Dear Freethinkers

[firstfloor]

For one, God is spirit, so one couldn't see His true form. Two, seeing His full glory would be as lethal as spending a minute on the Sun's surface.

[Sparko]

And you reached that conclusion on the basis of a photograph of a cloud? Are we to conclude that you think that really was God Alcloudy?

19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

[firstfloor]

No. just that even if God was in the sky waving at you, you would come up with some excuse not to believe it. "It's a cloud!" "It's a hologram" "It's the drugs I took at at lunch time" "I am going insane!"

The reason you don't believe in God is not because of proof, but because you want to be able to do whatever you want without feeling guilt or shame at your sinful behavior.

It is true that non-belief unburdens a person from religious guilt but what you forget is that we do not choose our beliefs. Would you be able to choose Islam tomorrow and be sincere in your beliefs?

[37818]

I wonder if any fundy atheists would still hold to their atheism even on Judgement Day? They could just claim to think God was really just the most advanced alien entity or something. That just happens to have all the attributes that are attributed to God in Christian theology...

I can just see it now . . . " But, . . . But, you don't exist!" [But there will be no door to hide behind.]

[Christianbookworm]

I can just see it now . . . " But, . . . But, you don't exist!" [But there will be no door to hide behind.]

Can't hide from the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator of the universe. He'd be at the top of the list of beings you would not be able to play a game of hide and seek with. Attempting to hide from God is more pathetic than a small child thinking they can hide by just covering their eyes and thinking no one can find them.

[firstfloor]

• Edited by a Moderator •

[Sparko]

It is true that non-belief unburdens a person from religious guilt but what you forget is that we do not choose our beliefs. Would you be able to choose Islam tomorrow and be sincere in your beliefs?

you choose what evidence you accept and reject

[firstfloor]

you choose what evidence you accept and reject

[Sparko]

nothing is clear cut as that, FF. You never "KNOW" anything is true or not, especially in metaphysics. What you think are facts are usually just the evidence that you accepted as "true" - but you could be wrong.

Take the typical JFK conspiracy. Those who believe it will tell you the FACTS prove that he was assassinated by the CIA or something like that. Those who don't believe it will tell you the FACTS prove that Oswald worked alone.

You believe the FACTS prove that God doesn't exist. Yet when asked what those FACTS are, they will turn out to be mere beliefs and opinion.

On the other hand I don't think anything can uncontroversially PROVE God exists, but I believe the evidence that he does exist is overwhelming enough that I do believe. And I think that the evidence that he is the Christian God and not the Muslim God is pretty strong too. So I CHOOSE to believe in the Christian God because of the evidence I CHOSE to believe is true.

You CHOOSE not to believe in God because the evidence you accept it true is that he does not exist. That is your choice.

And I think you choose that because of what I said earlier: The darkness is afraid to come into the light.

Think about it. You think your secret sin is safe as long as you don't believe in God. Because once you do accept God, then you have to face that sin and admit it is wrong, which you don't want to do. But whether you want to believe in God or not, if he exists, then one day you will indeed face him, and your sins.

Or you can have your sins be forgiven by a God who loves you despite your flaws. Your choice.

[firstfloor]

nothing is clear cut as that, FF. You never "KNOW" anything is true or not, especially in metaphysics. What you think are facts are usually just the evidence that you accepted as "true" - but you could be wrong.

Take the typical JFK conspiracy. Those who believe it will tell you the FACTS prove that he was assassinated by the CIA or something like that. Those who don't believe it will tell you the FACTS prove that Oswald worked alone.

You believe the FACTS prove that God doesn't exist. Yet when asked what those FACTS are, they will turn out to be mere beliefs and opinion.

On the other hand I don't think anything can uncontroversially PROVE God exists, but I believe the evidence that he does exist is overwhelming enough that I do believe. And I think that the evidence that he is the Christian God and not the Muslim God is pretty strong too. So I CHOOSE to believe in the Christian God because of the evidence I CHOSE to believe is true.

You CHOOSE not to believe in God because the evidence you accept it true is that he does not exist. That is your choice.

And I think you choose that because of what I said earlier: The darkness is afraid to come into the light.

Think about it. You think your secret sin is safe as long as you don't believe in God. Because once you do accept God, then you have to face that sin and admit it is wrong, which you don't want to do. But whether you want to believe in God or not, if he exists, then one day you will indeed face him, and your sins.

Or you can have your sins be forgiven by a God who loves you despite your flaws. Your choice.

I would make a distinction between facts which are neutral observations about the world that anyone might agree and analysis or interpretation of facts which, depending on the subject, requires a degree of expertise to accomplish. Mistakes in interpretation are common enough. There are plenty of people who hold beliefs that have nothing to do with facts. Take two different religions such as Christianity and Islam; very different beliefs despite the fact that they exist alongside each other in the same reality. You can see straight away that some of those beliefs are divorced from reality otherwise they would be consistent. Reality is the only yardstick we have for determining what is true. Metaphysical claims about what might be beyond reality are without value; no more than hot air.

I still think that we do not choose our beliefs and we are not entitled to our own facts. We can choose our own interpretation of facts and we can pick which facts suit our beliefs and ignore or brush off others; we tend to stick with what is familiar and comforting even if it s not actually true. This is where doubt comes to the rescue.

[firstfloor]

[One Bad Pig]

I still think that we do not choose our beliefs and we are not entitled to our own facts.

You're entitled to think what you want, but it seems to me that religions which grow from statistically insignificant to 1/3 the world's population just might grow at least in part through choice.

[Sparko]

I would make a distinction between facts which are neutral observations about the world that anyone might agree and analysis or interpretation of facts which, depending on the subject, requires a degree of expertise to accomplish. Mistakes in interpretation are common enough. There are plenty of people who hold beliefs that have nothing to do with facts. Take two different religions such as Christianity and Islam; very different beliefs despite the fact that they exist alongside each other in the same reality. You can see straight away that some of those beliefs are divorced from reality otherwise they would be consistent. Reality is the only yardstick we have for determining what is true. Metaphysical claims about what might be beyond reality are without value; no more than hot air.

I still think that we do not choose our beliefs and we are not entitled to our own facts. We can choose our own interpretation of facts and we can pick which facts suit our beliefs and ignore or brush off others; we tend to stick with what is familiar and comforting even if it s not actually true. This is where doubt comes to the rescue.

Even scientific "facts" are nothing more than probabilities. How many times have such facts been overturned? And will be overturned in the future as more evidence is found?

And when you have two conflicting views on something without hard facts, like between religions or religion and atheism, what yardstick do you use to determine which is correct? As far as I am concerned, I have actually studied various religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, and the evidence for each and have found that Christianity has the most consistent and realistic claims and evidence. And I find that the evidence FOR a God existing to be greater than the evidence that he does not exist.

Can you claim the same?

[Sparko]

Wow, that sounds like a whole lot of "opinion" to me. Do you have any facts to back it up?

[firstfloor]

Even scientific "facts" are nothing more than probabilities. How many times have such facts been overturned? And will be overturned in the future as more evidence is found?

And when you have two conflicting views on something without hard facts, like between religions or religion and atheism, what yardstick do you use to determine which is correct? As far as I am concerned, I have actually studied various religions, such as Islam and Hinduism, Buddhism, etc, and the evidence for each and have found that Christianity has the most consistent and realistic claims and evidence. And I find that the evidence FOR a God existing to be greater than the evidence that he does not exist.

Can you claim the same?