(August 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 3:12 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: When you figure out why you don't believe in the thousands of other gods mankind has proposed, perhaps you'll have your answer.

I might not believe in (correction) millions of other gods but I do believe in one. I was asking why (you) don't believe in a god?

It appears the purpose of my answer eluded you. In any case, my reasons are rooted in the lack of a sufficiently convincing rational argument or evidence to support belief in any god.

(August 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 3:21 pm)CleanShavenJesus Wrote: Oh boy. Okay.


No, it does matter. The fact that you don't believe in Allah is, for some atheists, proof that there's no reason for them to believe in Yahweh. What's so unreasonable about Greek mythology compared to Christianity or Islam that it's branded "mythology"? The fact that there are other beliefs, each with about as much proof as yours, deters many from believing because it opens the mind to the question: "Wait, what makes one religion correct and the others incorrect?"


There's the point. How do you know that they're false? Religion is irrational for these reasons and more.

I see your point. Basically, you don't believe in a god because our ideology is either believing in a monotheistic or polytheistic religion when we reject the other?

No and no.

No, you are not seeing the point.

No, I don't believe in any god not because of different theologies, but because there is no evidence for any god.

The point about there being different theologies is to draw your attention to the fact that there are. You believe one but not all of the others.
Why don't you believe any of the others? They're silly? There's no evidence? They're somehow wrong? If you think critically about the others, it would be intellectually dishonest not to think critically about your own.

---

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 3:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Its been stated several times: demonstrable evidence and valid/sound logic.

I'll bet there are many supernatural claims (alien abductions, existence of Jinn, crystal healing, shapeshifting, etc, etc) that you disbelieve for the exact same reason why we disbelieve that a god exists. Lack of demonstrable evidence and valid/sound logic.

So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

If there were good evidence for the existence of a god, I would be forced to take that seriously. I haven't seen any yet.

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

Then I would believe.

Your friends who say they won't believe God is real even if demonstrated to exist don't sound like they're making much sense. Maybe they mean they wouldn't 'believe in' God the same way they wouldn't believe in a tyrannical depot...not that the despot wouldn't exist but they wouldn't put their trust/faith in the despot. One could believe God is real without believing God is worthy of worship.

Of course, if God turned out to be real, I think there's a good chance he's been misrepresented. I stopped believing the Bible is a good source of information about God long before I stopped believing in God altogether.

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

It would be irrational to not believe were that to happen. However, the question of whether one would believe is an entirely different question as to whether one would worship.

In the case of the Abrahamaic god, even if I were to believe, I would not worship.

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

I guess you are not fully reading or comprehending some of the responses to you.

In my first response to you I stated, "My disbelief in a god is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. My atheism will continue as long as the claim that a god exists does not meet the above criteria." [edit: By the 'above criteria', I mean demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument[

To which you responded, "Fair enough."

Which I took to mean that you understood what I said.

I guess I was wrong.

If I was presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I would be compelled to believe. Worship is an entirely different proposition, however.

(August 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

I simply look at the world around me.
I see no god, I hear no god, I feel no god.

People talk about a god, but I haven't experienced said god.

Then, I take a step back from the people in my vicinity and notice there are other people claiming similar things, but about some other god.

I do not experience that other god, either... nor any other god claimed by people all over the world.
What gives?
How have these people come to experience any god, if I can't?

Then I notice something else: it seems that claims concerning a specific god are geographically localized. If you're born in Europe or the Americas (which were colonized by europeans) you get christianity; if you're born in the Middle East, you get islam; is you're born in India, you get hinduism, etc, etc, etc... (just to name the best known ones)
What's going on here?

Is there only one god presenting itself in different ways to different people?... or multiple gods presenting themselves to specific groups of people in specific locations of the planet? Why don't I experience any of those?...
OR... OR... are people just convincing themselves and their children about the gods that they hear about from their relatives and acquaintances?
I mean, it looks like people convince their children about the story of god. These children grow up to convince their children thus creating an endless cycle.
Why do people do this?
What reason is there to teach your kids about some god for which you have no experience, except that which you convince yourself of?

Drich, a fellow forum-monger, says you need to have a mustard's seed worth of faith to believe... so faith is required to have faith.... sounds like circular reasoning, doesn't it? That's because it IS!
If you manage to mold a child's mind to accept something as truthful (and this isn't difficult), then that mind will grow with that belief ingrained, and convincing itself that it is right.... couple that with a lot of peer pressure and you get the religious movements.

Finally, I refuse. I refuse to believe. I want to know.
Belief requires that I accept other people's claims on face value... And that's not generally a very good idea.

If there is any god, I want to know about it. I refuse to accept other people's claims, so I would only accept it from the origin itself. I've been waiting for decades.
I am aware of other people who have been waiting for far longer than me.
I am aware that some people have lived in the far past and died of old age waiting for such experience.
So it seems that, if there is such an entity, it is not interested in making us know about it.
We then carry on with life under the assumption that it doesn't exist. The realization that believers are simply that: believers. They don't know. They believe.
It's all in their minds... those minds that were molded when they were young.

If it's all in their minds, then... it is not a real entity... It is an imaginary entity. It has been imagined in different ways, in different places, at different times, hence you got all the different religions and myths we got throughout human history.

PS: I am aware that some people do become theists at adulthood, but most believers are indeed indoctrinated as kids.
PS2: Oh, damn... Wall of text... sorry! And I know my walls of text tend to have little continuity, because they took too long to write.... sorry guys and gals!

(August 13, 2013 at 4:07 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 3:30 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I see your point. Basically, you don't believe in a god because our ideology is either believing in a monotheistic or polytheistic religion when we reject the other?

No and no.

No, you are not seeing the point.

No, I don't believe in any god not because of different theologies, but because there is no evidence for any god.

