What is Your Approach?

[Whateverist]

If you were truly interested in something more than confirming what you started out believing, I would think you'd be at most agnostic. But you 'feel' you have reason to think Jesus is the way, apart from your personal circumstances.

Frankly I think you'd do better just to cop to the fact that you believe because you want to believe and because -as you more or less said- you just like life better believing in God. Fine. Go with that. But then you should really set the John Locke mantle aside.

Your search is not really for the Truth, you are quite prepared to settle for evidence which allows you to go on believing what you want to believe. I'm not really interested in helping you find that 'truth' so I think you and I are done. Best of luck.

[Crossless2.0]

Evidence that the christian god doesn't exist perhaps? You can't prove a negative.

If that's the best argument, then why be gun-ho about Atheism either? Along that line of thinking, wouldn't it be equally incorrect? Why not just be Agnostic?

Many atheists (including me) also identify as agnostics. The lack of belief does not necessarily entail the making of a knowledge claim. There could be a god or gods (perhaps even Yahweh), but since those who believe in the existence of such entities have utterly failed to provide a single shred of good evidence in favor of their claims, the default position of doubt and disbelief seems most reasonable. I am not certain that there is not a deity of some sort. I am certain that I am not persuaded that there is.

The burden of evidence falls on the one who makes the claim, not otherwise.

[Cato]

But before we begin such an endeavor, we must honestly ask ourselves whether we are approaching the task with a determination to justify our opinions, negate another's stance, or discover the truth.

Verbosity does not equal evidence.

Provide evidence for your God or shut the fuck up.

[Angrboda]

[fr0d0]

The evidence is already there cato. What you now need is to understand it.

[Silver]

The evidence is already there.

Simply stating it and believing it with all your heart does not make it thus.

[Rahul]

If that's the best argument, then why be gun-ho about Atheism either? Along that line of thinking, wouldn't it be equally incorrect? Why not just be Agnostic?

If you look at my religious views listed up in my header you will see I say that I am an Agnostic Atheist. This is what the average person considers an agnostic.

Agnostic = Agnostic Atheist/Weak Atheist
Atheist = Strong Atheist

The vast majority of atheists are Agnostic Atheists. I no more believe in Yahweh than Thor or Odin.

It is the most logical stance in my opinion.

[Tonus]

If that's the best argument, then why be gun-ho about Atheism either? Along that line of thinking, wouldn't it be equally incorrect? Why not just be Agnostic?

I think that few atheists are gung-ho about it, since atheism just means we do not believe in god. Some atheists claim to be certain that there is no god, but most of us are not concerned with proving that he doesn't exist. We are more interested in seeing if anyone who does believe in god can present a compelling case that stands up to scrutiny.

[Esquilax]

The evidence is already there cato. What you now need is to understand it.

That's funny, I've seen you claim in many threads that proof of god is an impossibility.

What I also like is the standard theistic retort when they don't actually have evidence: "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me then there's something wrong with you and the way you're looking at things."

[pocaracas]

The other big reason is that I heard the Bible has contradictions, extreme inconsistencies and errors, and historical inaccuracy, but when I looked into it myself I found all those claims to be bias and false..

Maybe this guy, who teaches christian historicity at some bible-belt seminary is biased...?





enjoy!