Why your exsistence is more worthless than you previousy thought it was.

[Ryantology]

It isn't a delusion if there's a good chance it might actually be true if there are good reasons to believe it. It's still a faith if you can't be factually certain but you can't be factually certain that atheism is true either. You have a belief you have based on what you consider to be good reasons/arguments, what you feel to be true and whatever.

The trouble is, you don't actually have any good reasons to believe what you believe, nor any good arguments to support your belief. Every justification for every theist claim I've ever encountered can be easily whittled down to "I believe it because I want it to be true".

I believe what is true, or what has been shown to be likely. Even if I can't completely rule out certain things as possibilities, I can rule out certain things as being of exceptionally low probability. If there is no actual need for a creator, and no creator ever makes himself known to anybody in any measurable way, we're not left with any reason to think of this creator as anything but fictional, even if we liked the idea of that creator and wanted it to be true. It is at this point where belief becomes a choice based upon wish fulfillment.

But seriously, don't assume that your beliefs and your faith deserve equal recognition just because we have our own measures of belief or faith. You don't base your beliefs on anything but your own desires and your faith in them is entirely driven by self-interest. We tailor our expectations to match reality. You struggle to force reality to confirm your expectations. As the last 500 years has so artfully demonstrated, the more people know, the more difficult your job gets.

[Sword of Christ]

The trouble is, you don't actually have any good reasons to believe

If I didn't then I wouldn't believe in it so I'm fairly sure that I do, certainly I'll know more about the good reasons I have than yourself.

nor any good arguments to support your belief.

Masses of very good arguments, not scientific arguments but I'm a bit tired of having to explain that you can't demonstrate Gods existence through science/direct observation. For scientific arguments the best you can do is go into the fine tuning business. It could still have done all this by pure coincidence but I'm not sure how that's more likely or less extraordinary than the alternative, given everything that was involved and the sheer amount of order and complexity of it.

Every justification for every theist claim I've ever encountered can be easily whittled down to "I believe it because I want it to be true".

Atheist arguments against Gods existence keep referring to science but most theists aren't trying to argue against science or claim there is any scientific proof of God or that there ever can be such a thing. Science is limited to what you can see/detect and that's it.

If there is no actual need for a creator

You will need something eternal beyond the universe to cause the universe to exist in the first place if it's finite in itself. That's the bare minimum of what you need.

and no creator ever makes himself known to anybody in any measurable way

The point being made is that he made himself "known" to someone at some point and we have the revelation from that. Differences of opinion on exactly what was revealed to who and when there are different faiths and interpretations.

You don't base your beliefs on anything but your own desires and your faith in them is entirely driven by self-interest.

A bit of a baseless accusation I don't see where you're getting this from.

We tailor our expectations to match reality. You struggle to force reality to confirm your expectations.

There is no need to force God into reality if God is the whole entire basis for reality in the first place. What do you think the basis of reality is?

As the last 500 years has so artfully demonstrated, the more people know, the more difficult your job gets.

A little bit of knowledge takes you away from God and a lot of knowledge brings you closer to God.

[Alex K]

Ladies and Gentlemen, fasten your brainbelts, SoC is bringing out the Presup Hammer!

[Ryantology]

If I didn't then I wouldn't believe in it so I'm fairly sure that I do, certainly I'll know more about the good reasons I have than yourself.

You believe in it because there's a part of you that stopped maturing at the age of three.

Masses of very good arguments, not scientific arguments but I'm a bit tired of having to explain that you can't demonstrate Gods existence through science/direct observation. For scientific arguments the best you can do is go into the fine tuning business. It could still have done all this by pure coincidence but I'm not sure how that's more likely or less extraordinary than the alternative, given everything that was involved and the sheer amount of order and complexity of it.

I'm a bit tired of you guys never demonstrating God's existence by any means at all. Shit or get off the pot.

Atheist arguments against Gods existence keep referring to science but most theists aren't trying to argue against science or claim there is any scientific proof of God or that there ever can be such a thing. Science is limited to what you can see/detect and that's it.

Whereas faith is limited only by whatever you can pull out of your ass.

