I was just in a debate with a christian

[Sword of Christ]

Foolish? No, I'd just alter my beliefs to accept the new reality and accept that I was wrong like a mature, rational adult.

You will still feel like a naive twit the very least when you realize what you spent you're life in opposition to was right all along, especially when there was some kind of spiritual development or closeness to God you never developed. So even if you don't spend an eternity in hell or whatever it's still a risk only an atheist has. For a believer the only risk is being wrong about some minor detail or other. There are literally billions of people in the world who mistaken as a fact about something of course.

only one here who seems to think being proven wrong is a bad thing, is you.

If you're an atheist it's bad to be wrong and it's bad to be right, though you can only ever be proved to be wrong so wrong is all you can be. If you're 100% guaranteed to be wrong in practice you may as well not believe in it.

[Tonus]

I'd rather be wrong believing what I believe than right believing what you lot believe regardless.

In other words...

[Esquilax]

You will still feel like a naive twit the very least when you realize what you spent you're life in opposition to was right all along, especially when there was some kind of spiritual development or closeness to God you never developed.

Wow, you're telling me how I'd feel, now? We still haven't met, have we?

I would feel, sir, the same way that I felt when I was able to correct my understanding of many other things in my life; happy that I've finally come that one notch closer to the truth. I would also be proud that I didn't bow to emotionally based arguments, and instead changed my mind only when there was sufficient evidence to justify this.

So even if you don't spend an eternity in hell or whatever it's still a risk only an atheist has. For a believer the only risk is being wrong about some minor detail or other. There are literally billions of people in the world who mistaken as a fact about something of course.

Why is it that you think discovery is a risk?

If you're an atheist it's bad to be wrong and it's bad to be right, though you can only ever be proved to be wrong so wrong is all you can be. If you're 100% guaranteed to be wrong in practice you may as well not believe in it.

This is, by far, the most nonsensical thing you've ever said.

More importantly, as I've repeated to you a couple of times now: I don't think you understand what atheism is.

[Alex K]

If you're an atheist it's bad to be wrong and it's bad to be right, though you can only ever be proved to be wrong so wrong is all you can be.

Oh if you are a christian theist, it's horrific to be right, all those souls in eternal torment, I think for the sake of those who are in hell, we should all hope for the oblivion atheists believe in, no? It surely outweighs us missing our eternal bliss - your hoping for heaven and hell to exists seems highly unethical to me, if not even immoral.

If you're 100% guaranteed to be wrong in practice you may as well not believe in it.

That's not how logic works. We are not 100% guaranteed to be wrong only because we cannot learn whether we are right.

[Sword of Christ]

In other words...

God is true, I don't know it's true but the better arguments are in favour of God and the evidence points that way. So what *Shockofgods voice* "proof and evidence do you have that atheism (naturalistic materialism is what he means by this) is accurate and correct"? If you have nothing at all to base this upon then it's as good as a blind faith in something you can't know. Particularly if you want to state that's "the truth", the truth because it's your own opinion? That's not how it works.

[Esquilax]

God is true, I don't know it's true but the better arguments are in favour of God and the evidence points that way. So what *Shockofgods voice* "proof and evidence do you have that atheism (naturalistic materialism is what he means by this) is accurate and correct?

I don't think you understand what atheism is.

[Sword of Christ]

Wow, you're telling me how I'd feel, now? We still haven't met, have we?

I can understand how someone in your situation would feel in this situation. Here you trying to argue that a belief in God is irrational when it will turn out that you were irrational all along for denying the obvious truth of the reality itself revealed to you in all it's fullness. Something to look forward to there.

I would feel, sir, the same way that I felt when I was able to correct my understanding of many other things in my life; happy that I've finally come that one notch closer to the truth.

You would have to accept God fully and be reborn into a new eternal life in God. It's something ideally you would like to do while you're still alive though as you can get the benefits of that right now. This isn't some kind of cold clinical understand but a complete transformation of your being. If you don't do this then you will have an eternal separation from God which is Hell.

I would also be proud that I didn't bow to emotionally based arguments, and instead changed my mind only when there was sufficient evidence to justify this.

