Reasons

[fr0d0]

Hehe @ U EvF (In a nice way)

Nope, no pascal variants for me. I'm going through my reasoning as it comes up on this forum. It's a bit impossible for me to pull it out of the bag like that. I've not done it before, maybe I'll make a list then in future, on atheist.com 2030 I'll be there with my list for ya. Until then...

Sorry - don't want to dodge.. that's just such a huge question. Ok, I thought of one... All religions postulate definitions of God/ god/ gods/ etc. All these are independent reasoning around the subject. Weighing up those definitions, you can work out which seem true to you, and which don't. Some ideas are easily discarded, some you can stack on the maybe pile, and some you can keep as solid reasoning. Now I've struggled through this process, and come to the conclusion that although the Christian Bible is entirely interpreted by humans, so potentially flawed. I find it 100% solid reasoning, so far.

[Kyuuketsuki]

None of which denies them the label of Christianity.

True. Catholicism is accepted by the wider Christian church as Christian. And me (I'm sure they'd be thrilled (joke)). But all these things I listed are anti Christ's teachings. Some Catholics are Christians, but a lot aren't.

And as far as any objective critic can tell that is simply your bias.

Where would that be then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful

Demonaura only said we need a mediator and actually specifically mentioned the point of people not responding which in this forum has pretty much been you. Both he and Adrian were simply trying to get the conversation moving again as indeed it did (at least from my side responding to the same point that Thoughtful did).

Kyu

[Giff]

A (christian) friend of mine asked me to tell him my reasons for being an atheist. So I just thought it would be an interesting thread if all the atheists on here would reply with a reason of their own for not believing.

I'll start.

NO EVIDENCE hock:

Your reason pretty much summeries what I self think.

If he would have exicted, then he probably would have shown himself and make things less complicated Atleast I would and I am a god in some areas!

[fr0d0]

None of which denies them the label of Christianity.

True. Catholicism is accepted by the wider Christian church as Christian. And me (I'm sure they'd be thrilled (joke)). But all these things I listed are anti Christ's teachings. Some Catholics are Christians, but a lot aren't.

And as far as any objective critic can tell that is simply your bias.

Yes, the uninformed wouldn't really understand. To the informed the facts are plain.

Where would that be then?

Demonaura, Adrian and thoughtful

Demonaura only said we need a mediator and actually specifically mentioned the point of people not responding which in this forum has pretty much been you. Both he and Adrian were simply trying to get the conversation moving again as indeed it did (at least from my side responding to the same point that Thoughtful did).

Kyu

Well you certainly coloured that one well colour me wan kenobi (joke). Let's not mention this elusive question you've been dying for me to answer but religiously ignore. Or are you saying that I answered you now?

[Kyuuketsuki]

And as far as any objective critic can tell that is simply your bias.

Yes, the uninformed wouldn't really understand. To the informed the facts are plain.

Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong ... excellent! Did I tell you how impressed I was?

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='13475' dateline='1239132093']Where would that be then?

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='13518' dateline='1239184913']Demonaura only said we need a mediator and actually specifically mentioned the point of people not responding which in this forum has pretty much been you. Both he and Adrian were simply trying to get the conversation moving again as indeed it did (at least from my side responding to the same point that Thoughtful did).

Well you certainly coloured that one well colour me wan kenobi (joke). Let's not mention this elusive question you've been dying for me to answer but religiously ignore. Or are you saying that I answered you now?

I Have no idea ... we've sidetracked far too far for me to know any more. I know I've asked before and been largely ignored (it's a theists thing IMO) but why don't you post a summary opf the replies (much as I do when I'm fired up enough) and then I will do my best to answer?

Kyu

[fr0d0]

And as far as any objective critic can tell that is simply your bias.

Yes, the uninformed wouldn't really understand. To the informed the facts are plain.

Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong ... excellent! Did I tell you how impressed I was?

Yes. You must be some rainbow warrior princess by now!

Did I just say that? Or was that your magic pencils doing their stuff again?

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='13475' dateline='1239132093']Where would that be then?

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='13518' dateline='1239184913']Demonaura only said we need a mediator and actually specifically mentioned the point of people not responding which in this forum has pretty much been you. Both he and Adrian were simply trying to get the conversation moving again as indeed it did (at least from my side responding to the same point that Thoughtful did).

Well you certainly coloured that one well colour me wan kenobi (joke). Let's not mention this elusive question you've been dying for me to answer but religiously ignore. Or are you saying that I answered you now?

I Have no idea ... we've sidetracked far too far for me to know any more. I know I've asked before and been largely ignored (it's a theists thing IMO) but why don't you post a summary opf the replies (much as I do when I'm fired up enough) and then I will do my best to answer?

