So, I have lingered here for a while. Basically, my atheism and doubt of existence of God and benefit of religion has been strengthening the more I read these threads. All I see is religious people arguing based on their (seemingly) oblivious worldview, not caring about reality.

Now the only problem I have as an "atheist" is "real issues" like the "existence of reality" and "meaning".

But "existence" is surely independent of the questions "does God exist?" and "is religion useful?"

"Meaning" might not be independent of such questions, however.

Maybe meaning in religion is important, but the values that people have based on their religion is insane, and most people do not stick to these morals. The morals that religions are based on are really insane. I'm all for counterintuitive morals if there are reasons behind them, but religion gives nothing useful, seemingly nothing meaningful, and just a bunch of confused and immoral bull****, which I do not want to be a part of.

Why can't Christians just see things the way they are?

Will a Christian/religious person of other faith please give me a good reason to be religious. Please. Just one reason.

Just one reason to believe in God. Any reason at all?

Moreover, I have never seen an argument where you cannot replace "God" with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Pleeaaase, religious people, there must be something obvious I am missing.

Perhaps what I am missing is the direct experience of God, of which I would only know if it actually happened to me. But then the fact that it doesn't happen to me means that it's not important to me. Unless it is "my duty to seek that experience". In which case, I will probably think that I have experienced God even though I have not (for psychological reasons). Moreover, if God exists and is omni-whatever, why doesn't he just tell me to worship him? I don't buy the bull****.

TheoreticalBull**** made the best video on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iClejS8vWjo

already seen it lol

If God wanted you to worship him, you'd worship him.

The whole idea that God wants you to do something, but want force you to do it and then if you don't do it he'll punish you for eternity is.. LOL.

Srsly. Christianity is only so popular, because it was ruthlessly spread trough wars and persecution.

On the other hand, I do buy Hindu and Buddhist doctrines as much more sensible.

Sorry to high-jack your thread.

Most if not all Christians become Christians because of an experience with God. That's my story and I don't know of anyone who just looked at the arguments and evidence and concluded through a reasoning process that God exists and that Christianity is true. If that is possible it's very rare.

When I became a Christian my immediate concern was whether or not I was committing myself to something that is irrational. Since then, about 40 years ago, I've spent a lot of time examining that question. I've never encountered an argument or evidence that shows Christian theism is irrational or false.

And I believe that the non-existence of God entails a fundamental reality that is either non-rational or irrational. If God is not the ultimate ground of reality then something that is impersonal is - and that seems far less rational than theism.

I have never found an argument or reason to believe that we are not plugged into the matrix. Thankfully, the burden of proof doesn't work this way and I am not forced to start believing in the Matrix. You have to find evidence or reason TO believe.

As for rationality, what is irrational about a naturalistic worldview? It seems entirely consistent (well outside of things like unifying gravitation with the other three but I don't think you mean this). Am I missing this gaping logic hole somewhere? What is it?

As for personal experiences, these are always the hardest to refute because only you know what you experienced and I can't falsify it. I know that many followers of many other religions have such experiences. I know something of the psychology of how people have psychological experiences or, later on in life, think that they had them. And any time I have ever tries to press somebody on the nature and details of their experiences it turns up entirely empty handed. But it isn't the kind of lock solid deductive proof I would prefer.

So God is very seldom, (if ever) arrived at through reason and argument and evidence, yet a framework that doesn't include god is irrational? How exactly does that work? What if I have never had an experience of God, what else would I have to go on besides reason and evidence?

Pascal's Wager

I am, nevertheless, an atheist.

One point on convincing people of stuff. Most arguments for god, IMO, are the argument of the heap. That is there is a wide range of philosophical arguments, claims to evidence, emotional appeals, etc that are piled on top of the god idea. The cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral arguement, the transcendental argument, etc etc. I agree that nobody hears any one of these and immediately starts believing. But having a range of these at the tips of ones fingers allows the religious person to justify their beliefs to themselves in a moment of questioning, and, becuse the heap looks so big, can think that it certainy is justified. By removing arguments from the heap one at a time, the way religion can defend itself gets smaller and smaller. And it is certainly true that this process has led many people towards atheism.

We are both finite and sinful. We can't, and of ourselves, we won't know God. Philosophy and evidence alone can't overcome that. But that doesn't mean we are irrational. We have a reason, which is God's witness to us, and we can defend what we believe through argument and evidence.

I believe that at some time in everyone's life God makes himself known. See Romans 1-3. If he never does, if he never provides any call or any light, then I don't think he will judge someone for not responding. But I wouldn't count on being among those whom God never dealt with.

Most people I know who consider them themselves christians are people who were brought up in the faith by their parents. I don't know of any personally who weren't christians but then became one after an experience with god.

I've rejected all of those arguments based on rational thought and my understanding of the universe. In short, those arguments are stupid.

Like what?

Oooohh, riiight, you were moving in that direction lol. Gotcha. Totally agree.

That's fine. I don't think theists are irrational I'm just wondering how a framework without God can be considered as such.

There are definitely such people alive.

francis collins

really???? Can you please elaborate what your interpretation and your beliefs towards Christianity is?

How do you know that this thing is impersonal?

Computer is sucking and it won't let me quote stuff.

Pascal's wager is silly for many reasons.

I don't get NotReady's ramble. It seemed like a bunch of words strung together that have no meaning to me. Maybe if God were to reveal himself to me then I would see something there. Oh well, I guess he's too much of a chicken. baaark bark bark bark. baaaark.

And thankou Sommerset for providing that example.

The matrix has never called me. He has never convicted me of sin and claimed to be the way, the truth and the life, that no one comes to the Father apart from him. The matrix has never told me that if I reject him I will be lost forever or that if I accept him I will have rivers of living water flowing from my innermost being. The matrix has never communicated with me in any way. Therefore, there is nothing to which to respond.

Dang. Leveled again. When when o when o Lord will I ever learn?

How do you respond to those that are called/communicated with by Allah or Krishna or Buddha?

What???? Then you must have been locked in a cave for all those years...

Wasting time in this thread with sarcastic comments will not help convert me to Christianity. I want real arguments please.

If this is the case, you must either misunderstand "God" or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster."

I'd guess that it's probably "The Flying Spaghetti Monster." That was a particular parody to address a particular issue. It is does not suffice as a logical equivalent to "God" in all possible ways. If you were making an error of this type, you might also misunderstand Russel's Teapot (and the criticisms of that particular argument).

However, it's possible that you misunderstand "God" as merely an empty word to which you can apply whatever characteristics you desire.

What's a "real argument"? Are you looking for empricial evidence for us to present to you that says that God has been "measured" in some manner? Are you looking for an argument from certain first principles about the logical necessity of God's existence?

I'll save you time. Give it up. There are no arguments or evidence for existence of any god out there. You already know this. Just live your life to the best of your abilities. That's all you can do.