Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?

Because the evidence for polytheism is just as nonexistent as the evidence for monotheism.

 feeder wrote:
I think that both theists and atheists are relying on zero evidence to form a firm belief. Both require faith.

You're right that both atheists and theists have reached a conclusion, and in that sense they are different to the agnostics who have not. But you're completely wrong in your assumption that there is no evidence.

The 'faith' thing seems to me to be a copout. Faith doesn't mean moving from zero evidence to a conclusion. Going from zero evidence to a conclusion is just guessing. But taking limited evidence, and reaching a conclusion that you find most likely, that's what most people are doing.

If there is a God and this is the world he created, then we can look at this world to see evidence of his intent and his purpose. Theists see many incredible things, sunsets, births, love and so on, and they see evidence of a loving God. Atheists might see chaos, the survival of the fittest, the lack of any kind of natural justice, and things like that and conclude that it's all just a random creation with no intent behind it.

It is fine to reach either conclusion, and also fine to reach neither conclusion and believe that you do not know. What isn't fine is to start reviewing other people's decisions and deciding whether their conclusions meet your own standards.

I usually go with the "There is no evidence as far as we know, so it doesn't exist" mindset.

However, I don't know if I will change this mindset if evidence IS found someday.


EDIT :

 feeder wrote:
Yeah, that's where I'm at. It feels like the question is "X plus X equals infinity. Find X"

Well, if X plus X equals infinity, then X itself doesn't have a finite value, so X equals infinity.

(Assuming that "equals infinity" means something)

I'm sure it depends on the evidence. A huge, flaming Hebrew sign across the face of the moon would be more compelling than Kirk Cameron's infamous banana, for example.

Something to think is whether one needs to believe in super powerful god beings to have belief or be religious.

Buddhism doesn't believe in all creating god that controls us(if buddhist can have belief then it's on the idea that just as source of suffering is within us so is the key to removing that suffering). And at the heart of Buddhism is also idea that you shouldn't just take it for granted because somebody you respect told you it's so. Buddha himself said to his followers to take his words, study them, try to poke holes in them and only after agreeing believe it.

I'm an Agnostic Athiest. That isn't a contradiction, people just usually don't understand what the actual terms mean, and tend to misuse them, so people think Athiest means "person who says there is no God" rather than "person who doesn't follow a religion or deity".

Gnostic atheists are rare, and often gets confused with being all Athiests, as they're usually just the ones who actually talk about it and profess their (non-)belief. They're no more annoying than Gnostic theists though in my experience, and involve less yelling at people on the streets, which is a positive.

I will deal with this topic in stages.

STAGE 1.

The "there is no evidence for God" fallacy.

A lot of the arguments presented is that there is no evidence for God. This is at best uninformed and at worst deliberate denial.
There is plenty of evidence for the existance of God what is lacking is proof.
I will be looking at this from a Judeo-Christian point of view, though other premises could be raised by proponents of other faiths.

Evidence that God exists.

1. Testimonial evidence.
I am no talking about 'I believe' statements, I am talking about life changing testimony. Along the lines of 'I was broken and God changed my life for the better'.
There are numerous testimonies of people who claim to have a relationship with God and have been changed by that relationship.
This doesn't provide proof but testimonial is acceptable evidence in most cases, so why not here.
You could argue that they are all deluded or lying, all billions of them, but that requires a greater leap of faith than accepting that these people consider their testimony true. The changes lives however are completely verifiable, with numerous examples to be given.

2. Signs and wonders.
Throughout history there have been signs and wonders documented, this persists to the current day.
Just do any net search and you will find stories.
Granted a portion of the stories will be hoaxes, but all of them?

