Reasons Why You Don't Believe in God

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see a diachotomy. Indeed, I can come to know through science, but I can come to understand the universal through faith. I see no issue.



Not at all. You're failing to get the basic point. If one doesn't investigate one won't find even if it is there. It's like insisting there is no tree outside because you haven't gone outside to see it. If it isn't there, all one has to do is try going outside to confirm this. The same is true of meaning, all one has to do is try and seek it out, and if it doesn't exist in your opinion that's your prerogative.



It's nothing about pleasant. Christianity is a liberating position yes, but it also involves change to your life. Changes that people might be reluctant to make.

As I see it, it's about truth, not about how good or bad it feels. I've stated this clearly, but yet people seem to think its about "pleasure". Christianity is the polar opposite of hedonism.



Not at all. We can be a part of creation while not having it revolve around us.

You've again misunderstood what I was saying about the Bible. The reason the Bible refers to humanity, is because it is addressed to humanity. It is meant to be relevant to them, because humanity is its audience. It is written in human language. So it's obvious that if God is going to effectively share His message with humanity it will have to be in human terms.

Again, I would hold that God is more infinitely complex than anything that is in the Bible accounts for.



This is intentional misunderstanding.

I'm describing my state as an agnostic. I couldn't give a fiddlesticks whether or not it was true of all agnostics, but it was true for my life. Things changed about 4 years ago.

As for knowing ones place without believing in the supernatural. This doesn't make logical sense to me. Yes one can construct ones place, but one cannot find ones true place. One needs to know what binds all things, in order to find out what ones function in it is.

So let me sum up what you've just said:

basically you do not believe that 'knowing' is 'understanding'. And it follows that logic and reason are absolutely useless tools when it comes to searching for understanding. So it therefore follows that one must use 'faith' to believe in the supernatural (the infinitely complex you say) in order to find your so called 'truth'.

Let me just explain the problem with doing that Jakkass. Take for example your explanation for why the bible is addressing humanity (which tells us that we are to have dominion over everything on this earth .....thats a bit more than a key role by the way). Now logic without superstition/delusion would state that the reason for this is because the bible was actually written by men who wished to address other men, hence the hatred towards women in the bible Jakkass. But yet you just seem to have ignored reality here and used the supernatural to explain the ridiculous.


by the way Wicknight has not intentionally misunderstood anything you have said! it is you who cannot understand that you turned to christianity because logic and reason left you feeling empty and believing in a lie/delusion fills the gap you have created. May i remind you that just because christianity fills this gap, that does not necessarily mean that it is the 'truth' you are looking for!

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

As such living isn't about me, it's about the whole where I find my place. Only by knowing the whole, can one determine what ones place in it is. If there is no whole, there is no place or purpose in it.

Why do you assume that there is a "whole"?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Thanks for your pop-psychology but in all reality, I was utterly convinced that Christianity was true.

I'm not denying that.

I'm saying you are utterly convinced that Christianity is true because you are utterly convinced that true reality must give your life meaning and fit certain precursors.

You are utterly convinced of this because it is hugely mentally comforting, it is the position the mind finds most pleasing and thus becomes the "common sense" version of reality that you are happy to accept as true because it makes so much sense to you.

Religion is the path of least resistance to the mind. You can see this in every argument you have ever used as to why Christianity is true, they all appeal to your notion of common sense.

In truth though reality has no obligation to follow common sense. It is when people realize this they become atheists.

liamw

Glenza69 wrote: »

Mainly, what put me off the belief of religion or a god, is quite simply, the paedo priests.

Whereas, if you find a religion whose pastors give lollipops to kids on a sunday morning and help old women across the road, I presume you will decide to believe everything that religion has to say about the origins of the universe and life as we know it?

Makes perfect sense.

virmilitaris

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see a diachotomy. Indeed, I can come to know through science, but I can come to understand the universal through faith. I see no issue.

Understand what exactly ? How are you defining the word 'understand' here ?

Not at all. You're failing to get the basic point. If one doesn't investigate one won't find even if it is there. It's like insisting there is no tree outside because you haven't gone outside to see it. If it isn't there, all one has to do is try going outside to confirm this.

So how can I go outside to see this tree ? I actually read the Bible when I was younger from cover to cover. I can't say I was ever fully religious per say but I did believe that there probably was some kind of greater power at one stage of my life.

The problem with this belief is that regardless of it's truth or not, it's completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. To make it relevant one must take the extra step to believing in an afterlife as claimed by most religions which brings along with it the extra baggage of the authoritarian 'do what I say or else' higher being who has human qualities nonsense which defies logic.

To put it simply, even if I could accept that there was some kind of higher being without any evidence I could never accept that this being could be anything like the petty jealous creature that is described in the Christian bible.

Furthermore, even if such a being existed and I believed in it I would choose not to worship it because of it's nature as described in your holy book.

