Reasons

[Edwardo Piet]

Cherry picking would be a problem if you ascribed to a particular belief and then stepped outside the acceptable parameters of that belief. I don't do that.

Then what do you do exactly? You ascribe to Christianity but there is no more evidence of the existence of the Christian God than any other - that I would call cherry-picking.

You speak about personal opinion and experience, and later on feelings. I wasn't talking about any of those.

Considering you say you have no evidence - then I can't think what else you could possibly reason with - if it's nothing rational - for the existence of things you need evidence. You even claim that you are not talking about the existence of God in the same way that I exist, ore you exist, or that the sun exists - you say that there is no more reason to believe that your "God" exists objectively than Santa does!

Or if you are saying their are reasons but not evidence - then how the hell does that make sense? If your reasons count towards the existence of God then that's considered to be evidence! They don't point to that so they're not evidence -but if you claim that God is any more likely than Santa in ANY way then you are claiming evidence!

Reasons for the existence of something - if valid - are evidence! In some shape or form if not scientific.

Personal opinions and experience not being evidence: You asked about reasoning other than evidence, so I don't know why you're bringing that up again.

Feelings: Feelings may be 'nice' but I consider them to be of no importance.

You have said that you are not in favour of personal reasons for belief in God since that would only apply to one sense and you are talking about God actually existing.

But you have also said that there is no more evidence that God exists (and therefore no more rational reasons to believe that God exists than there is for Santa or Zeus or the FSM - in the OBJECTIVE sense.

So you are against personal subjective arguments for God (since they would only apply to oneself, e.g yourself and not other Christians) but you admit that God has no more evidence or rational reasons for his existence than Zeus Santa or the FSM?

EvF

[fr0d0]

EvF. You aren't addressing my answer to your question, you're just repeating the same old questions that you always do. I've answered your repetitive questions in other threads, and you haven't answered there, so I'm not going to do it all over again, because I assume that you will follow the pattern and keep on asking regardless. No offence, but as they say on Dragon's Den... I'm out.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Well I'm sick of this stupid song and dance of yours so I'm putting it to a poll, fairly sure what the result will be but maybe you are right, maybe Catholics aren't Christians?

You seem to be sick of discussion before it starts. I'd think that Christians would be quite a reliable source. You think atheists would have a better idea??

I think atheists are more objective that theist like you yes and, guess what, 7 votes in and everyone who has voted reckons Catholics are Christians so let's just drop it eh? Whether you believe it to be so or not, Catholics are as Christian as any other Christian cult.

I see ... so we're back to the claim that the complete lack of empirical evidence somehow proves your cartoon caricature god? Are you some kind of escapee from a mental institution? I ask only out of idle curiosity of course.

Nope. Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. I have faith. That ISN'T provable.

See below.

For fuck's sake, this is just fucking ridiculous!

Yet people get it. You don't.

Not here they don't ... I don't believe any rationalist here (apart form theists) "gets" the idea that lack of evidence can be positive for a claim.

In simple terms? That you actually believe that an absolute lack of evidence proves (or somehow lends credibility to) the claim that there is a god ... do you not see how insane that is?

Yes. But then you misconstrued it.

No, I didn't!

Yes you did ... you directly stated that a lack of evidence is what should be expected if your god was real.

That 'my' God is real or not to me is completely besides the point. What the hell has that got to do with anybody besides me?? My 'point' is that there is no empirical evidence of God. Something that incredulously, you keep on arguing about!

Yet you apparently maintain that that lack of evidence is somehow a positive evidence for your deity ... THAT is what I have a problem with. If it's just faith, no problem (I disagree but no issue) but you somehow twist that to say that is exactly what is expected and implicitly claim it's positive evidence for your god.

Kyu

[fr0d0]

I think atheists are more objective that theist like you yes and, guess what, 7 votes in and everyone who has voted reckons Catholics are Christians so let's just drop it eh? Whether you believe it to be so or not, Catholics are as Christian as any other Christian cult.

