I was raised in a western society where Christianity is the most common religion. My parents were Catholic and Church of England. They taught us the principles of the Christian faith. I could have been a Muslim or a Hindu if I had of been born in the right place and I would still be living a morally principled existence, just worshipping another version of the same God that I worship now. I would not be worshipping Thor or fairies.
So the compelling evidence that points to the existence of the specific god you believe in is that you were raised to believe in it? That’s some weak evidence, if you ask me.
If you lived in ancient Greece you would have believed in and worshipped Zeus and Apollo. As you say, geography matters. Zeus and Apollo are definitely not “another version of the same god” you worship now.
That is silliness that atheists use to give an extreme appearance on religion, many of which are copy cat sheep followers, mimicking other atheists.
Can you clarify what you mean by this sentence?
You just agreed with me above that geography is a strong factor in determining what god beliefs people will have. I would say time period is a factor as well.
These straw men you mention, called Allah, Vishnu and Thor, do they have the same following as Christianity does and the same objective?
There’s no strawman here. What I said speaks directly to the point we are discussing. Those are actual gods that people worship (and have worshiped in the past).
Apparently there are 1.6 billion people in the world who worship Allah and there are 1 billion Hindus in the world. Appealing to numbers doesn’t help your argument.
The number of people who believe, nor the objective of the religion(s) speaks to the truth of the claims those religions make.
Where is the connection between them and Christianity, which, I believe, is the point being contested and not some unrepresentative straw man.
The connection is that they are all religions practiced by human beings.
Just because I believe in God does not make a belief in the cookie monster tenable. It is a rediculous conclusion to come to. I fail to see their relevance in your retort. Your straw man is so weak that it has fallen over without needing to be knocked down. The argument that you replace my argument with just is not a tenable comparison . There is no comparison between them and my beliefs so to use them as an analogy is fallacious illogical and therefore meaningless. I am sure that although this is yet another case of you using straw men to win an argument you will deny that it does not even resemble the logical fallacy of using Straw Men, that is : "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition". I have told you about this many times now, so why are you ignoring it?
I’m not talking about the Cookie Monster. I’m talking about the other gods human beings believe(d) in. I’m not making a straw man argument. I’m not making an analogy. We are talking about how to determine whether or not something exists (deities, in this case) and what kind of evidence is compelling enough to lead someone to believe in the existence of something. You’ve also made the assertion that theists are all worshiping different versions of the same god. So it’s not a straw man to reference the thousands of other gods that human beings worship (and their differences) in such a discussion.
How can someone determine which religion, and therefore which god, is the real one, when billions of people currently (and throughout the course of human history) have believed in the existence of thousands of different gods, just as fervently as you believe in the god you worship?
As you well know, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, the figure prints of God can be seen everywhere, there is plenty of evidence if you look with eyes that are completely opened and not half shut critical eye.
Absence of evidence is not a compelling reason to believe in a thing, imo.
What fingerprints am I supposed to be looking at? Where can I find this god? Why hasn’t anyone ever been able to demonstrate the existence of any god(s)?
Are you telling me people have to put away their critical thinking skills when it comes to belief in god? What does that tell you about that belief? It tells me that it’s based on wishful thinking.
Nah, i usually can decipher comments like this but I cannot make head nor tales of this.
What do you need me to clarify?
I lack belief in god(s).
I want to believe things that are true and strive to do so.
What I personally wish to be true doesn’t speak at all to the actual truth of a thing.
Do you know what it means to preach.
Yeppers.
I originally said "So you are a nonbeliever than. You don't believe that the God, that I know exists, actually exists. You actually believe that he does not exists and that I, and all others who make the same claim as me, are in fact liars or mentally challenged.
The statement is based on logical reasoning. If you do not believe that God exists then the alternative can only be that anyone who says that He does exist is in fact speaking a falsehood, according to your beliefs it is not a truth. They are lying, whether you think it is intentional or the result of a mental illness, it is not the actual truth in your mind. You are, therefore, calling them liars. The words origins are from your mouth, they are not placed there by anybody else.
Those are the words you put in my mouth. I have never said any such thing and I find your logic to be flawed. What I’ve already said, I will restate again:
What I said was that people are commonly mistaken and/or misled about things without even knowing it. Human beings are subject to all kinds of psychological biases that most of us are not even aware of. One does not have to suffer from mental retardation or consciously lie in order to be mistaken or misled about something they believe. Tons of people in this world believe all kinds of things that aren’t true about all kinds of different things. Ever heard of “old wives tales?” They’re called that for a reason.
Yes, inadvertantly, that is exactly what you said. Believers think contrary to you. You believe that you are right so they must be wrong. You are telling the truth and they are lying. That is what you said. Human beings are none to be wrong or mistaken, however, 2.2 billion mistaken individuals, really?
It’s not exactly what I said. It’s exactly what YOU said.
I’ve stated several times that is not what I said, nor meant to say, nor implied. I clarified very specifically, what I think about it.
Humans beings are commonly and regularly mistaken and/or misled.
So, do you believe that when I categorize you as an atheist, because you are an atheist, you think that the category of atheists is in someway demonic? If that is what you believe that I am doing then you are wrong in your appraisal of me. I am a Christian. I know the consequences of such immoral iniquity. I admit to tarring you with the atheist brush, not to demonising you. You have misrepresented me, again.
By the word “demonize” I mean, “to portray as wicked or threatening,” as you have done. You said yourself that you had hoped to tar me.
Christians aren’t immune from doing things that are wrong, inaccurate, incorrect, immoral, etc. as you keep trying to say. They’re human, just like anybody else.
No, I was not wrong in my opinion in this case. In my experience with forum atheists, such as yourself, I am 100% correct. It is not unusuals for a dedicated atheist to accuse a Christian of being mentally deranged for believing in someone who they believe doesn't exist.
You may be correct if you were speaking to some other atheist who had actually said that, but you are wrong about it when you are talking to me. YOU ARE WRONG IN THIS CASE. I said no such things. Please stop repeating it.
That I believe in God is very much representative of all converted Christians. That I strive to adhere to the principles and commandments, given to us by God, is also very representative of Christianity. That I believe that murder is a sin, as is adultery, sexual perversion, dishonoring your parents, judging, stealing, envying, etc etc is exemplification of Christianity. I would say that I am representative of a converted Christian, however, I believe you confuse me with psuedo Christians who add to the Bible, preach false doctrine and alter doctrine to fit in with mans false interpretations, of which there are many examples.
One single person does not represent all Christians. Especially given that there are thousands of denominations in existence. Another Christian may tell me that it is you who is the pseudo Christian.
