Theists - how certain are you that a God exists?

[Godscreated]

I'm 100% sure God exists, no doubts at all, the NT teaches that we can know God, I do.

GC

My daughter was 100% sure her invisible playmate existed too. She grew up.

No she didn't.

GC

[Redbeard The Pink]

It certainly the fuck does not; you're absolutely right, though probably not in the way you're thinking.


So? The Quran teaches that there is no Gaud but Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. Buddhism teaches that we can break the cycle of reincarnation by sitting perfectly still for long enough. The Lord of the Rings teaches that Gandalf sacrificed himself so that Frodo could carry the One Ring out of Morea. What's your fucking point?

Unlike you I know for sure.

GC

To know something, you have to have some evidence. You believe. There's a difference. I used to believe in Jesus with such conviction that I went around telling people I knew he existed. I now realize what an asinine statement that is.

You think you know, and I doubt anything will change that. Nevertheless, you're wrong and are just misusing the word to rhetorically strengthen your position. It's not working.

[robvalue]

The thing about certainty is you can feel certain and still be wrong. You can't just erase the possibility of being wrong by saying so.

[Godscreated]

Unlike you I know for sure.

GC

To know something, you have to have some evidence. You believe. There's a difference. I used to believe in Jesus with such conviction that I went around telling people I knew he existed. I now realize what an asinine statement that is.

You think you know, and I doubt anything will change that. Nevertheless, you're wrong and are just misusing the word to rhetorically strengthen your position. It's not working.

No one asked me to make it work, just what I know. Unlike you I know for certain that the God of the Bible exists. You could have never believed as I do or you would not have become an atheist. You're the one who's wrong and like I've told others death will reveal the truth to you.

GC

[Kingpin]

And here is the impasse because the theist will argue the same for those holding an atheistic perspective.  There was another thread on here (trying to find it) about how people became an atheist and the vast majority was because of the church or the indoctrination, etc mostly emotion based reasons.  Our emotional preference has no bearing on what is true and real.

In all honesty and seriousness, emotion had practically nothing to do with my de-conversion. I was at a comfortable, happy place in life, and there was no tumult going on that was making me angry or causing me to question. I stopped calling myself a christian for the same reason I stopped calling myself a Republican in college: the evidence added up until I was no longer able to logically or morally defend my position, so I realized my position needed to change based on the evidence at hand. For me, the final straw was when I tripped over convincing evidence of the Christ Myth theory. When I realized that the claims for historicity were based on such bad arguments and evidence, and then stepped back and realized that ALL of it is based on the same terrible arguments and evidence, I just couldn't do it any more. Logic is what de-converted me, not emotion. I can't speak for anyone else.

The simple fact is that regardless of which is actually true, atheism is logical, while theism is not. Until further evidence (of the empirical, peer-reviewable kind) surfaces, that is completely true. Even if some atheists are atheists because of emotional reasons, their position of belief is still more logically sound than any theist because theism is unreasonable and illogical.

So I have a question.  Let's assume atheism is indeed true.  Would it not follow that each person finds their own meaning and purpose?  If I find that meaning in believing there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created us all, does that not satisfy the existential search for meaning?  Why then do you devote days and hours posting on a bulletin board to prove there is no FSM?  That person finds their meaning just the same as you do.  You can call them a quack and move on.  Why are you looking for empirical evidence of this FSM?  Is it because you are searching for an ultimate meaning?  

Theism is unreasonable and illogical, ok so essentially they are crazy and akin to "believing" in the tooth fairy for which there is no evidence only stories.  Correct?  What does it say about someone who continues to try and have the "crazy" people prove to them that their fantasies are real?  Do you really desire to be crazy as well?

[Crossless2.0]

To know something, you have to have some evidence. You believe. There's a difference. I used to believe in Jesus with such conviction that I went around telling people I knew he existed. I now realize what an asinine statement that is.

You think you know, and I doubt anything will change that. Nevertheless, you're wrong and are just misusing the word to rhetorically strengthen your position. It's not working.

