Why are you (still) a Christian?

[FrustratedFool]

Thanks for the response.

You're most welcome. Thanks for the interest and listening.

What I was asking for was what rational arguments and/or evidence persuaded you.  For example, do you find the kalam cosmological argument convincing, or did you have some religious experience.  

Or have you not really considered the arguments for and against God?

I had no religious experience. That was sort of what I alluded to in my response. When someone says something like kalam cosmological argument, I don't know what that is. I avoid, like the plague, narrowing my search with theological, philosophical, or doctrinal excursions. Most atheists here know more about those sorts of things than I do. So, if I look that up on Google just to see if I inadvertently have an interest in it, I find this

Now, I never listen to people making these sorts of arguments, so I haven't given them any thought. Doing this sort of thing I've stumbled upon Craig videos and he seems really thoughtful but I don't entertain his theology. That means I have no opinion on it. The description of the argument I've read highlighted on the Wikipedia link I gave isn't convincing to me because as far as we know everything could just as easily have been random. But, like I said, I haven't listened to the argument. I can't get it just looking at that brief description.

Really, in that sort of case, rather than exploring the Bible I would be exploring theology. Leaving the source for the explanation. It seems to me like that would be either some sort of confirmation bias or curiosity and I just don't think that is conducive to my personal exploration of spirituality or search for God. I don't have the time.

So, there's no real reason as such why you believe in the existence of God. You just do. Is that fair?

[Data]

So, there's no real reason as such why you believe in the existence of God. You just do.  Is that fair?

No, it isn't fair at all. First of all you're asking me to express to you in a paragraph or so what it's taken me over 30 years to do. And I'm not talking about having an hallucination near death, or seeing Joel Osteen on the tele with a $400 haircut, or a "miraculous" prayer answer by Kenneth Copeland, I'm talking about an intense study of the Bible and other sacred and quasi sacred texts from all the major religions. Except for the book of Mormon or Scientology. I mean, c'mon.

Then, I combed the Superhighway of Misinformation on the World Wide Wasteland for a valid skeptical argument. That's what I'm doing now. There isn't one.

But it's very simple. I trust, that is have faith or believe in Jehovah God because there has never been any, and I mean ANY reason not to. If there were such a reason, just as simply I would reject him.

So, I think what unbelievers want when they ask this question is some metaphysical reason they can justify their disbelief by dismissing it without any scientific methodology or they want some stupid, lazy ass reason to change their mind and believe. All the while hoping they never get it. And confident, ironically, that they won't.

[Foxaèr]

Where you find yourself making exceptions for not believing, others have done the same for your belief. A dismissal works both ways.

[FrustratedFool]

So, there's no real reason as such why you believe in the existence of God. You just do.  Is that fair?

No, it isn't fair at all. First of all you're asking me to express to you in a paragraph or so what it's taken me over 30 years to do. And I'm not talking about having an hallucination near death, or seeing Joel Osteen on the tele with a $400 haircut, or a "miraculous" prayer answer by Kenneth Copeland, I'm talking about an intense study of the Bible and other sacred and quasi sacred texts from all the major religions. Except for the book of Mormon or Scientology. I mean, c'mon.

Then, I combed the Superhighway of Misinformation on the World Wide Wasteland for a valid skeptical argument. That's what I'm doing now. There isn't one.

But it's very simple. I trust, that is have faith or believe in Jehovah God because there has never been any, and I mean ANY reason not to. If there were such a reason, just as simply I would reject him.

So, I think what unbelievers want when they ask this question is some metaphysical reason they can justify their disbelief by dismissing it without any scientific methodology or they want some stupid, lazy ass reason to change their mind and believe. All the while hoping they never get it. And confident, ironically, that they won't.

I'm not sure that makes sense. Believeing in X because you have found no reason not to believe in X is not sufficient warrant to believe in X. You must have a positive case as well as an absence of defeators.

When I was a believer I could answer the question I posed to you, and could give it succinctly in a post. Many believing philosophers of religion could do the same, pointing to what arguments they find credible and/or to religious experiences they've had. Likewise, now as an apostate I could explain succinctly why I lost my faith and why I no longer believe.

It seems that your reason for believing is that you read various religious texts and found that something within one of them cohered sufficiently with your intuitions and currently existing WV to take it seriously. And then in taking it seriously you became more convinced that it made sense to you and that there were no good segments against it. Personally, I don't think that sufficient good reason to make your belief rational.

That aside, I'm curious as to you saying you've discovered no valid sceptical argument. Even as a believer I would have found that an odd statement. Laying aside technical issues with the word valid (which I'm not expert enough to get into), are you honestly saying that there are no fair or strong counter-arguments that give you pause? Most philosophers of religion take the counterarguments very seriously, evebif they ultimately fall on the theistic side at the end. If you were going to steelman atheism against your particular brand of theism, what would be the strongest arguments against your POV?