Your god is a monster Jakkass, a vile jealous genocidal authoritarian monster in the sky. A monster that can punish you for thought crime, a monster that watches you, that judges you.

Your god, if it existed, would be the great Kim Il-Sung in the sky, the ultimate Big brother.

If it was true I would not want to worship it regardless of any promises of salvation after death. I would want to fight it, to destroy it. I want my privacy, I want my thoughts both good and bad, I want to make my own decisions about my own existence and I would swap my good mortal life for an eternal immortal one with your god any day.

If you could prove to me on my death bed that all I must do to gain this immortal existence was to repent I would not do it.

Maybe you are right, maybe there is an afterlife there for us all. But the price is too high and I would happily go to my grave looking back on a life without succumbing to your tyrant with deep satisfaction.

philologos

keppler wrote: »

So let me sum up what you've just said:

basically you do not believe that 'knowing' is 'understanding'. And it follows that logic and reason are absolutely useless tools when it comes to searching for understanding. So it therefore follows that one must use 'faith' to believe in the supernatural (the infinitely complex you say) in order to find your so called 'truth'.

You've misunderstood what I am saying. Let me go through your post.

I have not said that knowing is not understanding. Understanding is the comprehension of what is. Logic and reason are perfectly useful even in the seeking that I am discussing. I believe both played a large component in coming to believe in God and understand Him somewhat. It is merely that God is not chained by our finite intellects. This would be to say that our intellects are above God.

Coming to faith is not contrary to reason, actually reason facilitates coming to faith in my understanding of it. This is why I argue that God makes Himself evident in the world by the way it is. Therefore in understanding the way the world is, we can also understand something of God.

keppler wrote: »

Let me just explain the problem with doing that Jakkass. Take for example your explanation for why the bible is addressing humanity (which tells us that we are to have dominion over everything on this earth .....thats a bit more than a key role by the way). Now logic without superstition/delusion would state that the reason for this is because the bible was actually written by men who wished to address other men, hence the hatred towards women in the bible Jakkass. But yet you just seem to have ignored reality here and used the supernatural to explain the ridiculous

The problem is that I haven't done the above. Let me continue nonetheless.

As for the Bible. You claim it is just written by men. I agree, it was written by men over thousands of years. I also believe there is clear evidence that the Bible was inspired by God. This is most clearly demonstrated in Biblical prophesy, in understanding the Resurrection and in the history of the early Christian church.

You claim that I've ignored reality. This is all well and good until it is realised that one can effectively argue that one is ignoring reality by ignoring the God which is essential to the reality we perceive. Such lines are pedantic and useless. It results in a childish argument "You're deluded!", "No you're deluded!". It's absurd, and I don't see any reason for participating in such.

I don't believe there is any hatred towards women in the Scriptures by the by. Otherwise I'd imagine why many of my Christian friends who happen to be female would have long rejected it Unfortunately, this royal misconception is also thrown around many forums on boards including The Ladies Lounge.

keppler wrote: »

by the way Wicknight has not intentionally misunderstood anything you have said! it is you who cannot understand that you turned to christianity because logic and reason left you feeling empty and believing in a lie/delusion fills the gap you have created. May i remind you that just because christianity fills this gap, that does not necessarily mean that it is the 'truth' you are looking for!

He's misunderstood as much as you have. I know because I know clearly what my intention is in writing.

Apparently I can't understand why I've turned to Christianity despite investing 4 years of my life in trying to learn more and more about it, and to allow it to influence my life? - You can't honestly be serious.

It is only in A&A that people can conjure up such evidently false bile.

virmilitaris: It is your choice about what you do or don't do. All I am to do is to clear misconceptions surrounding peoples understanding of Christianity, which abound on boards.ie

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Apparently I can't understand why I've turned to Christianity despite investing 4 years of my life in trying to learn more and more about it, and to allow it to influence my life? - You can't honestly be serious.

You say that as if people don't do exactly that sort of thing all the time. Do you think Tom Cruise is a Scientologists because he rationally decided that it was probably correct based on objective reasoning? I doubt it. Do you think Tom Cruise knows that isn't the reason why he is a Scientologist? I doubt that as well. You know people do this sort of thing all the time, but yet again it is the theist argument Yes other people do that but I assure you when I do it it isn't for the same reasons, I know I'm not imagining this stuff


Do you disagree that a large part of why you accept Christianity is because it makes sense to you, it ticks the boxes so to speak as to what you assume is probably true (ie common sense?), that it is a natural fit for you

philologos

^^ I guess I can only disagree with you, from the position knowing more clearly as to what happened to me than you all do.

It doesn't matter whether it "fits me". I believe Christianity is true for all mankind. This is why I support evangelistic effort on a practical level.

WesternNight

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe Christianity is true for all mankind. This is why I support evangelistic effort on a practical level.

