'd come close to expressing astonishment at that as well, holmes - and I do despair at some of the attitudes and antics of some of my fellow Christians - but perhaps we can say it is fine to express astonishment in a respectful manner, but downright ridicule is not on? If someone did say to me that they sincerely believed in the tooth fairy, I wouldn't ridicule them, I'd assume they had some kind of mental health difficulty as I assume many of you think I do and be kind, and depending on the situation gently challenge or steer the conversation elsewhere. All utterly hypothetical, of course, since no one has ever said anything such. I do know people who swear by homeopathy and ayurvedic medicine, and actually have little respect for their beliefs but still respect their person, their humanity. That's what it comes down to, surely?

I have debates with many of you on here time after time, and generally enjoy them, and generally find that I am shown courtesy as I hope I show others courtesy. But bile is hard to take, as capsium says - there's a difference between gentle ribbing (cheeky quotings of certain passages from 2 Kings) and outright attack on a person - and a difference between challenge and ridicule.

Riddle me this: What is the difference between fiction or a delusion and a circular belief with zero evidence that your belief in God is given to you by God?

Oh yes, that is the terrifying thing, that cross over, in certain people's minds. I have to be very aware of my own beliefs, which are beliefs, counter cultural to a degree. Otherwise some nice person would question my integrity at an absolute level.

So I try to keep up with what is current, knowledge, scientific research wise. Not my intention to offend people. Offending is not a great opener to establishing dialogue. Even though Scientific knowledge is by no means complete / absolute.

Meaningfully Science is not my top priority though, I don't live my life by it. I am thankful for this because it is terribly restrictive.

"I'd be deeply suspicious of a Christian who said that they 'knew without doubt' because that smacks of brainwashed lack of thought."

So, do you think God exists or do you doubt the existence of God?

The latter would make you an agnostic, not a believer.

capsium - You quoted my question as if you would answer it, but you didn't.

Here it is again:

What is the difference between fiction or a delusion and a circular belief with zero evidence that your belief in God is given to you by God?

"To Christians, to have faith in something there is no evidence for is a virtue. To me, it isn't. So we are probably never going to understand each other."

I understand them, but they don't like my understanding

I could have written the rest of your post word for word.

Corus 'Faith first evidence after' is what I find most liberating.

As an analogy, developmentally, a baby has to have the faith they will be able to walk before they get up and do it. Otherwise they would never attempt it... So a person believes in the possibility before they act appropriately in terms of the belief.

I actually think, quite controversially, that this is the way everyone is. Atheists and Christians alike. You cannot act without belief...

But this again is a matter of belief. It would take a lot to shake this.

Science is not terribly restrictive - I am awed by the wonders of the universe, the unfolding of evolution, the nano world which operates in a totally different way to the atomic, the beauty of nature.

To misquote Richard Dawkins, "isn't it enough to know the garden is beautiful without believing there are fairies in it"

Cote

I believe the human truth in the fiction we create. It says something very deep about who and what we are essentially, as human beings, and the God who created us.

I think God exists, yes.

Sometimes I doubt.

Does that make me agnostic? I think agnostic describes more accurately a consistent position of unsurety. My main position is belief in God, and that belief is wholehearted and passionate, but that position also causes me to have doubts - because I prefer to be a thinking Christian and analyse my own faith and experiences - and therefore I come across certain aspects which cause me to doubt.

I don't worry too much about that. The Psalmists doubted a lot. Thomas doubted. I think if I didn't doubt I would be holding on to a very vanilla version of Christianity, one not allowed to waver, not allowed to be challenged and not allowed to be thoughts about very deeply.

My episodes of doubt are far outweighed by my experience of assurance of God's presence in my life.

Hermione It is the mystery that fascinates me...

capsium - Again, you didn't answer.

Here is my question, for the 3rd time:

What is the difference between fiction or a delusion and a circular belief with zero evidence that your belief in God is given to you by God?

"I think God exists, yes. Sometimes I doubt."

Can't you make up your mind?

It's not new evidence keeps cropping up every couple of days, one way or another.

"I believe the human truth in the fiction we create"

Does this mean you are aware that the God hypothesis is fiction (created by people) and that there is likely no such thing as the Abrahamic God?

"I actually think, quite controversially, that this is the way everyone is. Atheists and Christians alike. You cannot act without belief..."

You belief, once again, is fiction.

I have no belief that has no evidence behind it. I know many others like me.

It may be wishful thinking on your part that you think everyone else is like you, believing in all sorts of stuff with no proof.

Cote there is no absolute answer to your question. What is viewed as 'delusional' is cultural, it is not an absolute, in terms of a qualitative or quantitive descriptor of any particular perception somebody holds.

Of course you should be able to answer a question that starts with "What is the difference between...". If there is an answer, that is.

If there is a difference, rather.

Cote

Does this mean you are aware that the God hypothesis is fiction (created by people) and that there is likely no such thing as the Abrahamic God?

In my belief system people were created by God and fiction by people. Within this belief system human creation (fiction /art) reflects, in part, God's creation, in us. The part that is other, not reflective of God and life, is our own fallibility.

Of course you should be able to answer a question that starts with "What is the difference between...". If there is an answer, that is.

There is an answer, but discerning it, well that is the thing...Can you? Absolutely without any doubt?