[Bucky Ball]

Substitutionary Atonement really is total shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitutionary_atonement

It's not anything that a (supposed) Jesus ever said he was doing.
It's not a Biblical concept. The Jews had their own sacrificial system, and Jesus was a Jew, and said he came to change nothing "until all things are accomplished".

The gospels (there were about 200 gospels) and Irenaeus said they whittled them down to 4, because there are 4 winds and 4 pillars on which the Earth stands. LLOLOLOL
As really professional students of history find, (as Bert Ehrman), it's all a pile of crap, with no reason to buy it.

Then we have the fake gullibles, with no education such as Data, who think they can just read the Babble and understand the conplex nature of ancient cultures. LMAO

The content of the gospels contain the thematic concerns and thought of the of the rabbis at the end of the First Century, not the early First Century. They were trying to say where Judaism should go then as the temple was destroyed.
There probably was no Jesus. He most likely was an amalgam of various (and there were many) miracle workers and messiah figures during the First Century.

Studying "the Bible" reveals nothing about historical *truth*. All it does is say what believers believed. Its just the "Good News", not all the news.

The gospels are myth.
No one here can refute Carrier's points, point by point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQmMFQzrEsc&t=2120s

[brewer]

So, there's no real reason as such why you believe in the existence of God. You just do.  Is that fair?

No, it isn't fair at all. First of all you're asking me to express to you in a paragraph or so what it's taken me over 30 years to do. And I'm not talking about having an hallucination near death, or seeing Joel Osteen on the tele with a $400 haircut, or a "miraculous" prayer answer by Kenneth Copeland, I'm talking about an intense study of the Bible and other sacred and quasi sacred texts from all the major religions. Except for the book of Mormon or Scientology. I mean, c'mon.

Then, I combed the Superhighway of Misinformation on the World Wide Wasteland for a valid skeptical argument. That's what I'm doing now. There isn't one.

But it's very simple. I trust, that is have faith or believe in Jehovah God because there has never been any, and I mean ANY reason not to. If there were such a reason, just as simply I would reject him.

So, I think what unbelievers want when they ask this question is some metaphysical reason they can justify their disbelief by dismissing it without any scientific methodology or they want some stupid, lazy ass reason to change their mind and believe. All the while hoping they never get it. And confident, ironically, that they won't.

Provide me with (or point me towards) concrete evidence that god exists as more than an abstraction or concept. I'll be willing to make an assessment. Abstractions and conceptions won't cut it, neither will any metaphysical argument.

Until that time I'll continue to consider god(s) as a creation of the human mind.

I may consider believing but don't hold your breath.

My guess is that you'll be unable to provide.

[Data]

Provide me with (or point me towards) concrete evidence that god exists as more than an abstraction or concept. I'll be willing to make an assessment. Abstractions and conceptions won't cut it, neither will any metaphysical argument.

Until that time I'll continue to consider god(s) as a creation of the human mind.  

I may consider believing but don't hold your breath.

My guess is that you'll be unable to provide.

First of all, that isn't my objective as a Bible believer. That's your responsibility. I don't care whether or not you believe. My objective, part of my responsibility to, in this case specifically to others, is to provide them with accurate information so that they can be pointed in the right direction. The right direction for the potentially interested party isn't an ideological estimation of whether or not the information provided is true. Again, that's your job. Asking me what did it for me isn't the answer you're looking for. Secondly, just because you have the information and believe or trust in it, doesn't dictate the outcome. Put simply, it's like this. You have to figure out whether or not you believe God is true, you trust him, and you want what he offers you.

Does that make sense? If I give you the information and you decide none or some of that isn't of interest to you, I'm happy, because I did my job. Otherwise it's just ideological, sociopolitical nonsense. Wishful thinking and mythology adopted by apostate Jews and Christians. I'm not particularly interested in any of that, but, right now I'm not here for the sake of my obligations as a believer. I'm here for other reasons. Bullshitting with idiots such as myself but on the other side.

You got questions I can give you answers, but don't ask me to convert you to some nonsense. That's another story.

[Data]

I'm not sure that makes sense.  Believeing in X because you have found no reason not to believe in X is not sufficient warrant to believe in X.  You must have a positive case as well as an absence of defeators.

I don't measure belief by disbelief. I believe because of the reasons to believe. So, test me. Give me a reason not to believe, keeping in mind that my only hobby other than video games is to debate atheists. Informal, yes, otherwise I would die of boredom, but debate nonetheless. For 27 years of my 30 years of belief.  

