reasons to believe, there is no God

[tavarish]

God said it.

I believe it.

That settles it!

[Watson]

I swear, between you and Minimalist, I'm going to have a brain aneurism trying to explain all of this to you.

How many times do I have to say that I came to my own conclusions about the world?! Something you cannot possibly have done, because of the very fundamental basics of labeling oneself an atheist.

[Tiberius]

So by labelling myself an atheist, someone who doesn't believe God exists, it means that I haven't come to my own conclusions about the world?

I just want you to confirm that's what you mean before I say "WTF" repeatedly.

[Watson]

Not at all, but it means you deny certain things and parts of yourself which are very real. More and more I see that the label of atheist confines one's thought processes...only to that of an atheist. You can not be a free-thinker and an atheist at the same time, it just does not work.

[tavarish]

I swear, between you and Minimalist, I'm going to have a brain aneurism trying to explain all of this to you.

How many times do I have to say that I came to my own conclusions about the world?! Something you cannot possibly have done, because of the very fundamental basics of labeling oneself an atheist.

You came to your own conclusions, which just happen to believe that God had a son and killed him 2000 years ago to rid us of our sins from birth.

Right.

It's simply not possible I came to my own conclusions because apparently it's impossible to make informed decisions without having to resort to supernatural explanations.

You truly are a free thinker. I commend you.

[Watson]

I came to what now? Wrong. I came to the conclusion, by observing reality, that it is entirely within God's nature to do something such as having a son 2000 years ago. That does not necessarily mean it happened, it just means that it could happen.

You limit yourself to a word, I do not. That's the biiiig difference here.

[Tiberius]

Not at all, but it means you deny certain things and parts of yourself which are very real. More and more I see that the label of atheist confines one's thought processes...only to that of an atheist. You can not be a free-thinker and an atheist at the same time, it just does not work.

I don't deny anything. You don't need to deny anything in order to not believe something. I'm open to any persuasive argument for the existence of God, I just haven't seen any yet.

You can easily be a free thinker and an atheist at the same time, please show your reasoning that this is not the case. Free thinking is the ability to think without restricting to dogmas, of which atheism has none. Devoutly religious people are incapable of being freethinkers, as are some atheists who subscribe to a strict "God does not exist" belief, but to generalise atheists like this is ridiculous.

[tavarish]

I came to what now? Wrong. I came to the conclusion, by observing reality, that it is entirely within God's nature to do something such as having a son 2000 years ago. That does not necessarily mean it happened, it just means that it could happen.

You limit yourself to a word, I do not. That's the biiiig difference here.

You call yourself Christian, which means you abide by and acknowledge the Nicene Creed. You're not a biblical literalist, so I don't see you taking on a sola scriptura view. The big difference is you're wholly inconsistent and intellectually dishonest when it comes to articulating your point. You seem to be horribly misinformed and make ridiculously vapid claims when talking about free thinking and subscribing to a belief system. Your points have been addressed on multiple occasions, yet you still come back with the same garbage. You have a lot of growing to do.

[Loki_999]

I came to what now? Wrong. I came to the conclusion, by observing reality, that it is entirely within God's nature to do something such as having a son 2000 years ago. That does not necessarily mean it happened, it just means that it could happen.

You limit yourself to a word, I do not. That's the biiiig difference here.

And it is within the nature of the FSM to cause a rain of frogs and indeed, reading Charles Fort's books he recorded a rain of frogs. Ergo, the FSM exists.

The one thing that really bamboozles me about your post is that by observing reality you concluded that its within God's nature to have a son..... erm, exactly what part of observing nature led you this conclusion?

[Violet]

I came to what now? Wrong. I came to the conclusion, by observing reality, that it is entirely within God's nature to do something such as having a son 2000 years ago. That does not necessarily mean it happened, it just means that it could happen.

There is an interesting thing about reality that I've noticed... it's that if something didn't happen, it probably couldn't have happened. If it isn't possible without changing the things, place, or the time they were there... then it wasn't possible.

To illustrate this... say I am playing a game of chess with a friend. They have lost the last 5 consecutive games, and are clearly not having fun any more. I again have the chance to checkmate them, and instead choose to trade my queen with my friend's knight (Because of wanting my friend to have more fun, and perhaps more selfishly to keep them playing).

You might say "Well, you could have checkmated them"... but for that to be true: my disposition towards my friend would have had to have been different (or any number of modifications to the situation to allow such an outcome). Another example that might be simpler: I am 'physically' capable of intentionally killing you... but I really couldn't. Why? Because of my mental state.

So while you say it could happen that "God" had a son 2000 years ago... I say that it depends fully on wether it happened or not.