Why do you believe in God?

[Edwardo Piet]

@ the OP

Why do I get asked for reasons for believing in the existence for something I don't believe in?

Why is the sky married to french toast?

Why are 98 percent of people asexual?

Why do crocodiles love peanut butter more than meat?

Why don't you refine your question to address theists only?

[Lek]

No, the bible certainly does not paint god as a cream puff, more like a sadistic, homicidal, maniac.  And when he miraculously gave whole peoples into the Hebrew's hands he ordered genocide, not just allowed it, but required it.  And the reason? Well they happened to be sitting on the land he wanted to give the Hebrews.  It's ugly.  Very ugly.  And "he knows what's best," doesn't even begin to explain it.

The people that occupied these lands were very ugly. Did they bear any responsibility for their demise? Or were they just innocent victims? If someone were to wipe out ISIS today, would they be justified? If the "innocent" children who died quickly by the sword, whom I assume are with God, had grown up in that culture and died some other horrendous death, like maybe child sacrifice or a slow, agonizing death by disease, would they have been better off? Or was God kind to them? You know we all have to die sometime, by some means. Don't go off into the shpeel about that means that we can kill people and all that stuff because it's better for them. We're not in God's position and we're not allowed to make those kind of decisions.

Doesn't seem the least bit obvious to me.  Nor does the "option" seem fair or reasonable.  Believe in me against all reason and live forever.  Use the brain I made for you and die in a pit of fire.  It's more like Russian Roulette than an option.

And who is supposed have created us and this "tainted" world?  Oh yeah, this god guy.

If you're going to critique the God of the bible, then you must consider that he is omniscient. That means that he is smarter than you are. We also carry a responsibility for this "tainted" world when we do evil. We're not just innocent victims.

Everything but the grammar which is why every other Christian thinks it means something different.

(Referring to the Book of Revelation) I think that its primary message comes through very clearly. This message, written at a time of intense persecution of christians, is that God's followers will be vindicated and his enemies will receive justice. It was a message of hope for persecuted christians in the first century and is relevant today--especially for those who are under intense persecution at this time.

[Hatshepsut]

The atheist does not necessarily even discount the possibility of a god, just that the atheist does not yet believe that there is a god.

I will confess the theoretical possibility that a "non-discounting" atheist exists. Although this species is about as easy to detect as the Higgs boson.  

No, the bible certainly does not paint god as a cream puff, more like a sadistic, homicidal, maniac...

The people that occupied these lands were very ugly.  Did they bear any responsibility for their demise?

I suspect a failure to appreciate the many modes or aspects deity presents in. The world is ugly and there's the warlike, slaughterous deity implacable in fury. Yet there is also the lyrical deity resting quietly by the waterside, hymning the beauties of the sky and countryside. And even the remorseful deity who fears an uncertain future. Some religions have separate gods to display these aspects; the Abrahimic faiths combine them all into one. Or into a trinity. And so on. Only recently, with mass education and high tech, has it been where academic disciplines like science provide a framework for people to orient themselves with respect to the world.

[Jenny A]

No, the bible certainly does not paint god as a cream puff, more like a sadistic, homicidal, maniac.  And when he miraculously gave whole peoples into the Hebrew's hands he ordered genocide, not just allowed it, but required it.  And the reason? Well they happened to be sitting on the land he wanted to give the Hebrews.  It's ugly.  Very ugly.  And "he knows what's best," doesn't even begin to explain it.

The people that occupied these lands were very ugly.  Did they bear any responsibility for their demise?  Or were they just innocent victims?  If someone were to wipe out ISIS today, would they be justified?  If the "innocent" children who died quickly by the sword, whom I assume are with God, had grown up in that culture and died some other horrendous death, like maybe child sacrifice or a slow, agonizing death by disease, would they have been better off?  Or was God kind to them?  You know we all have to die sometime, by some means.  Don't go off into the shpeel about that means that we can kill people and all that stuff because it's better for them.  We're not in God's position and we're not allowed to make those kind of decisions.

That explanation is itself so ugly, I don't even know where to begin.  We could begin with the facts which don't suggest the Canaanites were particular immoral people.  There's no reason to believe Canaanites were any better or worse than anyone around them.  They worshiped gods other than Yahweh, but they so do did the Hebrews and virtually everyone else on the planet.  They appear to have been guilty of not being Hebrew and farming land god promised to the Hebrews.  I don't see any sign god, told them that though.  Culturally, they and the Hebrews were almost identical right down to circumcising their men.  Comparing them to ISIS is absurd.  And no moral person would consider killing all the infants born to members of ISIS or raping/enslaving ISIS women.  But that's what god demanded the Hebrews do to the Canaanites.

And no, I don't buy for an instant the idea that those children were better off dead early.  We do all die sometime, but that doesn't justify killing anyone early.  

If you're going to critique  the God of the bible, then you must consider that he is omniscient.  That means that he is smarter than you are.  We also carry a responsibility for this "tainted" world when we do evil.  We're not just innocent victims.

Sorry but babies are innocent victims.  And very few people do such harm in the world that they deserve an early violent death. What god commanded added to that "taint" not took it away.  If god knows better, than he's piss poor at explaining himself.

Everything but the grammar which is why every other Christian thinks it means something different.

(Referring to the Book of Revelation) I think that its primary message comes through very clearly.  This message, written at a time of intense persecution of christians, is that God's followers will be vindicated and his enemies will receive justice.  It was a message of hope for persecuted christians in the first century and is relevant today--especially for those who are under intense persecution at this time.

Delivered in numerology and metaphor, that's certainly a possible interpretation, so are the many crackpot after-days stories.  As for currently persecuted Christians I have a hard time imagining a less persecuted group.  Yes, there are a small group persecuted in Islamic countries.  Otherwise you are a privileged majority calling wolf. Shame.

[Hatshepsut]

The people that occupied these lands were very ugly.  Did they bear any responsibility for their demise?

That explanation is itself so ugly...There's no reason to believe Canaanites were any better or worse than anyone around them.  They worshiped gods other than Yahweh...appear[ing] to have been guilty of not being Hebrew and farming land god promised to the Hebrews.

I generally agree with this assessment. In fact, the other Canaanites may not have even suffered a total demise, as the biblical passages describing Hebrew/Canaanite conflict are heady war propaganda broadsheets giving us the Hebrew take on the matter. The other Canaanites presumably held a reciprocal opinion of Hebrews, but they were still pre-literate so we don't have a record of their thinking, at least until the Phonecians of Byblos, etc.