When I was a believer I could answer the question I posed to you, and could give it succinctly in a post.  Many believing philosophers of religion could do the same, pointing to what arguments they find credible and/or to religious experiences they've had.  Likewise, now as an apostate I could explain succinctly why I lost my faith and why I no longer believe.

And I, to some extent, was the same in the opposite order, except for that I really didn't have much information to go on as an unbeliever, except for my opinion that believers were obviously idiots and hypocrites. But, who isn't? And our switch from one to the other is completely logical, no? It's a hung jury. People tend to be tribal and xenophobic. They want everyone to believe the same thing. What they believe. Not just religion, everything. That probably has a lot to do with why people can never be happy unless they just don't give a shit. But, then they just want everyone not to give a shit. People are, as I say, idiots. We are idiots.

It seems that your reason for believing is that you read various religious texts and found that something within one of them cohered sufficiently with your intuitions and currently existing WV to take it seriously.  And then in taking it seriously you became more convinced that it made sense to you and that there were no good segments against it.  Personally, I don't think that sufficient good reason to make your belief rational.

Okay, what do you think is sufficient in that regard?

That aside, I'm curious as to you saying you've discovered no valid sceptical argument.  Even as a believer I would have found that an odd statement.

 

That's an excellent point. You're right, I should have worded that better. I do find atheism to be a logical conclusion. Theism, ultimately, requires faith. Maybe I was expressing that from a strictly personal perspective rather than a general one. For a long time I've examined the skeptical argument, although I wouldn't put it that way because I myself am skeptical. I'm skeptical of what I believe, what the Bible says, and what Jehovah says. I'm just skeptical by nature. What I mean is that I haven't found an argument that debunks my own. To me skeptical doesn't mean rejecting it means careful examination without being dogmatic in as much as that is possible.

When I'm wrong I'll put up a fight like anyone, because our ideas become a part of us all. But eventually I will see the truth. The truth is what I want. And I know, everyone says that, but I don't want what I believe to be the truth to be the truth, I want the truth no matter what I believe.

Laying aside technical issues with the word valid (which I'm not expert enough to get into), are you honestly saying that there are no fair or strong counter-arguments that give you pause?

Oh, sure. That's why I learn doing this. If someone says something that I believe is wrong, and I'm not sure or there is a possibility of error I have to go back and reevaluate it.

Most philosophers of religion take the counterarguments very seriously, evebif they ultimately fall on the theistic side at the end.  If you were going to steelman atheism against your particular brand of theism, what would be the strongest arguments against your POV?

Uh, there isn't any right now that I recall, but examples of the past would be that the record of the Hebrew written language and the Christ Myth Theory set me back a couple days. I'm an idiot. That was stupid. I actually became an unbeliever for a few days over that.

[FrustratedFool]

@Data

OK, so can you tell me in a succinctly fashion what your positive claim concerning God's existence is, please.

And then succinctly provide the warrant you have for such a claim.

And then what you hold to he the strongest counter argument and your reason for rejecting it.

For example:
I believe an omni-max God exists, and this God is the being referred to as the Father of Christ on the NT

I believe this because I find the Fine-Tuning Argument, Moral Argument, Leibnizian Cosmological Argument, and the Historical Resurrection Arguments convincing; in combination with my own religious experience and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

The Evidential Problem of Evil is the strongest counter Argument. I think it is defeated by the combination of the free will defence and the Vale of soul making theodicy.

[brewer]

Provide me with (or point me towards) concrete evidence that god exists as more than an abstraction or concept. I'll be willing to make an assessment. Abstractions and conceptions won't cut it, neither will any metaphysical argument.

Until that time I'll continue to consider god(s) as a creation of the human mind.  

I may consider believing but don't hold your breath.

My guess is that you'll be unable to provide.

First of all, that isn't my objective as a Bible believer. That's your responsibility. I don't care whether or not you believe. My objective, part of my responsibility to, in this case specifically to others, is to provide them with accurate information so that they can be pointed in the right direction. The right direction for the potentially interested party isn't an ideological estimation of whether or not the information provided is true. Again, that's your job. Asking me what did it for me isn't the answer you're looking for. Secondly, just because you have the information and believe or trust in it, doesn't dictate the outcome. Put simply, it's like this. You have to figure out whether or not you believe God is true, you trust him, and you want what he offers you.

Does that make sense? If I give you the information and you decide none or some of that isn't of interest to you, I'm happy, because I did my job. Otherwise it's just ideological, sociopolitical nonsense. Wishful thinking and mythology adopted by apostate Jews and Christians. I'm not particularly interested in any of that, but, right now I'm not here for the sake of my obligations as a believer. I'm here for other reasons. Bullshitting with idiots such as myself but on the other side.

You got questions I can give you answers, but don't ask me to convert you to some nonsense. That's another story.

Why would I have any questions for you?