Thankfully believing something doesn't make it true, because that would be a sorry fate for all mankind, in my honest opinion.

philologos

WesternNight wrote: »

Thankfully believing something doesn't make it true, because that would be a sorry fate for all mankind, in my honest opinion.

Agreed, it doesn't. It has to be manifest in reality - The difference is we can talk about what reality is until we become blue in the face. The issue isn't about reality, it's about what we perceive it to be.

WesternNight

Jakkass wrote: »

Agreed, it doesn't. It has to be manifest in reality - The difference is we can talk about what reality is until we become blue in the face. The issue isn't about reality, it's about what we perceive it to be.

It has to be manifest in reality but the issue isn't about reality?

I love how your posts run around in circles like that, it's highly amusing

philologos

WesternNight wrote: »

It has to be manifest in reality but the issue isn't about reality?

I love how your posts run around in circles like that, it's highly amusing

There's nothing circular about it. I have reasons for where I am where I am right now. I've argued them here numerous times as well. It's a bit of a futile activity when people aren't even remotely open to hearing. Indeed, I've spent hours thinking about the implications of my beliefs as well.

We both look at reality, and come to different conclusions about it, or so it seems. I said that it is manifest in reality, rather than discussing reality as a whole precisely because I believe that truth is analysed using different terms of reference. Natural science deals with the nature of material things, and philosophy and religion deal with metaphysics, or the overarching purpose of all things. There are different terms of reference when looking at certain contexts. If I am looking to history, I use historical terms of reference rather than biological terms of reference.

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

There's nothing circular about it. I have reasons for where I am where I am right now. I've argued them here numerous times as well. It's a bit of a futile activity when people aren't even remotely open to hearing. Indeed, I've spent hours thinking about the implications of my beliefs as well.

We both look at reality, and come to different conclusions about it, or so it seems. I said that it is manifest in reality, rather than discussing reality as a whole precisely because I believe that truth is analysed using different terms of reference. Natural science deals with the nature of material things, and philosophy and religion deal with metaphysics, or the overarching purpose of all things. There are different terms of reference when looking at certain contexts. If I am looking to history, I use historical terms of reference rather than biological terms of reference.

The difference is that your conclusions aren't based on verifiable empirical evidence, which leaves your beliefs on the same level as those of members of every dead religion you could care to name.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

^^ I guess I can only disagree with you, from the position knowing more clearly as to what happened to me than you all do.

And we can disagree with you and put you in with the other 4 billion people who believe in something that isn't true based on emotional and mental need with nothing to back their faith up with.

You have no argument for why Christianity is true other than because you think it probably is.

The only reason I came on to debate this with you were the assertions by you that we are some how being the unreasonable ones here, denying some obvious truth. That is far from the reality and this argument breaks down when we examine why you believe in Christianity and what this obvious truth actually is (a instinctive human desire to process the world in terms of human like interactions between human like agents in nature)

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why I support evangelistic effort on a practical level.

The Evangelistic effort will have to come up with some better reasons for Christianity if they are going to make much head way in the western world exposed to a long history of critical thinking and rational assessment of claims.

philologos

The way I would see it is that there are three positions.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God may or may not exist.
3. God exists.

2 is the default position. 1 and 3 deviate from 2.

What does this mean? - Both atheists and theists deviate from the default. There is no absolute proof of God's existence. This leads us to the recognition of a much more satisfying argument that we could be having.

That is:
1. What indicates to you that God is more likely to exist than not?
OR
2. What indicates to you that it is more likely that God doesn't exist?

I would base my position on indicatory evidence. I.E - What indicates to me that the Gospel is true rather than not. The more and more indicatory evidence found makes the case for the Gospel stronger.

This is the only effective mechanism to use for talking about religion that I can see. In most other cases it involves childish bickering.

Wicknight: I do believe that atheism is unreasonable. There is not much more unreasonable than atheism to the Christian. It's a category mistake about the nature of reality as I would see it. If God is God, and if He is a core part of reality, if you deny Him, you are denying the most important component of reality.
Indeed, your point of view comes from the angle that my position is unreasonable, and that I am making a category mistake. This is what we have to deal with.

Wicknight wrote:

You have no argument for why Christianity is true other than because you think it probably is.

I've presented them before. Since 2007 in fact. A period of time while you were active on these fora. It is absolute twaddle to suggest that I haven't presented any argument for my belief in Christ on boards.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The way I would see it is that there are three positions.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God may or may not exist.
3. God exists.

2 is the default position. 1 and 3 deviate from 2.

What does this mean? - Both atheists and theists deviate from the default. There is no absolute proof of God's existence. This leads us to the recognition of a much more satisfying argument that we could be having.

That is:
1. What indicates to you that God is more likely to exist than not?
OR
2. What indicates to you that it is more likely that God doesn't exist?

I would base my position on indicatory evidence. I.E - What indicates to me that the Gospel is true rather than not. The more and more indicatory evidence found makes the case for the Gospel stronger.

