Atheists... why do you believe that God doesn't exist?

[fr0d0]

Heathens!

[Cyberman]

Believe me these guys here are much harder on an ABBA fan than a believer.

And with good reason.

[Brian37]

Believe me these guys here are much harder on an ABBA fan than a believer.

And with good reason.

You are working my last nerve here buddy, don't make me go all theist on your ass!

[MJ the Skeptical]

How does this religious person frodo have more rep points than the rest of you, very strange, especially since he's not very logical.

Because he's been around just about forever, and if you engage him on subjects other than religion, you may find he's actually quite a decent guy.

I agree, most religious people are probably decent people. That wasn't what I was bringing up though.

---

He's gotten 6 reps for every 1,000 posts.

I'm a theist on an atheist forum. I'm not here for reps dude.

Nobody said you were, unfounded assertion.

[Chas]

Are you, like ChadWooters, asserting that revelations are facts, or can be determined to be facts?

If so, on what basis? Someone's testimony?

If not, what are you reasoning from?

Information that convinces you of something... is that a fact? I think a fact is an objective truth. Sure we can all agree on some religious truths (I'm talking believer and non).

Yes it's shared experience. Assuming belief the pot of shared information becomes vastly bigger. Those objective truths suddenly expanded to include those components dependent upon belief.
The widest endeavor of humans into spirituality is the same subject. Much of it is dross and takes some rigor to navigate. We have a lot of information to go on.

What shared truths?

What objective truths?

What information?

You assert that there are shared religious truths. I can't think of a one.

[Whateverist]

Of course belief in the xtian god is not a matter of evidence or proof, it is a faith-option. It is the honoring of an inner hunch for which no corroborating evidence can be found. It is probably grounded in an impulse not to go through life as a muggle.

I wouldn't call logical deduction a hunch though.

Makes me wonder what exactly you have in mind. Logical deduction depends on ones premises and you can't use deduction to pick out the true ones. I guess it comes down to eye-witness accounts and so on? (Beware confirmation bias.)

... I still say there is no justification for bringing the bible into it. It is a hedging of faith. It is like someone who can make no use of their intuition without taking out a deck of Tarot cards. A bible may serve the same function but there is no justification for choosing between tarot cards, the bible or tea leaves. Whatever gets you in touch with the mystery will do, but all will fuck with you if you mistake the medium for the message.

I'm not talking about tarot cards or using the bible as an intuitive focus. People can use reason to compare a revealed text with other sources, like archeological artifacts and other documents, to decide whether to trust the revelation or not. You cannot say there is no evidence, but it is fair to question the evidence presented. As for me, I wish there were earlier records, more gospel accounts, and independent contemporary supporting documents. There aren't, but I consider what we do have sufficient to make Judeism and Christianity religions in which reasonable and intelligent people can follow.

I'm not sure there are any religions which can't be reasonably and intelligently followed by people raised in the appropriate settings. I'm surprised you would want to make the claim that only the religion that is part of your cultural milieu passes the objective test of reasonableness. That does seem to leave you open to the charge of being, if not xenophobic, at least provincial.


You both seem eager to claim that reason leads to theism. I think the most you can claim is that reason doesn't rule it out. But I think Chad goes way to far in claiming that reason specifically leads only to the religions with which he happens to be best acquainted.

[microxone]

for me, there is no credible reason to believe the existence of any type of god, same thing with after life. The only thing that affects us on our situation is how we feel, and what we do, it have nothing to do with god answering prayers or whatnot.

[Whateverist]

for me, there is no credible reason to believe the existence of any type of god, same thing with after life. The only thing that affects us on our situation is how we feel, and what we do, it have nothing to do with god answering prayers or whatnot.

On a literal level of course I agree. But then if you've ever really been depressed you know that how you feel about things - all joy and insight - can leave you. Then you'll know how very helpless we really are and how dependent we are on .. I don't know what. Life, identity and consciousness are a mystery. Somewhere beneath us there are so many things holding us up. The uninitiated will say it is just chemistry and science will over come. But I think the mystery goes deeper than that. I think there is more to each one of us than our offhand whim. You can move toward or away from your true identity (ie, that which goes deeper than your offhand whim). I think how you feel will respond accordingly. That isn't to say there isn't a capacity for plain old biological malfunction. But I do think it is also possible to screw it up through operator error.

Okay that was pretty over the top but I guess I had a little bit to say.

[Losty]

I don't necessarily believe that god doesn't exist. I just don't believe that god does exist...due to lack of evidence

[fr0d0]

What shared truths?

What objective truths?

What information?

You assert that there are shared religious truths. I can't think of a one.

The golden rule seems to be widely accepted, for example.

Objective truth: I was erring on your side.

Information: resources of literature etc.

---

Makes me wonder what exactly you have in mind. Logical deduction depends on ones premises and you can't use deduction to pick out the true ones. I guess it comes down to eye-witness accounts and so on? (Beware confirmation bias.)

You both seem eager to claim that reason leads to theism. I think the most you can claim is that reason doesn't rule it out. But I think Chad goes way to far in claiming that reason specifically leads only to the religions with which he happens to be best acquainted.

I agree with Chad. The logical conclusions that I have made lead specifically to Christianity. I don't rule out any other explanation and believe that I should question and doubt my stance. But I am quite confident in holding it.