3. Prophecy.
I am not talking about reading tea leaves here. Something more substantial.
It is too much of a coincidence that Israel was founded on he exact day May 14th 1948 that corresponded to a fulfillment of a timeline started on the exact day that Jerusalem fell over two thousand years earlier. This is compounded by other events relating directly to the timeline. For more info on this look up 'Daniels 70 weeks' prophecy and the '70 jubilee' calculations.
These are not proofs, but are evidence of the book of Daniel fortelling specific globally recognised events with a to-the-day level of accuracy. The best Nostradamus could do was vague references to Hister and the Danube.
Now, a caveat. There are a lot of nutjob prophecy interpretations out there, check YouTube and you will see. But there are other more level headed ones and back up with clearly written scripture referenced with Biblical numerology. I personally believe the current interpretation of the Daniel 70 weeks regarding the timeline of the restoration of Israel and how it was the will of God that Israel was founded on that day. I am not entirely sure about the eschatological implications, but I am prepared to believe them, if the coming signs appear at the right time. On that note if the 70 jubilee interpretation is accurate the End Times proper begins in September 2017, just after the final 70th jubilee which starts in September this year at the time of the Feast of Trumpets. Things might be about to get interesting.

4. Holy Spirit.
This is hard to quantify to those who do not know God personally. Many Christians myself included make claim that they have personal rapport with a divine being kn on as the Holy Spirit, a part of the Trinity. I cannot in any way prove this to you, but will hand on heart declare it to be true. As will may other witnesses.
The only way to know for sure is to be born again yourselves, which I do recommend, but is not the focus of the thread.
One thing I can say is once you know the Holy Spirit the question of whether God exists is answered, because He is here. In a way I am not really a man of faith, I know my God with certainty, He knows me, and we talk.
I cannot find any way to prove to you I am not lying through my teeth. But why would I do that?

5. NDEs
There are numerous testimonies of near death experiences. The vast majority of these experiences follow the after death Christian theology, even when the person is an atheist or a follower of another faith.
Again this is testimony but it deserves a separate category as a documentable pattern is followed. Person is rendered to a near death state, or is clinically dead. This is often witnessed by professional medical practitioners. Person returns to life/recovers and on waking describes experiences of the afterlife, often with hell or heaven testimonies and testimonies of meeting God.
Other these individuals were atheists or agnostics, who subsequently believed, some lost any fer of death being personally convinced that heaven exists. Many return with evidence of theologies they did not share or were unaware of.

Conclusion
We ought to replace the 'there is no evidence of God whatsoever' with 'there is no proof of God whatsoever'.

There is no proof either way or there would be no rational choice but to believe or not believe, respectively of which outcome is proven.

However nobody who claims to have a scientific mind, as most atheists do can justify handwaving away all the evidence. Many atheists do so frequently, and frankly and ironically it is blind faith they move in to do so.
The whole concept of there being no evidence of God and therefore atheism being a 'default' position is wishful thinking and nothing more. There is plenty of evidence, you either have not seen it or prefer to favour other evidence instead. This is the essential kernel of truth behind the statement that atheism is a faith choice. Atheists either choose in faith to disbeleve the testimonies and the evidence, or choose to become atheists without referring to such.

There is evidence out there of living God, some of it profound and surrounded by documented events that defy the odds or even what is considered possible, including documented resurrections of people clinically dead long enough that according to our understanding of brain chemistry would suffer massive brain damage from oxygen starvation. Yet being raised whole and able o testify as to what had happened while they were dead.

From a Christian point of view I have no problems with anyone saying there is no proof of God's existence. That is how He wants it.

Once again, since this was bound to come up. Ill hold off on the reasons religion lead to so much conflict in the world.

As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.

Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.

I have faith my daughter won't get pregnant, I have no proof.
If I locked her in a room and never let her out, thats proof shes not going to get pregnant.

Agnostics are willing to accept either conclusion could be true.

I am an Atheist. If JC himself came down, pelted me with his scarred hands and lashed me with his crown of thorns I would be one very repentant SOB after I told him what a DB his father was for allowing to keep killing each other.
but I know without zero doubt that could never happen.

So the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Prove muhammed was taken to heaven on a winged steed, or Mary was impregnated with the holy spirit as a virgin.

Prove intelligent design. But do not quote Ken Hamm. Im out if that happens.

I always bring ot back to what you consider evidence and what you dont, Personal experimce ext.

What happened to my mother was in my opnion proof a god where others can see it differently.

Early october 2010 she was told she had lucemea or how ever you spell it. Was told she would die before years end. After nearly two month being home horibly sick and falling to sleep randomly and crying saying her bones hurt.