This is the only effective mechanism to use for talking about religion that I can see. In most other cases it involves childish bickering.

Wicknight: I do believe that atheism is unreasonable. There is not much more unreasonable than atheism to the Christian. It's a category mistake about the nature of reality as I would see it. If God is God, and if He is a core part of reality, if you deny Him, you are denying the most important component of reality.
Indeed, your point of view comes from the angle that my position is unreasonable, and that I am making a category mistake. This is what we have to deal with.

Jakkass if God is God then you're best off to deny all God's and claim you aren't sure. THAT is far is more reasonable than just picking one because it's the only one of the few you've had time to study and seems to agree with your intuitions. If your God can't understand my reluctance to believe in Him because of the thousands of others Gods that I am still undecided on and ignorant of, then your God is an arsehole! I take it you are still studying the literature or Thor, you know keeping an open mind?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass if God is God then you're best off to deny all God's and claim you aren't sure. THAT is far is more reasonable than just picking one because it's the only one of the few you've had time to study and seems to agree with your intuitions. If your God can't understand my reluctance to believe in Him because of the thousands of others Gods that I am still undecided on and ignorant of, then your God is an arsehole! I take it you are still studying the literature or Thor, you know keeping an open mind?

I wouldn't deny God due to the fact that on investigating I am convinced that His words are true. I find logical reason for God as the starting point of the universe, I find logical reason for God's existence given the fallen nature of man, I find logical reason for God's existence given the existence of absolute moral values, I find logical reason for God's existence given the history of the early church, I find logical reason for God's existence on assessing history, archaeology, geology and cosmology. I find strong reason for God's existence given the person of Jesus.

Finally, I find strong reason for belief in Christianity given my personal experience of it.

To say the least, in order to turn my back on the indicatory evidence for Christianity, I would need to be convinced that it is wholly inadequate. I've seen nothing from any user on boards or any good atheist friends of mine (I have a lot of them, some have told me that they think it is insane that I believe in God) that would convince me to deny this.

As for the literature of Thor, if I had it I would certainly read it. I spend a lot of my time researching into other belief systems. Indeed, if I ever see missionaries of other religions I tend to go up and talk to them. Firstly without explaining my current standpoint so as to allow them to explain their position unhindered. Indeed, I'm in possession of a good number of religious books and materials from other world religions, and roughly at the same time as reading the Bible I consulted the Qur'an.

Comparative religion is also something that fascinates me. Making the claim that I haven't consulted other religions is really inadequate. More often than not I seek other worldviews out. Indeed, I've read some of the new-atheist polemicists.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The way I would see it is that there are three positions.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God may or may not exist.
3. God exists.

2 is the default position. 1 and 3 deviate from 2.

What does this mean? - Both atheists and theists deviate from the default. There is no absolute proof of God's existence. This leads us to the recognition of a much more satisfying argument that we could be having.

That is:
1. What indicates to you that God is more likely to exist than not?
OR
2. What indicates to you that it is more likely that God doesn't exist?

The difference I think is you don't ask the third more important question, where does the logic for these indicators come from?

For example if you think there should be a meaning to life and existence then a position that fits within that framework will be taken as much more likely as one that doesn't. If there has to be a meaning to life then a framework that suggests there isn't can't be right.

Before we even get to the question of God's existences we need to examine the biases that we bring to the question, particular in light of all the evidence coming from evolutionary biology in the last 15 years.

Jakkass wrote: »

I would base my position on indicatory evidence. I.E - What indicates to me that the Gospel is true rather than not. The more and more indicatory evidence found makes the case for the Gospel stronger.

You have never presented any reasoning that couldn't be applied to any number of other religions, yet the question why aren't you a Hindu seems very far from your mind.

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight: I do believe that atheism is unreasonable. There is not much more unreasonable than atheism to the Christian. It's a category mistake about the nature of reality as I would see it. If God is God, and if He is a core part of reality, if you deny Him, you are denying the most important component of reality.

Except he doesn't exist, so none of that matters.

You say it does matter because he does exist but you can't give any convincing reasons for this other than it makes sense to you.

So how are we being unreasonable for not accepting your faulty reasoning?

Jakkass wrote: »

I've presented them before. Since 2007 in fact. A period of time while you were active on these fora. It is absolute twaddle to suggest that I haven't presented any argument for my belief in Christ on boards.

I didn't say you have no argument, I said you have no argument other than you think it is, arguments that appeal to your own sense of common sense.

You say you believe the prophecies in the Bible. Why? Why do you believe any of them over any other religious prophecy? Because they make sense to you and you don't think they would be made up. That is not a reason. You could just as easily apply the same logic to Scientology and become a scientologist.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't deny God due to the fact that on investigating I am convinced that His words are true. I find logical reason for God as the starting point of the universe, I find logical reason for God's existence given the fallen nature of man, I find logical reason for God's existence given the existence of absolute moral values, I find logical reason for God's existence given the history of the early church, I find logical reason for God's existence on assessing history, archaeology, geology and cosmology. I find strong reason for God's existence given the person of Jesus.