No one asked me to make it work, just what I know. Unlike you I know for certain that the God of the Bible exists. You could have never believed as I do or you would not have become an atheist. You're the one who's wrong and like I've told others death will reveal the truth to you.

GC

Or not.  Pascal's Wager doesn't cut it around here.  Even someone as stone dense as you should have figured that out by now.

We all know how it warms your heart to think of those who dismiss you as getting what you think they have coming to them, much as you claim otherwise.  It's ok, GC, let that inner Tertullian out.  Let him run free.  Wallow in your anticipatory schadenfreude.  Enjoy yourself.  You're not fooling anyone with your fake concern over our eternal fate; you're simply unable to conceal your gloating.  So let it out, you petulant child of Christ.

It's not like you can do much at this point to lower anyone's opinion of you.  You buried that bar a long time ago.

[Redbeard The Pink]

No one asked me to make it work, just what I know. Unlike you I know for certain that the God of the Bible exists. You could have never believed as I do or you would not have become an atheist. You're the one who's wrong and like I've told others death will reveal the truth to you.

GC

No, you don't. You just think you know because you don't understand the basis of knowledge.

And yes, I did believe as you do. In fact, I probably believed even more strongly than you. Being a natural empath, my emotions are powerful and I feel them deeply, which is probably why it took so long for my logic to unseat my faith. If I hadn't believed as strongly as I had, I certainly would have de-converted sooner, and I wouldn't have been so deep into ministry and prayer rituals. I even kicked a "ghost" out of someone's house one time, and did a good enough job that it fooled everyone involved (myself included).

I know full well the kind of mental gymnastics it takes for an otherwise sound, intelligent mind to protect its faith in non-evident phenomena. Your insistence that you know what I do or don't believe is only more evidence that you are a pretentious, presumptuous, self-righteous shitbag.

[Pyrrho]

In all honesty and seriousness, emotion had practically nothing to do with my de-conversion. I was at a comfortable, happy place in life, and there was no tumult going on that was making me angry or causing me to question. I stopped calling myself a christian for the same reason I stopped calling myself a Republican in college: the evidence added up until I was no longer able to logically or morally defend my position, so I realized my position needed to change based on the evidence at hand. For me, the final straw was when I tripped over convincing evidence of the Christ Myth theory. When I realized that the claims for historicity were based on such bad arguments and evidence, and then stepped back and realized that ALL of it is based on the same terrible arguments and evidence, I just couldn't do it any more. Logic is what de-converted me, not emotion. I can't speak for anyone else.

The simple fact is that regardless of which is actually true, atheism is logical, while theism is not. Until further evidence (of the empirical, peer-reviewable kind) surfaces, that is completely true. Even if some atheists are atheists because of emotional reasons, their position of belief is still more logically sound than any theist because theism is unreasonable and illogical.

So I have a question.  Let's assume atheism is indeed true.  Would it not follow that each person finds their own meaning and purpose?  If I find that meaning in believing there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created us all, does that not satisfy the existential search for meaning?  Why then do you devote days and hours posting on a bulletin board to prove there is no FSM?  That person finds their meaning just the same as you do.  You can call them a quack and move on.  Why are you looking for empirical evidence of this FSM?  Is it because you are searching for an ultimate meaning?  

Theism is unreasonable and illogical, ok so essentially they are crazy and akin to "believing" in the tooth fairy for which there is no evidence only stories.  Correct?  What does it say about someone who continues to try and have the "crazy" people prove to them that their fantasies are real?  Do you really desire to be crazy as well?

When followers of the FSM try to force their views on others, and dictate laws based on their religion, then it will be time to argue against them.  You see, Christians and other religious idiots are not simply believing something false, they are a danger to others and will not keep their stupid, idiotic nonsense to themselves.  So they need to be shown to be the stupid fools that they are, and they need to be prevented from harming others.