Hmmm. I almost believe you. Here you go anyway.

Now are you going to answer (properly) the points I have made (and I'll summarise)?

1. So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?
   
2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

1. So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?

As I've said I can't remember how many times now, from my very first visit here, on every visit it seems.

It is entirely valid to assume that there is no God. It has to be like that for Biblical claims to be correct. You have to have a choice. It has to be unprovable.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Absolutely. There can be no proof.

Is my face blue? How many times do you think I could find that I've said the same thing on this forum, yet several people keep saying I haven't answered this. Can I have this stickied or something? Perhaps I could put it in my sig. Would that be fair? Or would I be being disingenuous?

What are my extraordinary claims? I don't claim that there is actually a God that you must believe in. I state that I believe in such an existence without proof. Why should that bother you? I'm not claiming anything. I'm making a personal choice.

As I've said I can't remember how many times now, from my very first visit here, on every visit it seems.

[And The Rest]

Then WHY should we treat your claims, your views as anything other than the ravings of a deluded maniac? Why are you here trying to engage us on this subject if it is so reasonable to believe what we believe? I'm not trying to be funny but why don't you go away and talk to someone who wants to people who genuinely want to engage on your fairytale rubbish?

I know why I'm here, I'm in the company of people whose views on at least one key subject (being atheists) we empathise ... why are you here and talking about some crap that has no merit whatsoever?

Kyu

@ Kyu: I never brought up the subject of my non claims. you did. I tried to say I didn't want to discuss it, but you insisted very strongly that I did.

You don't have to do anything with my beliefs. Why should you? Your point, I'm sure, was to debunk any claim I had. As I made none, then you are disappointed, understandably.

I've said many times why I'm here. I say your crap has merit. I'm happy that you think differently to me, and I value your opinion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hehe @ U EvF (In a nice way)

Haha - that's no probs. TBH, personally I wouldn't have it any other way - it's exactly the way I wish it to be.

It's friendly and people take the piss but I never get bothered whether they mean it or not anyway.

I'd love to be a comedian... - I just guess the only real problem I have is the fact that I'm not even remotely funny.

Ok, I thought of one... All religions postulate definitions of God/ god/ gods/ etc. All these are independent reasoning around the subject. Weighing up those definitions, you can work out which seem true to you, and which don't. Some ideas are easily discarded, some you can stack on the maybe pile, and some you can keep as solid reasoning. Now I've struggled through this process, and come to the conclusion that although the Christian Bible is entirely interpreted by humans, so potentially flawed. I find it 100% solid reasoning, so far.

TBH to me that sounds a bit like sticking your hand in a big bag of rotten cherries and trying to pick out the least rotten one when you haven't got very good eyesight and can't really tell for sure which is the least rotten one anyway.

Personal opinion and personal experience are not evidence. Many people from many different religions have different views on what is the right religion or "God(s)" to believe in. It's all very vague...

And if you did some how magically have the ability to pick out a religion that could be said to absolutely objectively "the best" overall in whatever ways that it would "help" you or whatever - consolation for instance---or courage (because you think you'll go to heaven) - then that still doesn't do any good anyway because there's still no evidence that your God - or indeed, any Gods - exist AT ALL. STILL no evidence.

So I repeat - personal opinion and personal experience are not evidence. You have no more reason for believing in your "God" than anyone else does in any other or even in the same God as you but they have a different interpretation of it - Still none of you have any real evidence at all and all the personal "reasons" in the world wouldn't do any good because everyone has a different interpretation.
Why would you value your own non-evidence reason for believing in the existence of God over anyone else's when these reasons just aren't personal evidence.

Is this more about how "God" helps you in some way - or changes your life for the "better" in your view - or is this more about the existence?
Because the thing is - if God almost certainly doesn't exist then how can you believe in God if you believe it 'helps you' in some way if you DON'T believe in God?

You obviously do - so the thing is - the belief "helping you" doesn't give the belief any supporting evidence if there's no evidence supporting the belief in the first place!
So would you indeed believe in the existence of an Evil God that had plenty of evidence - the evilness of him not shrinking the evidence at all...

And would you NOT believe in the existence of a Good God if you believed there was NO evidence (as I do) because the supposed 'goodness' of the idea of God making you emotional and 'feeling God' cannot give any evidence to God since you cannot attribute it as evidence for God if there's no evidence for God in the first place?
Or do you consider good feelings as evidence for God?
Because the thing is that would kind of be...totally circular thinking right?

