why not believe in God!

[ibelieve04142000]

I just simply choose to believe instead of not believe.

Exactly. Whereas I look at the claim of a god's existence critically and find no compelling reasons to believe they are true. Critical thinking: what a concept.

Good job I am glad you can make your own decisions, we both will have to live with what we believe so wow I feel that really have gotten somewhere in this conversation. Thanks for your input again your very entertaining.

[Minimalist]

It's called 'life long indoctrination'. Allow yourself to break free from superstition and free your mind. Why hold on to childish delusions when freedom of thought is right there for the taking? Come on... you know you doubt those silly stories you've been told. Don't be blinded by the light. Turn away and see the truth revealed.

If we had opened our eyes to the light under the shadows
of St. Peter's at Rome, we should have been devout Catholics; born in the
Jewish quarter of Aleppo, we should have contemned Christ as an
imposter; in Constantinople, we should have cried "Allah il Allah, God is
great and Mahomet is his prophet!" Birth, place, and education give us our
faith. Few believe in any religion because they have examined the
evidences of its authenticity, and made up a formal judgment, upon
weighing the testimony. Not one man in ten thousand knows anything
about the proofs of his faith. We believe what we are taught; and those are
most fanatical who know least of the evidences on which their creed is
based.

--Brig. Gen Albert Pike, C.S.A.

[downbeatplumb]

And beware of massive fallacies such as this:

Personally I dont believe in god because there is no evidence, none, nada, zip for any such creature.

I know your stance that there can be no evidence because 'god exists outside of our experience'.
The problem with this view is it is just plain stupid.
What difference is there in there not being a god and there being a god that has no discernable effect?
Your whole stance is an excuse to explain why the universe looks like there is no god

[theVOID]

And beware of massive fallacies such as this:

Personally I dont believe in god because there is no evidence, none, nada, zip for any such creature.

Come on fr0d0, you've never presented a single logical argument for God the entire time I've known you, you've even admitted you weren't capable - Yet here you are criticizing a bare assertion fallacy in colloquial conversation...

FAIL

[Entropist]

I had one of you atheist say there is no absolutes.

Assuming you are referring to my earlier post, I did not say there were no absolutes-- I said there is no such thing as absolute certainty. Nuance.

[fr0d0]

Come on fr0d0, you've never presented a single logical argument for God the entire time I've known you, you've even admitted you weren't capable - Yet here you are criticizing a bare assertion fallacy in colloquial conversation...

You miss the point VOID because you're only interested in your own subject, and throw the toys out of the pram rather than discuss anything rationally. You have seen and accepted much logical reasoning yet you blank that out for some reason unbeknown to me. Oh yes... to believe in God you have to have "proof he exists"... that's what Christianity is about... lmao. Get a grip VOID. Try discussing historicity with someone interested in the subject rather than hide away in here... or maybe you know your arguments are weak.

[Minimalist]

Oh yes... to believe in God you have to have "proof he exists"...

To "believe" in anything I would need proof it exists. Otherwise, you could posit invisible pink unicorns and we'd have to treat that as "reality" also.

Considering all the human blood, treasure, and energy wasted on your god throughout the centuries don't you think it would be at least useful if there actually were one?

[fr0d0]

Proof is in the bible Min. Many very scholarly types (Christadelphians; Jehovas Witnesses) miss the point too.

[theVOID]

You miss the point VOID because you're only interested in your own subject, and throw the toys out of the pram rather than discuss anything rationally. You have seen and accepted much logical reasoning yet you blank that out for some reason unbeknown to me. Oh yes... to believe in God you have to have "proof he exists"... that's what Christianity is about... lmao. Get a grip VOID. Try discussing historicity with someone interested in the subject rather than hide away in here... or maybe you know your arguments are weak.

You don't get it do you? My standards are far too high to permit acceptance in your silly theology.

1)You have no evidence in indication of the existence of your Deity.

2)You have no valid argument supporting his existence.

3) Every single 'standard' you claim to have in determining the validity of belief is either ridiculously fallacious or can be used by any believer of any faith at all, no matter how contradictory or intentionally ridiculous, to also 'validate' their minds.

4) You continue to talk about how your ability 'rationalise' your belief to yourself is important in determining the truth of your claims, but the next minuet will be entirely inconsistent in admittance that anyone could potentially rationalise anything to themselves and it means nothing for the truth of the belief, yet a few posts later you're back to talking about 'rationalisation'.

5) You never provide any examples, analogy or evidence in support of any of the claims you make, nor in responding to any point of contention in an argument, you keep saying that we have "missed the logic" but when asked to provide it in the form of an argument you refuse to, and even admitted you were unable to.

6) You kept pointing out my "Bias'" in my analysis of the historical Jesus and the development of Christianity historically, even though i used clear examples, talked about features of manuscripts that are indicative of forgery, instances of literary inconsistency etc and even provided you with very early and reliable manuscripts to demonstrate my point (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus). Yet you denied your own bias despite the fact that you didn't even attempt to demonstrate the reasoning behind your belief.

Oh, and you don't for a second need to have reason and evidence to believe in God - You need to have reason and evidence to be rational - Something that your beliefs don't even vaguely resemble, why? Because you don't actually give a shit about not being able to know whether or not the thing you believe in is real - you cling to it none the less.

And it's funny that you raise the Historicity argument, seeing as i clearly understand the original incarnation of your precious religion better than you do (i.e you don't know a fucking thing) - To the point where you are too naive and incompetent to even respond with any kind of rational argument, you simply insist upon your existing conclusion time and time again. And FYI I have discussed this topic at length with several theists - One of which i have already explained to you in some detail the first time you wrongly accused me of this, which you well know.

[Minimalist]

Proof is in the bible Min. Many very scholarly types (Christadelphians; Jehovas Witnesses) miss the point too.

Bible's a pile of shit, Frods. Now what?