The point about there being different theologies is to draw your attention to the fact that there are. You believe one but not all of the others.
Why don't you believe any of the others? They're silly? There's no evidence? They're somehow wrong? If you think critically about the others, it would be intellectually dishonest not to think critically about your own.

---

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

If there were good evidence for the existence of a god, I would be forced to take that seriously. I haven't seen any yet.

Okay, sorry for not seeing your point. I believe in the Bible because I have found (as others have) that the Bible is not just a fairy tale that was written by men and claimed their was a God, just so they can keep people in check. (In fact there are many instances in the Bible that the people of Israel rebelled constantly.) Most people don't understand the Bible is not just a book to read cover-cover and simply understand it. No, the Bible is to be taken in a exegesis way. Historically, culturally, literary criticism, finding the origin of text, the intent of the author, prophetic verses either to authenticate it or not. In all my findings I found that the Bible is the only book that is authentic; whether it's that every name and city were authenticated by archaeologist, even the places were found to be true. The prophecy in the Bible were even true. Such The Book of Daniel prophesied the coming of Pedo-Persia, Greek, The Roman Empire, Alexander The Great and other military battles. There was a prophesy that Jerusalem was going to be rebuilt after the Babylonians destroyed it years earlier. Which was fulfilled in 445 BC a full century AFTER Daniel had prophesied it was going to happen (Daniel 9). There are other hundreds of prophesies that were fulfilled. How can that happen from supposed men writing The Bible without any divine help? Now to answer why I believe in this specific religion than other religions is because by doing so, you have to look into the historical events and the foundation that other religion are held onto. Whether it's Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, Hindu etc they hold no evidence like The Bible has done. In the Quran (I have nothing against Muslim, I love them and I have Muslim friends) but its foundation is based on Abraham son Ishmael throughout history the Quran has gone through revisions, after revisions, contradicting its statements from its first few copies. There's no historical places that are mentioned in the Quran to ever had existed. In point, it can't be trusted. There's also the historical events that happened in Mormonism and Jehovah that are very contradicting. Or about Hinduism, Mythology? Simple, if I hold True that the Bible is as authenticated as I discovered it to be, then verses such as "There has no God before me, not one that I know" and the like, then Hinduism, and Mythology hold no merit in my faith. I'm only a truth seeker. If I ever find or am proven wrong about The Bible, I will in fact renounce my faith. I see no logic in believing in something that holds no truth.

---

(August 13, 2013 at 4:42 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: So here's another question: I have atheist friends who claim if God demonstrated he was real they will believe? Others have said that they will still not believe...what if you were given that demonstrable evidence and valid reasoning to believe?

I guess you are not fully reading or comprehending some of the responses to you.

In my first response to you I stated, "My disbelief in a god is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. My atheism will continue as long as the claim that a god exists does not meet the above criteria." [edit: By the 'above criteria', I mean demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument[

To which you responded, "Fair enough."

Which I took to mean that you understood what I said.

I guess I was wrong.

If I was presented with demonstrable evidence and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists, I would be compelled to believe. Worship is an entirely different proposition, however.

I did understand. That question wasn't meant for you?

You should know, scholars don't date Daniel anywhere near the 500 BCE time period. That early of a date hasn't been accepted in hundreds of years. Daniel was written *after* the events making its prophetic value worthless.

Have you checked into your religion much? I'm getting the feeling not too critically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dan...and_dating

Quote:The discovery of the scroll 4QDanc (dating 125 BCE) at Qumran reassured analysts that Daniel was written no later than the 2nd century BCE.[28][clarification needed]
For nearly two millennia, the principal view of both Jewish and Christian scholars has been that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel during the sixth century BCE, considering it as containing prophecy of western political history and an eschatological future.[29] However, since the Age of Enlightenment, critical scholarship of the Bible, taking a cue from third century pagan critic Porphyry, views the Book of Daniel as a pseudepigraph dated around 165 BCE that concerns itself primarily with the Maccabean era and the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes.[30][31] Although the book had been historically classified as prophetic, the style of writing is now considered apocalyptic which was popular between 200 BCE and 100 CE.[32]

(August 13, 2013 at 6:58 pm)JesusHChrist Wrote: You should know, scholars don't date Daniel anywhere near the 500 BCE time period. That early of a date hasn't been accepted in hundreds of years. Daniel was written *after* the events making its prophetic value worthless.

Have you checked into your religion much? I'm getting the feeling not too critically...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dan...and_dating

Quote:The discovery of the scroll 4QDanc (dating 125 BCE) at Qumran reassured analysts that Daniel was written no later than the 2nd century BCE.[28][clarification needed]
For nearly two millennia, the principal view of both Jewish and Christian scholars has been that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel during the sixth century BCE, considering it as containing prophecy of western political history and an eschatological future.[29] However, since the Age of Enlightenment, critical scholarship of the Bible, taking a cue from third century pagan critic Porphyry, views the Book of Daniel as a pseudepigraph dated around 165 BCE that concerns itself primarily with the Maccabean era and the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes.[30][31] Although the book had been historically classified as prophetic, the style of writing is now considered apocalyptic which was popular between 200 BCE and 100 CE.[32]

Says the one who uses Wiki? I have checked into my religion, I will be foolish if I didn't. No, I'll be worst I will be a liar and an ignorant fool. Did I ever stated in my comment that The Book of Daniel is dated in the 500BC? No. I did not. I said, that the prophecy was fulfilled in 445BC. Plus, there is a non-traditional and a traditional view of when the Book of Daniel was written. Also, you can't prove that Daniel was written after the events, especially since Daniel died around 535 BC. Prophesying way before hand. Daniel isn't the only book in the Bible that hold prophetic fulfillment.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html

Quote:"Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C.

Take the holy blinders off and learn something.