A question for atheists

[HumbleSiPilot77]

There will always be faith. It will always exist. Even though we reject it. That is why it doesn't require an object. We channel it. I and others attach it to a certain definition, due to reasons known to ourselves again, certain experiences, etc. But it is certainly possible to float it out there too.

 

[InkBlott]

Actually, I'm going to make the question a topic in its own right.

Bushmaster: would you be willing to repeat what you've said above in the new topic. I find it interesting.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Which one?

 

[InkBlott]

Which one?

Sorry. This one: http://www.christianforums.com/t7390594/

 

[Nooj]

What is your logic behind believing that God does not exist?

I haven't been convinced by the evidence that theists have shown me yet.

And also, what are your feelings about religious people?

It depends on the individual.

 

[uberd00b]

Pending the reinstatement of my original post I'll simply say that I'm an atheist because to me gods appear not to exist.

My opinion of the religious is that they're slightly misguided.

 

[neutronium_alice]

The principle of non-contradiction and metaphysical materialism. Omnipotence, omniscience, miracles and the supernatural are impossible by definition, the word 'god' is a meaningless non-cognitive sound.

 

[Gracchus]

Omnipotence, omniscience, miracles and the supernatural are impossible by definition,...

True.

... the word 'god' is a meaningless non-cognitive sound.

"God" may be otherwise defined.

 

[Saldaws]

you can't use logic that something exists because "what's the logic that it doesn't exist?" rather, use the logic that because it was written 2k years ago it must be true cause humans wrote it while they were under the influence of God

 

[nolongerhome]

you can't use logic that something exists because "what's the logic that it doesn't exist?" rather, use the logic that because it was written 2k years ago it must be true cause humans wrote it while they were under the influence of God

That logic renders basically every religious document of every religion true.

Is that what you believe? Because it is old and they said it was inspired by God, it therefore is?

 

[The Nihilist]

you can't use logic that something exists because "what's the logic that it doesn't exist?" rather, use the logic that because it was written 2k years ago it must be true cause humans wrote it while they were under the influence of God

HAhahaha what

 

[The Nihilist]

.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

That logic renders basically every religious document of every religion true.

That would be a little circular reasoning but that is why we have Theology. You can take every religious document of every religion and put into comparison, and how it refers to each other.

 

[CoderHead]

But if one person who subscribes wholeheartedly into one religious document evaluates your religious document, he'll be unconvinced simply because he already believes in his. Likewise, you'd be unconvinced by his document because you're already convinced yours is true. In the end, you accept yours on faith and so does he. So what makes yours any more or less valid than his?

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

But if one person who subscribes wholeheartedly into one religious document evaluates your religious document, he'll be unconvinced simply because he already believes in his.

...or he would convert, just like I did, from Islam to Orthodoxy.

 

[CoderHead]

...or vice versa.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

Not in my case... But I am not any type of authority, I made my comparison objectively, and from a skeptic's point of view. However, since this exchange of religions would seem too random and nonsensical to some, and they choose to remain belief-less. I can't tell them the difference.

 

[nolongerhome]

Not in my case... But I am not any type of authority, I made my comparison objectively, and from a skeptic's point of view. However, since this exchange of religions would seem too random and nonsensical to some, and they choose to remain belief-less. I can't tell them the difference.

I'm interested to know how a human being made an objective comparison of the claims of two religions and was able to decide one was true and the other was not.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

I'm interested to know how a human being made an objective comparison of the claims of two religions and was able to decide one was true and the other was not.

Human being huh? I am glad there are better human beings than me that are interested in the impossible. Coming from Islam, anything you look and consider outside of it, you would need to evaluate with objectivity, it is so easy to be subjective however not so easy to just leave it. Even for a "human being"...

 

[nolongerhome]

Human being huh? I am glad there are better human beings than me that are interested in the impossible. Coming from Islam, anything you look and consider outside of it, you would need to evaluate with objectivity, it is so easy to be subjective however not so easy to just leave it. Even for a "human being"...

The point is that a human being can never be objective. In particular, they can not be objective about making a decision between rival claims that require you to abandon reason to accept them (that is, they require faith).

So I'm wondering how you, as a person, like all of us, incapable of being truly objective was able to make an objective judgement on a subject manner that is, by its nature, outside the realms of objective reason?