If you have you have yet to present these logical reasons here.

Saying it makes more sense that the universe had a creator is not a logical reason for asserting God made the universe. It is appeal to common sense, not logic. And common sense is biased by our notions of how we think the world should work.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

It is absolute twaddle to suggest that I haven't presented any argument for my belief in Christ on boards.

He never said you haven't presented any argument for your belief.

He said your only arguments amount to nothing more than saying you probably think Christianity is correct.

All of your arguments, at some point, fall back on some personal sentimental prejudice that requires faith on the readers part to accept it.

These are not arguments that prove Christianity to be true, but rather your personal opinions that are based on your experiences that are not publicly verifiable.

philologos

Openness to thinking != sentimental prejudice

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

The way I would see it is that there are three positions.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God may or may not exist.
3. God exists.

2 is the default position. 1 and 3 deviate from 2.

What does this mean? - Both atheists and theists deviate from the default. There is no absolute proof of God's existence. This leads us to the recognition of a much more satisfying argument that we could be having.

That is:
1. What indicates to you that God is more likely to exist than not?
OR
2. What indicates to you that it is more likely that God doesn't exist?

I would base my position on indicatory evidence. I.E - What indicates to me that the Gospel is true rather than not. The more and more indicatory evidence found makes the case for the Gospel stronger.

This is the only effective mechanism to use for talking about religion that I can see. In most other cases it involves childish bickering.

Wicknight: I do believe that atheism is unreasonable. There is not much more unreasonable than atheism to the Christian. It's a category mistake about the nature of reality as I would see it. If God is God, and if He is a core part of reality, if you deny Him, you are denying the most important component of reality.
Indeed, your point of view comes from the angle that my position is unreasonable, and that I am making a category mistake. This is what we have to deal with.



I've presented them before. Since 2007 in fact. A period of time while you were active on these fora. It is absolute twaddle to suggest that I haven't presented any argument for my belief in Christ on boards.

Problem: the standard of evidence you demand is such that if you explored any world religion hoping to find truth and meaning, you would find it.

philologos

ColmDawson wrote: »

Problem: the standard of evidence you demand is such that if you explored any world religion hoping to find truth and meaning, you would find it.

I can't see this being the case. Effectively all I am doing is to try to get people to consider the case, rather than ignoring it as seems to be the case more often in atheist argumentation.

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

You've misunderstood what I am saying. No I have not Let me go through your post.

I have not said that knowing is not understanding. But you said you have come to your understanding through faith Understanding is the comprehension of what is. Logic and reason are perfectly useful even in the seeking that I am discussing. I believe both played a large component But you said you arrived through faith in coming to believe in God and understand Him somewhat.So you know the guy then? It is merely that God is not chained by our finite intellects. This would be to say that our intellects are above God. I guess the above two sentences would only make sense if you 'come to understand him somewhat'?????

Coming to faith is not contrary to reason, actually reason facilitates coming to faith in my understanding of it.Of course not, I can easily see why you turned to religion people do it every day. But dont try to justify your actions here by means of logic.. This is why I argue that God makes Himself evident in the world by the way it is. Therefore in understanding the way the world is, we can also understand something of God. I suggest that you google Darwinian Evolution



The problem is that I haven't done the above. Let me continue nonetheless. Yes you have

As for the Bible. You claim it is just written by men. I agree, it was written by men over thousands of years. I also believe there is clear evidence that the Bible was inspired by God.No evidence just belief in the supernatural This is most clearly demonstrated in Biblical prophesy,Supernatural in understanding the Resurrection Supernatural and in the history of the early Christian church. They also relied on belief in the supernatural and still do to this day

You claim that I've ignored reality. you clearly haveThis is all well and good until it is realised that one can effectively argue that one is ignoring reality by ignoring the God which is essential to the reality we perceive.No one can claim the latter, because there is no evidence to suggest that any god is essential to the reality we perceive Such lines are pedantic and useless. It results in a childish argument "You're deluded!", "No you're deluded!". It's absurd, and I don't see any reason for participating in such. THEN DONT

I don't believe there is any hatred towards women in the Scriptures by the by.Ok...You clearly are deluded Otherwise I'd imagine why many of my Christian friends who happen to be female would have long rejected it Unfortunately, this royal misconception is also thrown around many forums on boards including The Ladies Lounge. This is because it is not a misconception



He's misunderstood as much as you have. I know because I know clearly what my intention is in writing. Is it just me or do you think everyone here misunderstands you?