They took her to halifax within two days did all the tests and confirmed she had the disease and said she would be lucky to make it to christmas. The house hold fell to hell and we where getting ready for the worse thing that can happen to anyone lossing their mom.

My first son was born two days later and I got to admit I cried like a baby lossing my mom when I needed her most I was scared and unsure what to do, my dad was panicing refusing to buy food or anything scared to buy anything because of money issues.

Well a day before her first treatment the doctor came in said how are you feelig , she replied I am feeling pretty good. He said we will fix that for you, this treatment will probly make you really sick.

The next day she was walking around asking if she could go home to see my child the doctor said someing seemed off and redid some test. Strangely all signs of the disease where gone, nothing remained so they redid them again then sent her home.

The doctor who is a friend of my uncle his neoghbor dropped by a couple weeks later and asked how she was and stuff, she said I am doing great the orginial tests must of been wrong he said there is no chance they where run several times and all the test showed the same signs. That he cant think of any reason it would just go away.

They retested her several times over the course of the year and next, no signs remained. When she was at the mall several months later she ran i to the nurse and the nurse was talking to her and I am not sure how the conversation went since I bumped in half way threw but the nurse comment of we cant think of any way that would explain the results we recieved from you for those several weeks.

So how ever you treat my life experince is up to you but I believe it was by the grace of god.

Not to mention my cousin was born with cancer in his brain they treated it and said that any more treatments and he would be completely blomd amd it would cure nothing, his mother prayed for years that je would atleaat finished highschool if she could see that it was all that mattered. Well he graduated many years ago about she passed away from cancer the same year he graduated. So to me it looks like her prayers where anwsered he lived and his is now benin or what ever e spelling but she passed away with what should of killed him.


So to end it in my eveys there is and always will be a god.

 redleger wrote:

As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.
Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.

Theism is having belief in the existence of the divine.
Atheism is having belief there is no divine.

The only way either of these conclusions could be reached is through choice of belief unless actual proof is provided. It is a matter of which evidence is accepted and which is rejected, and also how he same evidence is interpreted a lot of the time.

An agnostic is someone who needs proof before acknowledging something exists, and they can have an atheist or theistic outlook.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm sure it depends on the evidence. A huge, flaming Hebrew sign across the face of the moon would be more compelling than Kirk Cameron's infamous banana, for example.

This is where science enters the debate. "Religion" has over the decades made a variety of claims about how God or the gods run the universe, all of which so far have been proven false. (Evolution, heliocentrism, the germ theory of disease, thunder and lightning, and so on.) Naturally this leads people towards atheism.

Of course we are always left with the possibility that God set up the universe with its physical laws, "lit the blue touchpaper and stood well away".

Orlanth, with respect those aren't evidence unless your definition of evidence is very wide. Personal testimony and Holy Spirit have no substance, and there's no reason to conclude that being raised in a religion doesn't largely inform such feelings. People around the world and theought history have felt similarly about personal connections with their own God or gods, conveniently the ones that a popular within their own culture. You don't get often get people raised as Hindus and never exposed to Christianity suddenly saying they've been specifically spoken to by a Christian God. The interpretation of individual experienced are informed by their religion, they don't arrive at God after a logical and unbiased examination of the evidence they have.

NDEs are explainable by many phenomena and are reproducible to an extent. They can be similar experiences to supposed alien abductions, but again the religious belief, or desire to believe in aliens, informs the conclusion rather than the evidence pointing towards God as the logical explanation.

Signs and wonders and Prophesies, again open to interpretation, but age old cognitive bias account for many observations, confirmation bias being most well known, as the brain loves to spot patterns in things and ignore evidence/experiences that doesn't support their preconceived ideas. Gamblers are terrible for this having faith in all sorts of things for what helps them win while ignoring how probability works.

It's not evidence. Most examples require cherry picking for a vast amount of 'data', and the conculsion that God exists has already been decided and evidence is mentally used to fit that conculsion. The conclusion isn't arrived at through deductive reasoning based on the purported evidence, as it is.

 Orlanth wrote:

 redleger wrote:

As said many many times, Theism is having faith something is without needing or wanting proof.
Atheism is wanting and needing proof to acknowledge something exists. No faith whatsoever.

