Christian motivations for joining AF

[fr0d0]

@ Zen: yep; keep telling yourself that the bible is a science book

[Edwardo Piet]

'Proud' was my term Evie yeh... is there any other word you'd use to describe your affiliation?

Atheism, as you know, is non-belief in God(s).... it has nothing to do with pride... and I already told you that - no, I'm not proud. So I don't really see what kind of answer your expecting from me.

EvF

[Zen Badger]

@ Zen: yep; keep telling yourself that the bible is a science book

More like science fiction, bad science fiction at that.

[fr0d0]

Atheism, as you know, is non-belief in God(s).... it has nothing to do with pride... and I already told you that - no, I'm not proud. So I don't really see what kind of answer your expecting from me.

I'm not talking about Atheism, I'm talking about you. Do you not feel any sense of connection with fellow atheists then? If so, I can't see why you state that you'd want to have a relationship with another atheist, for example. You come out with statements like 'you hate theism but not theist' and 'it'd be great if there were no religion' - that's not non belief in God(s) either but you state it. It's your personal opinion. Stop dodging.

[Watson]

haha fr0d0, I freaking love you, dude.

[Zhalentine]

The belief that it is created by God, and therefore proof of God, is what makes the difference here. Like I keep saying... if you assume God, then this is proof. The link (belief) has to be non verifiable.

I hope that's clear. It's what I'm saying by that statement.

It sounds like you're trying to use an assumption to prove itself, which you cannot do.

[fr0d0]

How so Zhal? The assumption (Belief in God) makes conclusions possible. That doesn't influence the assumption, it's independent.

[Tiberius]

The assumption isn't "belief in God" though. The assumption is that God exists. What Zhai is saying is that you cannot assume something to be true, and then use that assumption to come up with a proof that the assumption is true.

Assumptions are either true or false, and the state of an assumption is unknown. You can use assumptions to learn things about certain other statements, but you cannot say anything about the truth value of the actual assumption.

[TruthWorthy]

there's no substance in saying there is evidence in a perspective, in rationalisation. It's just preposterous.

No evidence in rationalisation, no.

and none resulting from, derived, accumulated, or, theoretically, assumed (although many will make an assumption).
You're hypothesis of god is from inductive reasoning, if you take god as a given then all sorts of assumptions can be based on that. The biggest weakness in this way of thinking is that every additional inference is based on the previous one. It's a massive body of lies, the probability of which reduces with each new inference.

However, the existence of the god of the bible can be tested.

By comparing the events portrayed in the bible to reality.

I'd say this is only a comparison and has no way of proving god's existence.

[fr0d0]

What Zhai is saying is that you cannot assume something to be true, and then use that assumption to come up with a proof that the assumption is true.

Absolutely. This is what I try to make clear every time I say it. There is no verifiable proof.

It's far from my hypothesis of God TW. It's a statement given an assumption. You can't know either... so to call it a "massive body of lies" would be a position of faith too.