Apparently I can't understand why I've turned to Christianity despite investing 4 years of my life in trying to learn more and more about it, and to allow it to influence my life? Try and think back to why you tried to understand christianity in the first place and you will probably find the real reason- You can't honestly be serious. Yes I can

It is only in A&A that people can conjure up such evidently false bile. With logic substituted for the supernatural im sure you could falsify anything

virmilitaris: It is your choice about what you do or don't do. All I am to do is to clear misconceptions surrounding peoples understanding of Christianity, which abound on boards.ie

Jakkass wrote: »

As for knowing ones place without believing in the supernatural. This doesn't make logical sense to me.

I rest my case

philologos

Gah, I had a long reply all worked out for this post and then I logged out ^^

Essentially you've assumed that faith and reason are polar opposites. This is why you are misunderstanding my posts. There is a difference between faith without substance (blind faith) and faith based on thought and reason (considered faith). I don't think many on boards would say that my faith is of the former. Perhaps they would, but I would hope that given their knowledge of me over the last few years that they wouldn't.

Bible being misogynistic - I invite you to post a thread on the Christianity forum on this topic. I'm sure it would be interesting for all.

Real reason behind my coming to Christianity - The same as the reason I have already given you. A desire to know what is true. Partially sparked by curiosity. If I wind the mental clock back to 2007, the curiosity was sparked by taking Leaving Cert religion, which is pretty much where I developed my interest for Islam, secular humanism and new-atheism as well.

The rest of your post is childish rambling about how "deluded" you think I am. Unless you want me to post back saying NOES YORE DELUDED!!111!! I don't see much point in replying to this kind of nonsense. Its your choice, we can have better discussion than this. Move beyond this type of childish reasoning and we'll get somewhere.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't see this being the case. Effectively all I am doing is to try to get people to consider the case, rather than ignoring it as seems to be the case more often in atheist argumentation.

Of course it is the case. You accept personal testimony from Christians and Christian writing yet not from other religions. When pressed on this it comes back to the idea that Christianity makes more sense to you, yet you continue to use the personal testimony of Christians as evidence for your belief in Christianity. It ends up being circular.

If Islam as an explanation made more sense to you you would no doubt say you are happier to take the personal testimony of Muslims over members of other religions and then use the testimony of these Muslims to argue the case for Islam.

Can you present an argument for Christianity that would not end up being an argument for any other religion if you happened to apply it to that religion other than Christianity?

Ultimately it boils down to what makes sense to you, and what makes sense to you is heavily biased by our instincts.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Openness to thinking != sentimental prejudice

That is the whole point. You aren't open to thinking. You aren't open to considering human existence having no assigned meaning, you aren't open to a creator deity not existing and the universe's existence just being one of those things, you aren't open to humans having an instinct to process the natural world in terms of human interactions, you aren't open to the idea that what is happening in those who follow what must be false religions (since they can't all be true) happening with you.

All this prejudices you in what answers you find acceptable, and that prejudices you in what answers you assess as likely. And yet we are the ones being unreasonable.

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

Gah, I had a long reply all worked out for this post and then I logged out ^^

Essentially you've assumed that faith and reason are polar opposites. This is why you are misunderstanding my posts. There is a difference between faith without substance (blind faith) and faith based on thought and reason (considered faith). I don't think many on boards would say that my faith is of the former. Perhaps they would, but I would hope that given their knowledge of me over the last few years that they wouldn't.

Bible being misogynistic - I invite you to post a thread on the Christianity forum on this topic. I'm sure it would be interesting for all.

Real reason behind my coming to Christianity - The same as the reason I have already given you. A desire to know what is true. Partially sparked by curiosity. If I wind the mental clock back to 2007, the curiosity was sparked by taking Leaving Cert religion, which is pretty much where I developed my interest for Islam, secular humanism and new-atheism as well.

The rest of your post is childish rambling about how "deluded" you think I am. Unless you want me to post back saying NOES YORE DELUDED!!111!! I don't see much point in replying to this kind of nonsense. Its your choice, we can have better discussion than this. Move beyond this type of childish reasoning and we'll get somewhere.

Ok so you dont like being called deluded......are you offended by this or something? Because I really dont like it when you say that atheists are just ignoring the truth......:mad: but hey you dont hear me whinging about it.

Anyway.......Now, you have clearly stated that believing in the supernatural is logical, (do you have any idea how illogical the supernatural is?). Faith based on reason is still blind faith when your reasoning is not based on evidence.......I mean come on, never mind verifiable empiracle evidence you dont even have any existential evidence. The only thing you have to reason with is personal experience thats it. the rest comes down to you having faith in the supernatural.

Oh and btw believing in the logical is not 'childish reasoning'. Believing in sky-gods ie. the supernatural can be pretty much compared to a child believing in santa claus jakkas.
what do you mean by this conversation going somewhere? Do you think one of us could honestly convert one another? If so I really think you're kidding yourself. Your undoubtedly blind faith in the supernatural is nothing more than a cop-out for your real lack of understanding of the universe. Your new found understanding of god also means that your mind is now closed to any other possible philosophy bar a a religious one that involves your god!

