I believe people do not dismiss the belief in God, as it is an important question of faith.

Science cannot dismiss God, as no one can prove God doesn't exist as much as they can prove He does exist. There are too many theories within science which eventually points to the reasoning of all human's faith - to either explore in finding some further "scientific" explanation of the universe's existence, or to "God."

And if the existence of God was so easy to disprove, why has God been around so long? Humans have been very quick to dicount God time and time again, yet why is the belief in Him still so strong?

One can prove - even for pre-calculation standards! one plus one doesn't equal two. Does this mean our society should denounce simple math, and stop teaching what is shown as wrong? Where does the dismissal idea end? Solopsism? Then wouldn't I be the God of my own universe?

What if you were right and God didn't exist? How does one explain the randomness within evolution? Or why can't Science prove how the universe started - and what was before it? There are plenty of other theories still left unexplained - even by many well regarded quantum physicists. Too many, in fact, to prematurely say "God doesn't exist."

In my humble thinking, let me refer now to light. Can one prove light exists? Light cannot be seen unless it is reflected on something else. If the (Christian) God existed, don't you think He would show Himself in the same way light does? Like miracles, or service through people?

We teach children about imagination and creativity - there isn't any evidence or unexplained effect to it. Or an explanation for art. Or why humans feel emotions. Or why we struggle with relationships. Or faith - it is merely there in each human being.

I think your question is valid. It is only taboo because of our society's dichomoty of truth. I am glad you asked! Hopefully it will make people think. About our beliefs. About where we stand.

I believe people do not dismiss their beliefs, as it is an important question of faith.
 

My question in the original post isn't about requiring evidence for the existence of God. It's much simpler than that.

I'm asking why is it considered "impolite", at best, to ask someone for evidence for their belief - but only if said belief is about God?

Your long statement... That's all a very fancy way to justify your belief in something that has no evidence of existing. I'm not going to get sidetracked into discussing your comments here. Though that is in itself an interesting discussion we may defer to another time.

"Faith" is, in fact, the term used to describe "believing in something without requiring evidence".

I don't dispute that people do that. People do it all the time.

What I'm asking is: why is it OK (socially normal, unquestioned by others) for someone to say "I have faith that God exists", when it is not OK for someone to say, "I have faith that the Tooth Fairy, a magical being that collects unused teeth from children and often gives payment for said teeth, exists."

What is the difference between the two statements? And don't for a second try to justify belief in the Tooth Fairy; we live in the real world, and someone who seriously claimed what I said above, or something similar, would be laughed at, at best, or locked up, at worst.
 

Who says it's not okay to ask? You're not being locked up for it.
 

erraberra:

You're saying you dispute my central assertion?

So there is no social awkwardness around the topic of faith, for folks who share the concept of faith but not the specifics?

But, again, that's not my question.

The vast bulk of people simply accept that a belief in God (of some kind) is commonplace. They require nothing more of others than a simple declaration. It requires no more explanation than a statement like "water is wet" or "horses have four legs" - Everyone "just knows" it's true.

But if you try to apply that same standard to Santa Claus, or fire-breathing dragons... those are not commonplace beliefs among adults.

I'm just asking: what's the difference between the two? Why is it "normal" for belief in God, but not "normal" for belief in the Tooth Fairy?
 

By trying to answer your question in my original reply, it appears I got a little sidetracked, eh?

It is normal to not believe in some fictional character (ex. the tooth fairy) as almost all humans have admitted they are not real, and further, they played the role of that fictional character.

It is normal to believe in a spiritual being such as a God, for there is still no explanation for those answers humans continue to ask about their existence. In that way, it solidifies the presence of such a being, as science has not coldly and calculatingly answered any of them with certainty. And further, almost all humans believe it to be true, in some way.

Funny thing is, truth is not a dichotomy between belief and science. It is seamless.
 

Your answer, then, is that the Easter Bunny is "fictional" and that most people agree with that term.

OK, then - disprove that the Easter Bunny exists.

Or the Tooth Fairy. Or fire-breathing dragons.

I'll wait here while you come up with some disproof.
 

"I'm not really the Easter Bunny, but I play one on TV..."

As you are surely aware, faith is belief not based on logical proof or material evidence.

Generally speaking, most people do not have faith in the existence of fictional characters (like a fire-breathing dragon). However many people have faith in a God, or some type of spirituality.

Because your question specifically focuses on belief, I am unable to provide scientific proof of non-existence.

I think it is very normal to question any belief - a higher entity or a fictional being. The title of this very post is needed, and is often practiced.

Yet life is magical in that way - people have this internal system of faith. A soul.

I think not everything in this universe can be reasoned or measured.
 

Kevin: You say:

"As you are surely aware, faith is belief not based on logical proof or material evidence."

I'm more than aware of it - I have stated that several times, including in this comment thread, where I said: ""Faith" is, in fact, the term used to describe "believing in something without requiring evidence"."

That definition, in fact, is one of the underlying points of my question, so thanks for affirming it.

And thanks again, for being a good sport about all this! So I'll simply have to accept your statement as a concession that I've made my larger point, as well...