Genuine question to religious people - is it not unfair for God to expect me to believe in him?

As a Catholic...

Based on my assessment of what you've listed, I believe there are several places where you've misconstrued things or made some generalizations. What you may find is that you've not truly rejected the belief or idea of God but what a popular oversimplification of him or what you've been taught by average Christians.

How much are you willing to reconsider your presumptions? If you are like "I've researched it, looked into it, read the literature, and I know as much about it as any Christian." Then you are right.. it will continue to not make much sense to you and continue to seem unfair.

_____________________

"Sola Fide" - Belief Alone- You seem to be having trouble with the Protestant idea of "by faith alone" But what if 'belief' doesn't just mean some definitive decision that you never question or a mere intellectual decision (ascent of the mind) or even a 'blind faith' but a trust in a particular conclusion that you continue to evaluate and be open to evaluation and further insight?

Faith - not all faith is 'blind faith' - faith can be based on reasons and evidence. Faith, properly understood is more about a personal trust in one's own conclusions. For instance, I have "faith" that 9 out of 10 times, cars stop at stop signs. I have 'faith' that my wife is not cheating on me. And I likewise have "faith" that their is a higher power then myself. All these things are based upon basic trust that I have come to the correct conclusion based upon the evidence.

It does not mean I am without doubt. It does not even mean that I am closed to further investigation.

My faith is not therefore stagnant.

Faith also means more then a conclusion about a certain topic but also how to I act, based upon my convictions. So we typically say that a "true faith" results in a person acting upon those beliefs.

Evidence - Are you willing to reconsider the basis of what you consider evidence? Many non-theists hold to a particularly narrow definition of evidence. They discount common sense, insight, intuition, moral reasoning, and logic. Many people try to restrict what we 'can know' to only material knowledge (empirical) But there are a lot of ways of knowing things.

Do you claim that there is no evidence only because you take a materialist view of the world? I bet if you are honest with yourself, you employ other ways of 'knowing' things then conducting experiments and weighing the empirical evidence.

In FACT -- the very basis of material knowledge actually hinges on a philosophical idea. - That we are rational beings and that the Universe is logically ordered. Science can not prove that science is true.. it presumes rationality.

The evidence for God's existence is supported but not exclusively found in Science. The evidence FOR God's existence is philosophical in nature.

_________________

Multiple Religions - We have to be careful not to combine what is really two steps into 1.

FIRST we must decide IF there is a God. IF the concept of a supreme being makes logical sense BEFORE we can then explore the world religion.

Looking at the number of religions and using that as a basis of doubt BEFORE we have even decided if we believe in the concept of God isn't a genuine argument. Because if we are convinced that there is no gods period, then the number of religions is pointless. If we believe there is a God, then the number of religions points TOWARDS this conclusion. In other words, it could easily be argued that man's inclination towards religion is actually powerful evidence that the concept is correct.

There is also a lot of overlap..so really this is again evidence that certain concepts seem to be true.

Lastly, you incorrectly believe that all or even most religions teach that if you choose wrong, you are doomed. Most religions DO NOT in fact teach this.

Hinduism embraces MANY representations of God.. so to them, other gods or religions are merely subsets of their beliefs.

Eastern religions are NOT theistic, they are philosophical, so they don't teach that you are doomed if you put your faith in the wrong place.

Christianity - actually teaches that we are judged based on how well we followed Christ, even if we mistakenly called him by another name. In the end God judges us individually based upon our personal knowledge of him. The Apostle Paul says that even the Gentiles (non-believers) will be judged on how well they kept God's commandments. Only those who knowingly and willingly reject God and who he "truly is" are given what they desire (separation from God)

Judaism - teaches that we have to acknowledge God's existence and follow his laws.

____________________

No more evidence - Actually, if you analyze the philosophical arguments for and against - there are differences, so they are not ALL the same when it comes to evidence.

____________________

<<and wouldn't it be unfair for him to punish me, given that he hasn't given me any reason throughout my life to believe in him more than any other God?>>

Well you best not ask any questions then or think about God - because couldn't it be said that the very answers you are given are REASONS to believe.

"reasons" can come in many forms. Are you sure you've heard every argument, heard every argument expressed in every possible way, debated every theologian, every philosopher?

Your life is not over yet... are you still seeking, still looking, or closed off to the idea?

In the end, do you truly reject GOD or your own concept of him? Could you come to find out in the end that you rejected a self made image of him...but never truly knew him?

It kinda reminds me of a friend who complains of their spouse. Only hearing 1 side and filling my ears with only the bad.. I get a particular sense of that person's spouse. But is it a fair representation?

Do I truly dislike the human being or my preconceived notion on them?