Theism is having belief in the existence of the divine.
Atheism is having belief there is no divine.

The only way either of these conclusions could be reached is through choice of belief unless actual proof is provided. It is a matter of which evidence is accepted and which is rejected, and also how he same evidence is interpreted a lot of the time.

An agnostic is someone who needs proof before acknowledging something exists, and they can have an atheist or theistic outlook.

Believing in the divine requires faith, of which there is no proof but decide to just accept it. No evidence needed.

An atheist is going to come to a conclusion based on evidence or scientific method. Scientific method dictates that should contridictory evidence arise, and can be proven it then must be accepted. Most scientists publish papers, and welcome others to recreate the work proving or disproving said theory or expirement. Someone of faith can not accept contradictory evidence because there is no evidence or proof to begin with.

Just to add a little bit of different flavour to this discussion, as I do not believe one can actually make believer become an atheist or an atheist to become a believer based on an internet discussion, but:

What if I told you, you can influence (exalt or dim) your belief in any religious or paranormal phenomena or, on the other side, increase or decreas your emotional attachment to the world itself (sometimes to an extent, when you think in purely logical way or in pure, hysteric emotional way) by means of therapy with any major antiepileptic drug? Or many other psychiatric drugs?

In discussions like this people from both sides of the fence usually assume, that they are objective, logical beings somehow disconnected from influence of endocrynological, neurological and psychiatrical effects on human reasoning. Influence, which is VAST and omnidirectional and in all practical terms undermines the sole principle of "free will".

nou wrote:
Just to add a little bit of different flavour to this discussion, as I do not believe one can actually make believer become an atheist or an atheist to become a believer based on an internet discussion, but:

What if I told you, you can influence (exalt or dim) your belief in any religious or paranormal phenomena or, on the other side, increase or decreas your emotional attachment to the world itself (sometimes to an extent, when you think in purely logical way or in pure, hysteric emotional way) by means of therapy with any major antiepileptic drug? Or many other psychiatric drugs?

In discussions like this people from both sides of the fence usually assume, that they are objective, logical beings somehow disconnected from influence of endocrynological, neurological and psychiatrical effects on human reasoning. Influence, which is VAST and omnidirectional and in all practical terms undermines the sole principle of "free will".

actually I think that is valid and many, I am not one, believe that raising children religious is akin to child abuse. You condition someone to think one thing, which is simply how you were probably raised, and you have nurture. Free will is a touch existential question. do I choose to do this, or am I doing it because I have been programmed to. I can agree it is probably both, but a certain operating system has been placed in us as were were raised. I myself was raised religious, and I upgraded from windows 3.1 to Ubuntu if you will.

Atheist here. I don't believe in God, and am firmly planted in my beliefs, not only from an emotional standpoint, but from a logical standpoint.

There were times when I was weak (from family deaths) and wanted to believe so badly, and I couldn't because I felt nothing, I felt no god was there. I've also taken several history classes and realized that most religions are just stories, modified to serve a purpose (look at Egypt, Babylon, Mesopotamia, etc.).

That being said, if you want to believe, I support it. Just don't go pushing it on others.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?

Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.

Funny, as a polytheist myself, I was going to post this. Most arguments about the existence of the divine in western society focus exclusively on monotheism (thus such arguments as Pascal's wager and the existence of evil). Many dieties with differing interests and levels of power make a lot more sense in the world.

 skyth wrote:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
If you don't like theism because of the whole all powerful deity concept, why try something a little less exclusive?

Monotheism is generally the set of religions that believe in an all powerful god or goddess. Polytheism answers many of those age old explanations of why plagues break out, hurricanes destroy orphanages, and yet people inexplicably survive where they should not have and miraculously recover. There are many gods and goddesses at play, of varying degrees of power and compassion for humans. I'd imagine that's why most early religions went with polytheism.

Funny, as a polytheist myself, I was going to post this. Most arguments about the existence of the divine in western society focus exclusively on monotheism (thus such arguments as Pascal's wager and the existence of evil). Many dieties with differing interests and levels of power make a lot more sense in the world.

Does it? There has never been a culture with set levels of power. They're always erasing other gods and growing in power (a la Ra in Egypt). How does that make more sense than Monotheism?

