Better reasons to quit Christianity

[Tobie]

You seem to think that atheism is a belief that there is no god, whereas it is the lack of belief in a god.

[Anomalocaris]

Yes, but is it not also irrational to believe they don't? Since there is also no reason to believe souls don't exist? I'm thinking both beliefs are without reason, and so unreasonable. Perhaps the most reasonable position to take is to say that one does not know?

It is irrational not to doubt to the point of dismissal anything that has not been soundly demonstrated to be required to exist. This flows directly from the fact that the collection of equally plausible alternatives to that thing that exclude the said thing out number and out weigh the thing in question by an factor of infinity to one.

[spockrates]

And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

[Tobie]

And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

No, we scoff at the idea because it cannot be verified. Anecdotes are not evidence. If I told you that the almighty god Geoff appeared to me in a dream and told me to spread his word, would you believe me? No. I'm not giving babble coming out of the mouths of various cretins the same credibility as science.

[catfish]

And how do we handle the eyewitness accounts of those who have had near-death experiences, or those who claim to have seen, heard, or spoken to ghosts? Do we scoff at the idea simply because our experiences are not similar?

No, we scoff at the idea because it cannot be verified. Anecdotes are not evidence. If I told you that the almighty god Geoff appeared to me in a dream and told me to spread his word, would you believe me? No. I'm not giving babble coming out of the mouths of various cretins the same credibility as science.

Until you have your own experience, that's the way we work...

[spockrates]

Now, Jupitor has posted in this discussion thread that he has a good reason for believing the soul survives death, for he has spoken to souls who have so survived. In his case, he is making an inference from experience, rather than from ignorance.

There's a million dollars in it for Jupitor, should he be able to demonstrate he has gained information from such souls that could have been gained in no other way. Do you believe Jupitor is really in touch with dead souls? Do you think it is wise to believe Jupitor? Is there something about his claim that makes it so different from claiming that he is in touch with his cousin who lives across town that it's reasonable to be skeptical about it without additional convincing and significant evidence? Is it reasonable for Jupitor to expect other people to believe him without such evidence? In other words, can you think of any reason, any reason at all, not to take Jupitor at his word?

Let's put it this way: My wife is the most skeptical and logical person I know. She never talks about the paranormal. Yet, the day she watched a news program about the first teacher to take a ride in to space in the space shuttle, she turned to her mother and said, "Mom, I know she is going to die." That shuttle exploded on take off.

So what does this mean? Was she crazy? No, the proof was in the tragedy. Was she lying? She is actually the most honest person I know (I should know, because I've been married to her for many years). She has a type A personality, and would rather confront someone and die, than tell a lie. So how did she know? I don't know. I just know she did, and I cannot deny the evidence.

Does this prove there are ghosts? No. But it does prove to me that there are experiences others have that I have never had that cannot be denied as genuine. So when someone talks about an experience he has had which seems remarkable to me, and I know that person to be sincere and sane, I hesitate to brush off what he says.

[Tobie]

No, we scoff at the idea because it cannot be verified. Anecdotes are not evidence. If I told you that the almighty god Geoff appeared to me in a dream and told me to spread his word, would you believe me? No. I'm not giving babble coming out of the mouths of various cretins the same credibility as science.

Until you have your own experience, that's the way we work...

What? I doubt I will have an experience of god. Most experiences are probably from wishful thinking.

[catfish]

Until you have your own experience, that's the way we work...

What? I doubt I will have an experience of god. Most experiences are probably from wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be "of god". Check out what spockates just conveyed.

[Cato]

OK. I used to be Evangelical, have considered becoming Catholic, but am investigating atheism before I make up my mind. Does that help?

This reply has the potential of being lenghy. Your statement above makes clearer your line of questioning in this and other threads. I don't understand the limitations you place on your quest.

Atheism is simply the rejection of all god claims. That's it, so I don't understand the Catholic or atheist choice. Are you simply wrestling with the existence of a god? This should be settled before deciding on a brand of religion.

If you decide on the idea of a god as the creator of the universe, how do you then limit your choice to just one of tens of thousands of Christian sects? What happened to all the other creation myths and associated religions? Why wouldn't a desitic position be acceptable if you choose to believe in a god creator?

This is where religion comes in. It's purpose is to tell you how to think about god, what creeds you must maintain for membership, how to treat fellow humans, how to interpret ancient testimony (ancient doesn't apply to Mormons or Scientologists, among others), how to vote (in many cases), what clothes are acceptable, what foods can be consumed, the list goes on. There are varying degrees amongst religions regarding this mind control.

I have difficulty understanding how educated adults can read The Bible or other ancient texts and not immediately dismiss them. To believe that these books are the inspired word of god takes a frightening level of credulity in the 21st century. There is then the argument that they aren't the inspired word of God and there are some good lessons to be learned. This requires an extrabiblical standard of good and bad, so then what need do I have of the Bible for morality if it is not the standard? It may contain excellent expositions of what we might call good, but it is not its source. Joining a particular Christian sect just shifts the standard to the person reading the text from a raised platform at the front of the room. I choose not to abdicate thinking about my existence to anyone, let alone someone that invokes books claimed to be inspired by god that were actually written by scientifically ignorant blood thirsty ancients.

I reject all god claims due to the lack of evidence. With god out of the way I reject all religions due to their lack of authority in matters of truth. I will consider specific religious tenants based on their adherence to reality. If someone can present evidence for god I will consider it. Even if god's existence were proved, assigning authorship of the Bible to this entity would be a herculean task.

[Tobie]

What? I doubt I will have an experience of god. Most experiences are probably from wishful thinking.

It doesn't have to be "of god". Check out what spockates just conveyed.

Still, if it happened, it could be a lucky guess, or something of the ilk - no evidence of any supernatural force or psychic powers. People who believe in psychics, or supernatural beings would readily attribute it to psychic powers etc, but they have no reason to - unless they actually detected their use.