Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Theo Zacharias]

If there is an evidence that God does not exist, i.e. if the truth is God does not exist, then yes, that might be a reason to hide the truth. But if there is no evidence that God does not exist then we don't know what the truth is. Why should I change my position to atheist? What's the reason?

Because theist implies belief in a god. Without getting into yet another argument about nomenclature, what you're essentially saying here is that you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational.

No reason to support your argument. An irrational theist (similar to irrational atheist) can say/force the opposite thing without any reason:

"you don't know whether a god exists or not, but you don't believe in one anyway. Thoroughly irrational."

And if you believe because it makes you happy, then you're running high risks of having beliefs that don't conform to reality.

What are the risks of my belief even if in the future it's proven to be false?

You can choose to *try* to believe in something.

But you can't make yourself believe in anything that you find to be untrue. You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a belief system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize.

Another straw man argument. You said above that I believe in anything that I find to be untrue? When did I ever said that? What I said is I don't know whether it's true or not (just like any other agnostic atheist).
I again see no argument on your post, an irrational theist can say the opposite thing to you:

"You can rationalize things to yourself in such a way that they make sense to you, but only because you already had a mindset- a *disbelief* system- that is conducive to accepting those claims you're attempting to rationalize. "

In my case, I choose to *stay to* believe in God. I have believed in God in years so it's not a difficult thing to do for me.

Or rather, you choose not to take challenges to your beliefs seriously.

I also seek for evidence that God does not exist and also for a reason (other than evidence) to be atheist. But none so far.
I can say the same thing to you: that you choose not to take challenges to your disbeliefs seriously. How? By embracing a dogmatic "default" that the theist is the one who should give the evidence or reason.

I never said that that's the only reason, and you shouldn't assume that I'm not believe very fervently in whatever I believe. It's certainly irrational to make this assumption without more information.

Hence the "if" at the beginning of the sentence: I wasn't making an assumption. In fact, I'm dead certain there are other reasons you believe.

Yes, I'm very ok believing in things that may be untrue.

That's a pity.

Again there is no argument/reason from you why it's a pity.
Almost all of the things in the world may be untrue. Even theory in science may be untrue. So it's a pity to believe in scientific theory?

How about you? Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue?

I apportion my belief to the available facts, with the caveat that additional information will make me change my mind. If evidence of a god comes to light, that's the time I'll believe one exists, but the rational standpoint is to disbelieve in a thing until that evidence is presented. Not discount entirely, but disbelieve.

You don't answer my question. Please answer with "yes" or "no" first.
Do you only believe things that *absolutely* true? Yes or no?
Do you honestly said that you don't believe anything that may be untrue? Yes or no?

---

@theo Zacharias,

I never said I'm being pushed to be a theist. In fact I said that being a theist brings an overall positive effect to me. It means that I'm happy being a theist and that give me a reason to (stay to) be a theist.
I also have mentioned before that to change my position to atheist will most likely bring a negative effect to me under my circumstance. That's a reason *for me* not to change my position to atheist.

Is this the reason why you think it's valid to believe in god?

This isn't reason that god exists or to think that god exists. This is reason to identify as a theist. And it's unfounded, what you're basically saying is if you call yourself and atheist, bad things will happen, so you'll call yourself a theist.

Yes, I agree that this is not the reason/evidence that God exists (I never said otherwise).
I also agree that this is a reason to become a theist. Unfounded? Why? No argument from you above.
Are you saying that I should be an atheist even though there is no evidence that God does not exist and even though I know most likely bad things will happen to me if I become an atheist?
I fail to see why this is irrational. For me, the opposite is the one that is irrational.