The Greek pantheon definitely has some gods more powerful than others.

Most pantheons do...especially at different things(spheres of influence if you may...)

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Orlanth, with respect those aren't evidence unless your definition of evidence is very wide..

Actually it is evidence.

For a start if three witnesses see you commit a crime and there was no other evidence for or against that might will be enough to send you to prison. Testimony is evidence, in fact its the original source of evidence. Testimony need only be credible and corroborated. Amongst the Christian witness both can be found. Note that testimony is evidence it is not of itself proof. However what I a seeing a lot of shifting of goalposts by dishonest atheists who demand proofs as the only acceptable evidence, and when presented with no proofs pull a fast one and claim there is no evidence.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Personal testimony and Holy Spirit have no substance, and there's no reason to conclude that being raised in a religion doesn't largely inform such feelings.

On the contrary those feelings can lead to actions. It provides credible witnessevidence as lives are chaned, both from the person whose life is changed and also from those who know the person and see the change.
This is seen documentable as statistics. Let me give you an example.
The Argentine prison revival resulted in rehabilitation statistics other prison services could only dream of matching. IIRC in some cases over 90%. Olmos prison claimed a 95% rehabilitation rate due to the revival, with national average at 47%.
https://renewaljournal.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/prison-revival-in-argentina-byedgardo-silvoso/
http://sovereignworldtrust.org.uk/documents/Spring10newsletter.pdf

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

People around the world and theought history have felt similarly about personal connections with their own God or gods, conveniently the ones that a popular within their own culture. You don't get often get people raised as Hindus and never exposed to Christianity suddenly saying they've been specifically spoken to by a Christian God. The interpretation of individual experienced are informed by their religion, they don't arrive at God after a logical and unbiased examination of the evidence they have.

Why do you say this? Got any studies on this, you seem pretty sure of your premise.

Meanwhile It does happen. Good example of this is the ministry of Sundar Singh, who had a Christian conversion experience when not only not a Christian but as opposed to Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadhu_Sundar_Singh

In Visions Beyond the Veil a ministry to uneducated Chinese orphans was viited by the Holy Spirit. The children were exposed to spiritual experiences outside their birth culture and to which they had not been introduced.
https://hopefaithprayer.com/visions-beyond-the-veil-free-book-h-a-baker/

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

NDEs are explainable by many phenomena and are reproducible to an extent. They can be similar experiences to supposed alien abductions, but again the religious belief, or desire to believe in aliens, informs the conclusion rather than the evidence pointing towards God as the logical explanation..

Many NDE experience testimonies are from atheists and believers of other faiths. People who have no vested interest in suddenly becoming Christian.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Signs and wonders and Prophesies, again open to interpretation, but age old cognitive bias account for many observations, confirmation bias being most well known, as the brain loves to spot patterns in things and ignore evidence/experiences that doesn't support their preconceived ideas. Gamblers are terrible for this having faith in all sorts of things for what helps them win while ignoring how probability works.

What confirmation bias can you claim when the book of Daniel written two and a half thousand years ago predicts Israel will be restored after a specific portion of time. This first occurred when the Jews returned to restore the Temple, then again when the sevenfold curse is applied the rest of Israel is restored. Both events occurred on the correct day.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

It's not evidence. Most examples require cherry picking for a vast amount of 'data', and the conculsion that God exists has already been decided and evidence is mentally used to fit that conclusion. The conclusion isn't arrived at through deductive reasoning based on the purported evidence, as it is.

Atheism works the same way:

‘I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.’
Reference

Huxley, A., Ends and Means, 1937, pp. 270 ff.


Now there has to be 'cherry picking', but that is not in any way deceptive but to defend against deception. The Bible tells us to judge prophecy and it is not a sin to discard words or events that you aren't sure are of God.

1 Corinthians 14:29
Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Often critics will unfairly claim that believers will believe anything. Some might, but that is not what the teaching says we should do. Careful scepticism is a valid part of a spiritual walk.

As for the vast amount of data. That is because there are rather a lot of Christians. Its the largest identifiable people group on the planet and includes the worlds single largest organisation in the Roman Catholic church. Even if only a small fraction of the estimated 2.2 billion Christians are walking a spiritual life and encountered spiritual events, that would still be a multitude.