The FSM is harmless, and, in fact, is useful in mocking the stupidity that is religion.  That is why we don't spend much time arguing against the FSM.  If Christianity were harmless, practically no one would bother arguing against it.

[Redbeard The Pink]

So I have a question.  Let's assume atheism is indeed true.  Would it not follow that each person finds their own meaning and purpose?  If I find that meaning in believing there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created us all, does that not satisfy the existential search for meaning?  Why then do you devote days and hours posting on a bulletin board to prove there is no FSM?  That person finds their meaning just the same as you do.  You can call them a quack and move on.  Why are you looking for empirical evidence of this FSM?  Is it because you are searching for an ultimate meaning?  

Theism is unreasonable and illogical, ok so essentially they are crazy and akin to "believing" in the tooth fairy for which there is no evidence only stories.  Correct?  What does it say about someone who continues to try and have the "crazy" people prove to them that their fantasies are real?  Do you really desire to be crazy as well?

When followers of the FSM try to force their views on others, and dictate laws based on their religion, then it will be time to argue against them.  You see, Christians and other religious idiots are not simply believing something false, they are a danger to others and will not keep their stupid, idiotic nonsense to themselves.  So they need to be shown to be the stupid fools that they are, and they need to be prevented from harming others.

The FSM is harmless, and, in fact, is useful in mocking the stupidity that is religion.  That is why we don't spend much time arguing against the FSM.  If Christianity were harmless, practically no one would bother arguing against it.

That, and I just enjoy ridiculing Theists by highlighting their bullshit because I'm kinda mean. I never said I was a good person or a role model.

[Kingpin]

So I have a question.  Let's assume atheism is indeed true.  Would it not follow that each person finds their own meaning and purpose?  If I find that meaning in believing there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster that created us all, does that not satisfy the existential search for meaning?  Why then do you devote days and hours posting on a bulletin board to prove there is no FSM?  That person finds their meaning just the same as you do.  You can call them a quack and move on.  Why are you looking for empirical evidence of this FSM?  Is it because you are searching for an ultimate meaning?  

Theism is unreasonable and illogical, ok so essentially they are crazy and akin to "believing" in the tooth fairy for which there is no evidence only stories.  Correct?  What does it say about someone who continues to try and have the "crazy" people prove to them that their fantasies are real?  Do you really desire to be crazy as well?

When followers of the FSM try to force their views on others, and dictate laws based on their religion, then it will be time to argue against them.  You see, Christians and other religious idiots are not simply believing something false, they are a danger to others and will not keep their stupid, idiotic nonsense to themselves.  So they need to be shown to be the stupid fools that they are, and they need to be prevented from harming others.

The FSM is harmless, and, in fact, is useful in mocking the stupidity that is religion.  That is why we don't spend much time arguing against the FSM.  If Christianity were harmless, practically no one would bother arguing against it.

And again I ask if atheism is true and there is no ultimate meaning except for what each person finds for themselves, how is sharing their beliefs "harming others"?  Harming in what way?  Could that not be flipped around in you proselytizing you belief that there is no God on me, "harming me"?  Now for sake of argument, let's forget about the radical bible thumpers yelling from the street corner, because I would be right next to you yelling at those morons.  But in normal everyday conversation if you meet someone that says they are a Christian do you feel it necessary to engage them on that point?  Or do you reserve the engaging only if they try to talk to you about believing what they believe?

You state that Christians are believing something false but do you know that with 100% certainty?  I am a Christian and I keep that to myself but if asked my beliefs I will not deny them.  If we met in real life, would you have an issue with me solely on my belief (because as you state I believe in something untrue and am a potential danger to others) or would we be cool (assuming personalities aren't conflicting) unless I start telling you to believe what I do?

I have many atheist friends.  I even have hindu and muslim friends.  I have respect for their own views, we have had discussions on differing viewpoints, but I don't feel any are trying to persuade me to their belief only giving their own reasons for their belief.  That's what I try to do here.  I defend my position on why I believe what I do, but that it is no way trying to persuade you to my side.