You will need something eternal beyond the universe to cause the universe to exist in the first place if it's finite in itself. That's the bare minimum of what you need.

We don't know that the universe is finite, and even if it is, there's no need for an intelligent creator, and if there is, we have to establish the cause of that creator. You have a lot of homework to do.

The point being made is that he made himself "known" to someone at some point and we have the revelation from that. Differences of opinion on exactly what was revealed to who and when there are different faiths and interpretations.

Nothing was revealed to anybody. You're all just crazy, to some greater or lesser extent.

A bit of a baseless accusation I don't see where you're getting this from.

From every single interaction I've had with a theist. Including you.

There is no need to force God into reality if God is the whole entire basis for reality in the first place. What do you think the basis of reality is?

I don't know. Neither do you. You're just not honest about it.

A little bit of knowledge takes you away from God and a lot of knowledge brings you closer to God.

And idiotic platitudes put you right up God's ass.

[Esquilax]

A little bit of knowledge takes you away from God and a lot of knowledge brings you closer to God.

Hey Sword, would you like to debate? Like, a proper, real debate in the debate area?

You say you've got lots of proper, justified and rational reasons to believe in god, and I disagree, but you never really seem to present any of them. I guess that's okay since it stops thread derailment, but I'd kinda like to see what you've got, and this'd be a good way to get your position across in such a way that your regular posts stop seeming so... assertioney.

Hey, if your position is as well situated as you think it is, you'll win, right?

[bennyboy]

Atheist arguments against Gods existence keep referring to science but most theists aren't trying to argue against science or claim there is any scientific proof of God or that there ever can be such a thing. Science is limited to what you can see/detect and that's it.

If you can't see/detect it, then what's left? Believing third-party reports of what someone else claims to have seen/detected. Now, third parties have claimed to see: leprechauns, fairies, demons, unicorns, chakras, auras, spirits, past lives, and God.

You will need something eternal beyond the universe to cause the universe to exist in the first place if it's finite in itself. That's the bare minimum of what you need.

Adding another entity into infinite regress doesn't simplifying anything-- it makes it more complicated by one element. Who made God? You can babble about God being timeless and therefore uncreated, but you could say the same thing about the Big Bang, or about Yin/Yang, or about Krsna.

he made himself "known" to someone at some point and we have the revelation from that. Differences of opinion on exactly what was revealed to who and when there are different faiths and interpretations.

If I tell you that God presented himself directly to me, and that I'm therefore an extra-special snowflake whom you must follow and obey, do you: a) get swept away in a fit of hysteria, and wipe my feet with your hair, and sell your house to support my ministry? b) tell me I'm deluded and need to fuck off before you punch me?

By what criteria are you going to take a tall tale, and decide that instead of being deluded ramblings of some dude who starved himself in the desert for forty days, it's the word of God?

You don't base your beliefs on anything but your own desires and your faith in them is entirely driven by self-interest.

A bit of a baseless accusation I don't see where you're getting this from.

His point is that since there's no rational reason to believe in God, you must be using non-rational (i.e. emotional) motivations for sustaining your belief. If so, you are using your intellect to cover-up your emotional motivations for including fantastical ideas in your everyday world view.

[Alex K]

Is there a formal debate area on this forum which enforces some kind of format?

Sounds interesting, however, I have my reservations against debates and deciding issues by winning and loosing debates.

[Esquilax]

Is there a formal debate area on this forum which enforces some kind of format?

Sounds interesting, however, I have my reservations against debates and deciding issues by winning and loosing debates.

Yeah, there's a debate subforum in the philosophy section. And while I don't think we'll be able to settle the god question in an internet debate, it'll have served its use if I can get a constructed, measured argument from the guy that's supported by information that I can address.

We'll see how that goes, anyway.

[Tonus]

A debate against someone who backs his assertions with more assertions seems pointless.

[Alex K]

A debate against someone who backs his assertions with more assertions seems pointless.

Yeah, usually that should lead to losing the debate. In reality, it rarely does because if the audience is not unusually savvy, the opponent must actively expose this tactic effectively in addition to making her own case. This is why debates are not very useful for determining truth.