It is odd that a lot of glib wandwaves are used by people to deny the evidence of Christianity. Confirmation bias, mass hysteria, fraud etc etc. Atheism contains more confirmation bias, it is entirely reliant on it, as there is no conversion expereince alternative. Nobody is going to have a blinding light conversion to Dawkins on the road to Damascus.
Yet Atheists oftimes claim to be objective and scientific in their hand waving, and worse acclaim science itself as atheistic. The 'science vs religion fallacy' I ill cover in more detail later.

 redleger wrote:
Someone of faith can not accept contradictory evidence because there is no evidence or proof to begin with.

Here we are again. To claim there is no evidence for God, is the 'scientific' process' of putting fingers in ears saying "lalala i'm not listening". There is plenty of evidence, often from very credible witnesses, or documented events. You are free to choose not to believe it. But anyone who handwaves it all away should stop pretending they are applying any scientific reasoning to their conclusions.

What about your glib wand waves denying the truth of Islam, Hinduism, or the existence of Zeus?

True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't.

The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
What about your glib wand waves denying the truth of Islam, Hinduism, or the existence of Zeus?

Those arent glib hand waves.
I continue to believe in Christianity based on the positive evidence and it is mutually exclusive to the other faith systems you mentioned.
A Hindu or Moslem is perhaps in the same situation and their consequent denial of Christianity is not without reasoning, and I will not try to find fault in that.


The whole point about 'glib handwaves' is that they are correctly directed at atheist dogma, with direct relevance to the atheist position forwarded so often here on Dakka.
Christians and the theists aren't going around saying' there is no evidence for atheism'. I myself have never said that, and I have not witnessed any of the other theists of any faith here doing so either.
However atheist after atheist turns up and bleats the mantra 'there is no evidence for God'.
Funny thing is the same people claim to be atheistic due to scientific evidence, while forgetting that handwaving away unwanted evidence is just about the most unscientific thing a person of science do.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:


True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't..

Not universally true. People can and to convert or change their faith outlook to one different to that raised. Both Christianity and Islam are gaining a lot of new converts in the UK from cultures outside their own including atheist homes.
Besides the raised 'true believer' can apply to all persons including those raised in atheist households.

First this doesn't necessarily happen, second it doesn't imply that the decision to choose even the same faith as ones fathers is not thought through; and third, it can apply to people brought up as atheists as to any other faith group.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.

Is this so. Where are the Moslem miracles or the Hindu ones?
You will find the premise of miriaculous testimony is pretty much unique to the charismatic fellowships, of whatever denomination. There are very few non-Christian miracle stories.
No they don't cancel each other out.

I dont think theism and atheism are two sides of the same coin. Atheism is seeing there's no evidence, at least that youve ever noticed, and deciding that you dont believe. A theist sees all this, and believes anyways. That at least was what I was taught when I grew up Methodist. One of the only things I remember from the sermons was constantly being reminded that the whole point of faith was believing in something that everyone was trying to disprove. That no matter what, you didnt question God/Jesus/Holy spirit and trusted their judgement. Which after being far too trusting of other people and getting burned because of this upbringing, I started to question how wise it was to assume this was different. I went through a brief "devout atheist phase" like many people do when theyre first out, but that mellowed out pretty quick.

My position on religion has been a half hearted "meh" for years now, in that one day I realized that it wasnt an issue of believing or not believing, I just didnt care.

It creates friction with some family and peers, but since I dont really preach "MrMoustaffa's Gospel of I Don't Really Care", its not usually a big deal. The only real place where problems have arisen is dating, because many girls are still "no sex before marriage" religious types here (nothing wrong with that, its their choice.) A dirty heathen like me doesnt have those same reservations so its almost to the point of a first date question, just so I dont waste the poor girl's time.

I just feel I shouldnt need the threat of eternal damnation to make me be a good person, and if there isnt anything after this, I need to make it count. Plus, if I lived a genuinely good life in every way I could, and was denied heaven just because I didnt worship, it probably wasnt a god I wanted to worship anyways.