What a pile of crock. If we're courting opinion exclusively from those who can't know, then the possibilities are endless. C'mon Kyu you can do better than this.

Not here they don't ... I don't believe any rationalist here (apart form theists) "gets" the idea that lack of evidence can be positive for a claim.

Yes they do Kyu.

No, I didn't!

*sighs*

Yet you apparently maintain that that lack of evidence is somehow a positive evidence for your deity ... THAT is what I have a problem with. If it's just faith, no problem (I disagree but no issue) but you somehow twist that to say that is exactly what is expected and implicitly claim it's positive evidence for your god.

I don't maintain that it's positive evidence of my deity at all! What nonsense! Have you listened to yourself lately? Lack of empirical evidence supports what the Bible says, and what I believe to be true about empirical evidence.

Now please explain to me how that proves in the slightest that God exists. Or how I say anywhere that it does.

All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith.

[Giff]

I think it's plainly ridiciolous to believe in something that clearly not exict. As we all have pointed out there are no evidence. There are not even any epirical evidence that a God would eixist.

That's my reason for being atheist.

I think this thread has gone out of topic when talking about the christianity and God here.There other threads discussing that matter. This thread is what reasons people have here for being atheists.

[fr0d0]

I think it's plainly ridiciolous to believe in something that clearly not exict. As we all have pointed out there are no evidence. There are not even any epirical evidence that a God would eixist.

That's my reason for being atheist.

From my post above yours: "All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith."

I think this thread has gone out of topic when talking about the christianity and God here.There other threads discussing that matter. This thread is what reasons people have here for being atheists.

Well I've tried to keep threads on topic. Kyu has forced me to go off topic and stated that I must follow the discussion regardless, or be accused of dodging.

[Giff]

"All it debunks is the mindless assertion that empirical evidence is required to prove Gods existence when talking about Christian faith."

What does that mean? Can you write that so non english speaker as me can understand it easier?

As I understand it does it mean that God exist if you only just believe that he exist or that a theory that he exist is all that it needed. Is that what you mean? Or am I wrong.

Anyway, as I see it besides that there are no evidence for a god/gods and so on, is religion also illogial and irrational . Irrational is acctually something Dawkins said which I heared him say once which I think suites very well when talking about religion.

It's not logic that there is a higher power or any god. It's also theoritcal impossible for such force to exist.

[fr0d0]

Sure.

There has never been any proof that God exists. There can't be proof according to the Bible. Therefore, for a person to say that they can't believe in God because there is no proof is illogical.

It IS possible to believe in God as a result of rational thought. It IS also theoretically possible for God to exist.

[Giff]

It IS possible to believe in God as a result of rational thought. It IS also theoretically possible for God to exist.

No it's not theoritcally possible.

But if it is, then you should be able to answer this?

What have created him and what are he created of? If there are theory must there be some theory what kind of things his composed of, what chemical elemnts and so on? What kind of lifeform is God? What observation have been made that a higher power would exist and where could it exist?

If it now is theoritcal possible for him to exist then there must be some reason for you to think that it's possible.

Also it would impossible for all those relgions gods to exist. They would probably fighting alot I think. If they have exicted then Thor would probably beat the crap out of Jesus. His much stronger.

How would that work with all those diffrent gods. One god is illogical and irrational as it is. But so many would even more illogical. Particully whgen looking at that nearly all of them punish those who don't believe in them or telling diffrent stories how the world works.

Religion is created by man. A imagination to get quick and easy answers on difficult and complicated question.

That's why I'm an atheist.

[fr0d0]

God is other dimensional. God 'just is'. Translated = "I am". He doesn't require a creator.

Yes there are rational reasons why I believe he exists. Taking in every possible influence you can decide yourself which works for you. If it doesn't, it falls off your logical radar, and you only consider those that remain plausible. Considering Christianity and the Bible I regard those to be absolute truth, given that people were in between & put it to paper, and that there is no actual proof of anything.

So it can be logical.

Religion could be merely a creation of man. You can't say that absolutely though.