If you have nothing specifically to base what you believe upon then emotion is all you have. There are plenty of rational things and evidences to base a belief in God/Christianity upon. Atheism is purely what you want to believe as there is nothing else to base it upon.

Why is it that you think discovery is a risk?

It's like you're at a feast, you have the feast of God at the table right in front of you and you aren't eating anything.

More importantly, as I've repeated to you a couple of times now: I don't think you understand what atheism is.

It doesn't involve the belief in the existence of God or any specifically defined supernatural higher reality beyond the physical universe of whatever form/name from what I understand. You can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

[Tonus]

God is true, I don't know it's true

This is as succinct a summation of your arguments so far as I have seen. You are right, you don't know it's true. It follows that you cannot demonstrate it. You cannot prove the thing you believe in. Therefore, I have no reason to believe it, as you cannot demonstrate it.

Hence, I think the following part of your post applies more accurately to you:

If you have nothing at all to base this upon then it's as good as a blind faith in something you can't know. Particularly if you want to state that's "the truth", the truth because it's your own opinion? That's not how it works.

My "basis" for my atheism is that I could not produce the god I believed in. So I stopped believing in him because, as you note, my opinion wasn't going to make him exist. So it follows that your opinion, backed by the opinion of others, is no more convincing. Especially when you admit that you cannot produce the god that you opine exists.

[Bad Wolf]

Another summary of SoCs argument:
'You gunna be sorry in the end ahahahaha, take that. Also, I don't know what atheism means'

[Esquilax]

I can understand how someone in your situation would feel in this situation. Here you trying to argue that a belief in God is irrational when it will turn out that you were irrational all along for denying the obvious truth of the reality itself revealed to you in all it's fullness. Something to look forward to there.

No kitten, I am perfectly rational to believe as I do now, when there is no evidence for a god. I may be incorrect, but I'm not irrational. Rational beliefs are held in closest accord with the available evidence, and since you've cheerfully admitted there can be no evidence for your god, the rational position is to not believe in one.

Your mean spirited little predictions as to how I feel might be appealing to you, in your sadistic little "ooh, he'll get his!" manner, but don't try to drag me down with you.

You would have to accept God fully and be reborn into a new eternal life in God. It's something ideally you would like to do while you're still alive though as you can get the benefits of that right now. This isn't some kind of cold clinical understand but a complete transformation of your being. If you don't do this then you will have an eternal separation from God which is Hell.

It's too bad that god values blind obedience and irrational belief so much, but I'm not going to be cajoled or threatened into selling out my principles, and if your god would send me to hell for using the mind he gave me to evaluate the world he put me in, if being sincerely incorrect is something worthy of punishment to him, then he's got a hell of a lot of explaining to do once I stand before him.

I simply don't understand why it pleases you to characterize your god as being that petty and small minded, though.

If you have nothing specifically to base what you believe upon then emotion is all you have.

No, if you have no evidence to base one's belief on, then you also have the absence of that evidence. That's sufficient, for now.

There are plenty of rational things and evidences to base a belief in God/Christianity upon.

So you keep saying, but when prompted to actually present any, you're remarkably quiet. I even challenged you to a formal debate to actually get some straight answers out of you as to what those reasons are without derailing a thread, but you've been silent on that front too.

Atheism is purely what you want to believe as there is nothing else to base it upon.

Since "nothing" is a good descriptor of the number of reasons to believe in god, I suppose you're correct. You know what it'll take to change my mind, however; why not meet me in a debate thread to seal that deal, if you're so confident?

It's like you're at a feast, you have the feast of God at the table right in front of you and you aren't eating anything.

No, what I've got is a bunch of people at a seemingly empty table miming eating motions and telling me how delicious all the food is, and then in the next breath telling me how the food can't be detected.

It doesn't involve the belief in the existence of God or any specifically defined supernatural higher reality beyond the physical universe of whatever form/name from what I understand. You can correct me if I'm wrong about this.

Take out the references to any other supernatural thing; atheism stops at disbelief in a god. You can be atheist and still believe in the supernatural, just not the godly supernatural. Like I've mentioned before, atheism and materialism aren't the same thing.