Now if the Raptrue started tomorrow and I saw people floating into the sky to go to heaven, I'd be the first to admit I was wrong about not believing in a god and apologize. But as we all know its probably too late by then.

Whether thats agnostic, atheist, humanist, or scientologist I dont really care, and it doesnt really matter. I usually just check atheist or agnostic depending on which is available whenever a form asks. Thats about the closest choices I have as far as I'm aware and checking other makes it sound like I worship the Flying Soaghetti Monster or something.

 skyth wrote:
The Greek pantheon definitely has some gods more powerful than others.

Most pantheons do...especially at different things(spheres of influence if you may...)

Yeah, because of political influence. Trust me, I've spent a year of college studying the effects of religion, and most of the difference in power level is due to priests/politicians using it to rule/suppress others, especially women, by shifting power from female to male deities. Ra is the most classic example, in that he was birthed from a mother goddess, but after a century of rule Ra was revised to have birthed every other god and goddess.

Polytheism isn't that different from monotheism.

To be clear, I am not operating from a position of superiority, nor talking down to anyone, nor feeling smug about this whole thing.

I am genuinely interested in this subject and enjoy discussing it.

Some points have been raised equating unicorns or some similar fantasy animal to a deity. This is silly. We have described a potential deity to have such awesome power, it's not apples to apples.

I asked before, if there was some all-powerful deity, surely it would be trivial for it to conceal it's existence from us. The best answer I got was "why would it do that".

I understand that agnosticism is a bit of a cop out. But I have seen no compelling evidence either way.

It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
True believers always think the evidence of their own religion, the one they were raised and trained into, is the most compelling. To anyone who grew up outside your faith, it isn't.

The testimonials and miracles all cancel each other out. If your religion and each of the others are mutually exclusive and present evidence of similar quality, the most reasonable conclusion that they are all wrong.

For second point not every religion denies existance of others so just because evidence would point to religion X being true doesn't mean religion Y wouldn't be true. Both being true isn't impossibility.

For first it conveniently ignores that religions have and do spread outside original place. If it didn't christianity wouldn't have come to europe. Buddhism would have stayed in India(and died out later when India was ravaged by Mongols and Buddhism was all but wiped out of India until birthplace of Buddhism re-received Buddhism from other countries!).

You could say that's ancient history and doesn't apply anymore(which is quite convenient handwavium) except it's happening even these days and indeed with opening of culture, travel and information has become probably easier than ever before...

Buddhism for example(I use it because apart from Christianity I was born that's the religion I'm most familiar with) is spreading into western countries adapting itself as it has had habit of in the 2500 years it's existed. Even in Finland there's organized Buddhism activity. Obviously in Helsinki and I think there's some in Turku and read of some groups in bigger cities in north. Plus n amount of individuals who don't belong to organized groups because either there isn't such in place he/she lives or he/She doesn't know if it does exists(pretty sure there's no Buddhist activity where I live for example. Closest you get is library that at least has related books...)

 jreilly89 wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The Greek pantheon definitely has some gods more powerful than others.

Most pantheons do...especially at different things(spheres of influence if you may...)

Yeah, because of political influence. Trust me, I've spent a year of college studying the effects of religion, and most of the difference in power level is due to priests/politicians using it to rule/suppress others, especially women, by shifting power from female to male deities. Ra is the most classic example, in that he was birthed from a mother goddess, but after a century of rule Ra was revised to have birthed every other god and goddess.

Polytheism isn't that different from monotheism.

Even without the political, there is the division between the big three (Zeus, Hades, and Poseidon) and the rest as far as power goes.

Plus there is the whole sphere of influence thing. Ares wants more and brutal war. Hermes wants to share information, Bachus just wants to get drunk, etc. which supports how the world is the way it is.

And this is talking about the gods themselved, not the religion that man formed around them. Not neccessarily the same thing. I am a Hellenic Pagan myself, but I don't base it on exactly what the ancients believed.

Il go ahead and take agnostic.

and i have no issues with people believing in what they want to.

and ether way and any sides, there will always be terrible people that will do terrible things in the name of something or another

 Soladrin wrote:
It's impossible for me to look at religions history and imagine rational people believing it's nonsense in this day and age.

Scientology is technically a religion that was founded in the last century.......