Help: How do I know that your God is the one, true God?

[Kir Komrik]

Hi all,
I'm new here and have just read up on the policies and finished my signature, etc. I hope I've done everything correctly so far.
I would like to believe in an almighty power but the problem is that in my research I've found so many gods out there. Coming from a family that has been explicitly atheist for generations, I'm starting from scratch and am looking at all religions.
I am sincerely curious to know how would I know, for instance, that your god is the one, true God?
Thank you.

[Danmark]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

I believe you have misstated the position of most atheists an I know your description does not apply to me.

Do all atheists believe like you? How then can you answer for them?

I define an atheist as one who simply believes that the orthodox god of traditional theism, that is, a god with a personality who is represented by the mythology of the Bible, and Genesis in particular, is unlikely to exist.

Since atheists fall under different categories like, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist,broad atheist, narrow atheist, weak atheist and about 12 more that I haven't mentioned, I don't think it would be proper for you to represent all 17 groups since you must surely only represent one group.

Scientists no longer waste their time searching for a theory of a flat Earth, or that disease is caused by the 'ether' or evil spirits. Scientists do not take seriously astrology or the notion the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days by a god who was created in our image.

In short, when a silly idea, that has either already been refuted, or is not falsifiable is proposed a scientist does not "...continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search."

Well they consider the notion that the first cell rode in on an asteroid from an alien planet. Whats wrong with one more silly hypothesis?

BTW, I would appreciate it if you would not make blanket statements about any group, using words like "you atheists.
It is not only against the rules of this forum, it is as likely to be as inaccurate as saying, 'You Christians like to kill doctors who perform abortions.'

My apologies. I should have given more thought to my phraseology. BTW. Why do you scold me for making blanket statements about atheists, and then turn around and make a blanket statement by speaking for most atheists?

I think you can do a better job of reading than you demonstrate in this response.

First, as you say, I qualified my statement by saying 'most', not 'all'. 2d, I went further nowhere did I claim to be speaking for anyone but myself and even gave my definition for 'atheist.' I did that, I believe you can deduce, to clarify there may be other definitions for 'atheist.' How could you possibly conclude I was claiming to speak for those who do not fit under the definition I gave?

Finally, I think it would be helpful if we all presume that no one claims to speak for others unless he specifically makes such a claim.

Finally, I believe your admonition against 'scolding' is also poorly founded.
I phrased my words as a request: 'I would appreciate it if...,' hardly a scolding.

[SHIN KAIRI]

Here is how u know that Yehovah-Yeshua is the only true God :

[Zetesis Apistia]

A cure for the aids virus does not currently exist, but scientists are not in opposition to one. In fact they are busy searching for one. You on the other hand appear to be staunchly opposed to the idea that a God may very well exist. A real scientist would continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search. You atheists boast that you are on the side of science and quickly abandon scientific protocol when you form your unfounded speculations about God.

I believe you have misstated the position of most atheists an I know your description does not apply to me.

Do all atheists believe like you? How then can you answer for them?

I define an atheist as one who simply believes that the orthodox god of traditional theism, that is, a god with a personality who is represented by the mythology of the Bible, and Genesis in particular, is unlikely to exist.

Since atheists fall under different categories like, gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist,broad atheist, narrow atheist, weak atheist and about 12 more that I haven't mentioned, I don't think it would be proper for you to represent all 17 groups since you must surely only represent one group.

Scientists no longer waste their time searching for a theory of a flat Earth, or that disease is caused by the 'ether' or evil spirits. Scientists do not take seriously astrology or the notion the Earth is 6000 years old and was created in 6 days by a god who was created in our image.

In short, when a silly idea, that has either already been refuted, or is not falsifiable is proposed a scientist does not "...continue his search and save his opinion until he exhausted every means available in his search."

Well they consider the notion that the first cell rode in on an asteroid from an alien planet. Whats wrong with one more silly hypothesis?

BTW, I would appreciate it if you would not make blanket statements about any group, using words like "you atheists.
It is not only against the rules of this forum, it is as likely to be as inaccurate as saying, 'You Christians like to kill doctors who perform abortions.'

My apologies. I should have given more thought to my phraseology. BTW. Why do you scold me for making blanket statements about atheists, and then turn around and make a blanket statement by speaking for most atheists?

I think you can do a better job of reading than you demonstrate in this response.