I think many of us have preconceived notions of God, but very few truly know him. In the end...which do we end up rejecting?

And would a just and supreme being be able to weigh the difference, sort out the mitigating issues, and judge fairly vs. on a technicality?

Scripture says he unrighteous will be judged for their unrighteous actions. Any 'punishment' you do or do not receive is based on your own unrighteous actions. How is that unfair?

I notice you stipulate a requirement for empirical evidence.. OK, do you believe other things that lack empirical evidence? (IF you know what constitutes empirical evidence and are honest you will say yes). If so then how do you justify a higher standard of evidence for God than other things you believe? (That is applying unequal weights and measures which is identified as an abomination).

Suddenly it seems things are not a clear as you present them as being are they?

Update : @No chance without Jesus: Do I have a choice? I can't force myself to believe something that in my opinion (based on my experiences and knowledge) doesn't make sense and isn't supported by any reasonable evidence.

Ok so now you are moving the goal posts and shifting from "Empirical evidence" (A quality of evidence that applies in science) to "Reasonable Evidence" (A quality of evidence that applies to law). Reasonable evidence as applied to law would be generic and relative having limited application that is appropriate for a particular situation or question applying the reasonable person theory of the law. In other words it is evidence that a reasonable person would accept. How it that determined? It is assumed that the average person is reasonable so if it is something the majority or average would accept it would qualify as reasonable evidence. Given 9 out of 10 people believe in a God this shift actually works against you.

The reality is there is only one body of evidence that we all share. The difference between a theist and an atheist is how that evidence is interpreted. How one interprets evidence is often at least in part determined by what presuppositions one holds when examining the evidence. Conspicuously missing from your details is what presuppositions you hold when examining the evidence? Your use of 'empirical' suggests you start out with the presupposition of materialism. Materialism rules out the possibility of any Gods and so one with that presupposition starts out with the conclusion there is no God before you even look at the evidence. In that case the claim 'there is no evidence' or 'there is little evidence' is really so much circular reasoning.

So I would ask you what presuppositions, if any, do you hold before looking at the evidence?

Update 2: @tigger: I might believe my friend telling me that he saw a celebrity in town without evidence, but if he tells me that his book contains the absolute truth about morality and the very nature of existence, he had better prove it because that's a pretty big claim. I justify the requirement of empirical evidence for God by pointing out that the existence of God is a world changing concept and is outside my current understanding of reality, and I think that's fair.

No offense but the quality of evidenced for your current understanding of reality would be the legitimate standard for asserting reality - period. Your asserting higher standard is 'fair' tells me there is no reason for me to bother taking the time!

Good luck to you!

I think your point is very well taken. I don't think God is in the least offended by folks who have asked for evidence, have not received it, and have opted out of organized religion. A God who got upset because someone didn't believe in It would be a petty smug little deity. Not worthy of any note, let alone worship.

I believe that God understands that to have blind faith can be difficult for some people and l really feel that he knows what's in your heart, he loves you unconditionally.I can only apologise for some of the unkind comments you've received, bad publicity for theists.

God isn't unfair. What is presented to you as God isn't God.

God will bless you for being good and will damn you for being cruel and hateful. Whether you believe he exists doesn't matter.

Titus 2:11

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men....

God disagrees with you. He gives tons of evidence. Man lets the world interpret the evidence for them, and believes any and all false interpretations they can, in an effort not to be held accountable for their sin. If you wanted to know God, be cleansed of sin, receive everlasting life, and avoid eternal hell, you would be able to do it.

The world is full of people who have done just that. I would love to help you identify what lie you got hung up on, and help you be set free.

you do not have experience of religion because you do not know what it is by your description you distrust everything like a business man reading a contract you are looking for the clauses this firm that firm what are the penalties what if I cross him never looking for the benefits it's not about you it's about what you can do to help make this a better place for all of us god is not about me

God gives everyone the option of believing in him.... it's YOUR own choice. He call us to be closer to him different ways but he doesn't force us. When we die we go to heaven, hell, or purgatory according to what we chose

to believe...

Its actually the reverse.That God should believe in us, despite our foolish controversies.Seems far more unfair that He should die for my sins and yours .Would you expect to be tortured to death by those who either didn't believe or didnt want to believe in the work you were doing for them? Jesus was opposed primarily by religious people anyway but today its the non religious hypocrites that think they know better than God and expect to be spoonfed by scientifically blind and ignorant experts to keep them in their comfort zone of no commitment.

Nope

you have a choice

get over yourself

or remain with your head up your butt

Its on you, and all your choice,,,,,Fair

Another "Atheist" asking questions about the God they say doesn't exist.....yeah