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

Gah, I had a long reply all worked out for this post and then I logged out ^^

Oh and just to show that i have no hard feelings towards you jakkass ill give you a little tip 'select what you have typed as your reply and copy it before you submit' that way if you get logged out you can you can easily paste it back in to a reply when you log back in

Improbable

Jakkass wrote: »

Essentially you've assumed that faith and reason are polar opposites. This is why you are misunderstanding my posts. There is a difference between faith without substance (blind faith) and faith based on thought and reason (considered faith). I don't think many on boards would say that my faith is of the former. Perhaps they would, but I would hope that given their knowledge of me over the last few years that they wouldn't.

Faith is the belief in something WITHOUT evidence. Reasoning (which is sound) IS the opposite of faith because it is evidence. There is simply NO valid reasoning for the existence of a god or the validity of any particular religion as a system of explaining or showing how the world works. If such evidence existed, not only would we be constantly getting smashed in the head with it by religious individuals and groups, but it would no longer be faith, it would be science, which is ideas that are testable and disprovable.

virmilitaris

Jakkass can you please give us an example of some argument in favour of Christianity that could not be applied to another religion ?

eblistic

Sorry to go back so far but I found this interesting:

Jakkass wrote: »

The way I would see it is that there are three positions.

1. God doesn't exist.
2. God may or may not exist.
3. God exists.

2 is the default position. 1 and 3 deviate from 2.

As 2 and 3 require some degree of evidence to persuade one of their probability or certainty, respectively, then 1 is the default position. Nobody thinks a "God may or may not exist" till someone or something starts to persuade them of possibility.

philologos

eblistic wrote: »

As 2 and 3 require some degree of evidence to persuade one of their probability or certainty, respectively, then 1 is the default position. Nobody thinks a "God may or may not exist" till someone or something starts to persuade them of possibility.

2 doesn't require anything. 2 is the base because it is a position of uncertainty.

The base position isn't to assume that God doesn't exist.

Improbable wrote: »

Faith is the belief in something WITHOUT evidence. Reasoning (which is sound) IS the opposite of faith because it is evidence. There is simply NO valid reasoning for the existence of a god or the validity of any particular religion as a system of explaining or showing how the world works. If such evidence existed, not only would we be constantly getting smashed in the head with it by religious individuals and groups, but it would no longer be faith, it would be science, which is ideas that are testable and disprovable.

I disagree with you. You're conflating evidence with absolute proof. They aren't the same thing. You've also clearly misunderstood what I was saying about "indicatory evidence". I suggest that you re-read that post.

You can whine on and on about there being "no valid reasoning", but evidently I would think the contrary having encountered sufficient reasoning in order to submit myself to Christ and recognise this as the absolute truth.

virmilitaris: Your post is interesting, so I will be back to this when I find time.

eblistic

Jakkass wrote: »

2 doesn't require anything. 2 is the base because it is a position of uncertainty.

The base position isn't to assume that God doesn't exist.

The base position is not believing something till you have some evidence of its veracity or possibility. Your reasoning fails the old fairy-test. Replace God with fairies and see if it makes sense.

Dayglo

What kind of God allowed the inquistion to sally forth, the crusades to murder pillage torture and rape in his holy name- what kind of God allowed the jews (his anointed people -dont forget), the communists, the mentally insane- to be shovelled alive into furnaces, by men wearing swastikas and 'Gott Mitt Uns' on their belts ? What kind of God allowed little chidren to be beaten, raped, and murdered - by his holy ministers proclaiming that thy will be done in his holy name? What kind of God allows holy martyrs to fly jumbo jets full of screaming people into office blocks, shouting Allah Ackbar? What kind of God allows millions of children to go to bed each nite, hungry, unloved, forgotten, with parasites eating into their eyes and flesh-while the head of his church isolates himself in a penthouse pizza fortress of frankencense, gold, and myrrh?

For one man nailed to a cross in 33 a.d.- there are millions nailed up beside him since- all in his holy name.

But I'll give that man this much- he said 'Love one another as you love me'...and for that I commend him on sheer brilliance ..because we still haven't the brains to figure that one out.

If God is there...and he says he loves us......I think he's taking far too long on the celestial bog.... reading his newspaper...looking at page 3.
Its about time he wiped his arse and sorted out the flawed design that is called .......human.

That is .......of course...you believe he/she/it exists........

ps. The best philosophical debate comes from a warm room, a full stomach, and a pc to type it on. ;-)

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

2 doesn't require anything. 2 is the base because it is a position of uncertainty.

The base position isn't to assume that God doesn't exist.

No, what you're really suggesting is that the base position should be that your God may or may not exist.

Or would you also go as far as to say this is the base position for every god ever claimed to have existed?

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. You're conflating evidence with absolute proof. They aren't the same thing.
You can whine on and on about there being "no valid reasoning", but evidently I would think the contrary having encountered sufficient reasoning in order to submit myself to Christ and recognise this as the absolute truth.