The thing is if there's evidence for God then he exists whether he's evil and you feel good or not right?
And if there's not evidence for God (as there indeed, isn't) then all the good feelings in the world cannot count as evidence for his existence since there's no evidence of any God to attribute evidence to in the first place.

That and the fact that feelings aren't evidence of the existence of something anyway!

EvF

[fr0d0]

Amazingly I still have the will to live! (joke)

With respect, you're quoting from the atheist common book of cliches without addressing what I actually said, IMO.

Q. What other rational reason(s) other than evidence (if there was any) are you thinking of, for belief in God?

A. All religions postulate definitions of God/ god/ gods/ etc. All these are independent reasoning around the subject. Weighing up those definitions, you can work out which seem true to you, and which don't. Some ideas are easily discarded, some you can stack on the maybe pile, and some you can keep as solid reasoning. Now I've struggled through this process, and come to the conclusion that although the Christian Bible is entirely interpreted by humans, so potentially flawed. I find it 100% solid reasoning, so far.

Cherry picking would be a problem if you ascribed to a particular belief and then stepped outside the acceptable parameters of that belief. I don't do that.

You speak about personal opinion and experience, and later on feelings. I wasn't talking about any of those.

Personal opinions: For the opinion to be personal it'd have to be unique to you. As the rationalisations are common to all Christians (I can only speak with authority for Christianity), then this doesn't hold true.

Personal opinions and experience not being evidence: You asked about reasoning other than evidence, so I don't know why you're bringing that up again.

Feelings: Feelings may be 'nice' but I consider them to be of no importance.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ah yes, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong ... excellent! Did I tell you how impressed I was?

Yes. You must be some rainbow warrior princess by now!

Did I just say that? Or was that your magic pencils doing their stuff again?

Well I'm sick of this stupid song and dance of yours so I'm putting it to a poll, fairly sure what the result will be but maybe you are right, maybe Catholics aren't Christians?

So it is valid to assume there is no god (in exactly the same way as we assume that the moon is not made of green cheese and that little green men in flying saucers are not constantly "buzzing " our Earth) until actual evidence is supplied yes?

As I've said I can't remember how many times now, from my very first visit here, on every visit it seems.

It is entirely valid to assume that there is no God. It has to be like that for Biblical claims to be correct. You have to have a choice. It has to be unprovable.

I see ... so we're back to the claim that the complete lack of empirical evidence somehow proves your cartoon caricature god? Are you some kind of escapee from a mental institution? I ask only out of idle curiosity of course.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Absolutely. There can be no proof.

For fuck's sake, this is just fucking ridiculous!

What are my extraordinary claims? I don't claim that there is actually a God that you must believe in. I state that I believe in such an existence without proof. Why should that bother you? I'm not claiming anything. I'm making a personal choice.

In simple terms? That you actually believe that an absolute lack of evidence proves (or somehow lends credibility to) the claim that there is a god ... do you not see how insane that is?

@ Kyu: I never brought up the subject of my non claims. you did. I tried to say I didn't want to discuss it, but you insisted very strongly that I did.

Yes you did ... you directly stated that a lack of evidence is what should be expected if your god was real.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Well I'm sick of this stupid song and dance of yours so I'm putting it to a poll, fairly sure what the result will be but maybe you are right, maybe Catholics aren't Christians?

You seem to be sick of discussion before it starts. I'd think that Christians would be quite a reliable source. You think atheists would have a better idea??

I see ... so we're back to the claim that the complete lack of empirical evidence somehow proves your cartoon caricature god? Are you some kind of escapee from a mental institution? I ask only out of idle curiosity of course.

Nope. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. I have faith. That ISN'T provable.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, you haven't provided any therefore it is safe to assume that what you claim has no (ZERO, NADA, ZIP) basis in truth and the claimant is either a fraud or deluded.

Absolutely. There can be no proof.

For fuck's sake, this is just fucking ridiculous!

Yet people get it. You don't.

What are my extraordinary claims? I don't claim that there is actually a God that you must believe in. I state that I believe in such an existence without proof. Why should that bother you? I'm not claiming anything. I'm making a personal choice.

In simple terms? That you actually believe that an absolute lack of evidence proves (or somehow lends credibility to) the claim that there is a god ... do you not see how insane that is?

Yes. But then you misconstrued it.

@ Kyu: I never brought up the subject of my non claims. you did. I tried to say I didn't want to discuss it, but you insisted very strongly that I did.

Yes you did ... you directly stated that a lack of evidence is what should be expected if your god was real.

That 'my' God is real or not to me is completely besides the point. What the hell has that got to do with anybody besides me?? My 'point' is that there is no empirical evidence of God. Something that incredulously, you keep on arguing about!