Here you go again thinking that we are misunderstanding you. Our (atheist's) understanding of the difference between evidence and 'absolute proof' is the main reason why we are in this forum!!!!

Can you please tell us what makes your 'invalid reasoning' sufficient to you?

robindch

Jakkass -- I'm still intrigued as to why you assume that there is a "meaning" to it all?

Why do you do this?

philologos

Dades wrote: »

No, what you're really suggesting is that the base position should be that your God may or may not exist.

Or would you also go as far as to say this is the base position for every god ever claimed to have existed?

I think you're familiar with my reasoning now, that one needs to begin with the concept of Creator, before further reasoning to establish the particulars?

keppler: Evidently I don't believe my reasoning to be 'invalid'. There's not much point expecting me to reply to questions which are similar to "Are you still beating your wife?". I.E - assuming that the person has beaten their wife, in your post you expect me to assume that my reasoning is invalid. A ridiculous way to argue surely?

ColmDawson

Jakkass wrote: »

2 doesn't require anything. 2 is the base because it is a position of uncertainty.

So we must all live our lives as if unicorns, fairies, werewolves etc. may or may not exist? Do you really think that's the default position? I say no, the default position is not to believe in something until sufficient good evidence backs it up.

Zombrex

If you want to see if your reasoning is invalid simply apply it to another religion and see if based on the logic you apply to Christianity, you are forced to accept that this other religion is also true.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you're familiar with my reasoning now, that one needs to begin with the concept of Creator, before further reasoning to establish the particulars?

God (with a capital G) and a "creator" (no need for a capital C, I doubt he's that insecure!) are very different things.

Zillah

Well...are you still beating your wife?

Zillah

By wife I mean dead horse. And by horse I mean this thread. And by this thread I mean my will to live.

Zombrex

ColmDawson wrote: »

So we must all live our lives as if unicorns, fairies, werewolves etc. may or may not exist? Do you really think that's the default position? I say no, the default position is not to believe in something until sufficient good evidence backs it up.

It should also be pointed out that there is a difference in not believing in something and asserting it doesn't exist. There is an infinite number of things I don't believe in, it would require me an infinite amount of time to assert, even just to myself, that I don't believe they exist, time I don't have.

Lets start shall we

Ummm, lets see,

• I assert that 3 headed dogs with the tails of lizards don't exist
• I assert that 3 headed dogs with the tails of bunny rabbits don't exist
• I assert that 3 headed rabbits with the tails of dogs don't exist

etc for ever

keppler

Jakkass wrote: »

I think you're familiar with my reasoning now, that one needs to begin with the concept of Creator, before further reasoning to establish the particulars?

keppler: Evidently I don't believe my reasoning to be 'invalid'. There's not much point expecting me to reply to questions which are similar to "Are you still beating your wife?". I.E - assuming that the person has beaten their wife, in your post you expect me to assume that my reasoning is invalid. A ridiculous way to argue surely?

Jakkass I clearly asked you a simple question in my last post which you have compared to 'beating your wife', a ridiculous analogy in every respect!

Every time someone on this thread asks you a serious question you either just ignore them or call that question ridiculous and claim that by answering the question the discussion will go nowhere.

I get the distinct impression Jakkass that you have every intention of letting this discussion go nowhere. Afterall, as Wicknight said to you, your mind is not open to any other concept excluding the one that your religious philosophy allows for.

Jakkass I dont think you are going to answer my questions or virmilitaris question either (which by the way was originally wicknights but you clearly ignored it when he asked you). The reason for this being, that the answers would be very embarrassing when showed to any logical, non-gullable intelligent person and inevitably would shake the very foundations of your belief!

At some stage along your 4year fact finding mission Jakkass you have clearly jumped clean out of the mystery machine and landed on blind faith.
Now I think that everyone here will agree on the fact that you 'believe your reasoning is valid' is not a sufficient statement.......that is why I asked you my question

midlandsmissus

Dades wrote: »

No, what you're really suggesting is that the base position should be that your God may or may not exist.

Or would you also go as far as to say this is the base position for every god ever claimed to have existed?

I presume this works the same way where athiests should be arguing against the existence of all Gods rather than just the Christian God?

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I presume this works the same way where athiests should be arguing against the existence of all Gods rather than just the Christian God?

They do. However, we live in a (by and large) Christian influenced society. We encounter the Christian God in debate/issues far more frequently than other gods.
That said, many of the arguments by atheists against the Christian God can be applied to gods of other religions.

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

By wife I mean dead horse. And by horse I mean this thread. And by this thread I mean my will to live.

I have to say I must agree.

Just reading the last page sucked the life out of me...

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

They do. However, we live in a (by and large) Christian influenced society. We encounter the Christian God in debate/issues far more frequently than other gods.
That said, many of the arguments by atheists against the Christian God can be applied to gods of other religions.

So then your reasoning could also be applied to Jakkas you see