First, as you say, I qualified my statement by saying 'most', not 'all'. 2d, I went further nowhere did I claim to be speaking for anyone but myself and even gave my definition for 'atheist.' I did that, I believe you can deduce, to clarify there may be other definitions for 'atheist.' How could you possibly conclude I was claiming to speak for those who do not fit under the definition I gave?

Finally, I think it would be helpful if we all presume that no one claims to speak for others unless he specifically makes such a claim.

Finally, I believe your admonition against 'scolding' is also poorly founded.
I phrased my words as a request: 'I would appreciate it if...,' hardly a scolding.

On one particular atheist site, there were 17 different groups of atheists. The site said 17 was not exhaustive. So most atheists dont believe like you if the site is correct. Only 1 in 17. So your definition of "most" would be reaching as well. Given two thousand more years and there may be as many atheist denominations as there are religious ones.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

[Danmark]

On one particular atheist site, there were 17 different groups of atheists. The site said 17 was not exhaustive. So most atheists dont believe like you if the site is correct. Only 1 in 17. So your definition of "most" would be reaching as well. Given two thousand more years and there may be as many atheist denominations as there are religious ones.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

17? Excellent way to make the point that it is not helpful to talk about atheists as some monolithic group

[Zetesis Apistia]

On one particular atheist site, there were 17 different groups of atheists. The site said 17 was not exhaustive. So most atheists dont believe like you if the site is correct. Only 1 in 17. So your definition of "most" would be reaching as well. Given two thousand more years and there may be as many atheist denominations as there are religious ones.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

17? Excellent way to make the point that it is not helpful to talk about atheists as some monolithic group

Would you say that with such a diversity among atheists suggests that most of it is rooted in speculation?

[Danmark]

On one particular atheist site, there were 17 different groups of atheists. The site said 17 was not exhaustive. So most atheists dont believe like you if the site is correct. Only 1 in 17. So your definition of "most" would be reaching as well. Given two thousand more years and there may be as many atheist denominations as there are religious ones.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

17? Excellent way to make the point that it is not helpful to talk about atheists as some monolithic group

Would you say that with such a diversity among atheists suggests that most of it is rooted in speculation?

Your reasoning is so flawed, it would be error to call it reasoning.
For all I know there may be a billion different types of atheism or Christianity, one for each practitioner. The former at least must meet some basic definition: a disbelief or lack of belief in god, variously defined.

BTW, I don't ascribe to your 17 number. That is your claim. I'm happy to use it as an example of diversity within a group, but I don't care to investigate websites just because you chanced on them.

[Zetesis Apistia]

On one particular atheist site, there were 17 different groups of atheists. The site said 17 was not exhaustive. So most atheists dont believe like you if the site is correct. Only 1 in 17. So your definition of "most" would be reaching as well. Given two thousand more years and there may be as many atheist denominations as there are religious ones.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=6487

17? Excellent way to make the point that it is not helpful to talk about atheists as some monolithic group

Would you say that with such a diversity among atheists suggests that most of it is rooted in speculation?

Your reasoning is so flawed, it would be error to call it reasoning.
For all I know there may be a billion different types of atheism or Christianity, one for each practitioner. The former at least must meet some basic definition: a disbelief or lack of belief in god, variously defined.

BTW, I don't ascribe to your 17 number. That is your claim. I'm happy to use it as an example of diversity within a group, but I don't care to investigate websites just because you chanced on them.

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

[Danmark]

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

Do I have to explain everything to you? atheism is the lack of a belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. The default position is always lack of belief.

Let me give you an example so you can understand your error in asserting the default position should be neither belief nor lack of belief:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, and the belief that we are actually toads and not human. Pick one or go with all three. It is the height of silliness to suggest the default position should be as you might put it:

"Hmmmm... well... uh... I wouldn't want to rush to judgment here. Someday we may find evidence for the GFSM [may his pasta be praised] and you know that toad thing has got me thinking. I think I'll reserve judgement. Now that I think of it, the last girl I dated had definite toad possibilities...."

Simply add god, as number 4 to the list.

Now why is this so? Because otherwise anyone, at anytime, anywhere could invent the silliest notion possible and say, "not so fast. You should consider all the evidence"

In fact, that's exactly what the Young Earther's have done. And scientists are quite right to not even bother to debate them.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

Do I have to explain everything to you? atheism is the lack of a belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. The default position is always lack of belief.

Let me give you an example so you can understand your error in asserting the default position should be neither belief nor lack of belief:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, and the belief that we are actually toads and not human. Pick one or go with all three. It is the height of silliness to suggest the default position should be as you might put it:

"Hmmmm... well... uh... I wouldn't want to rush to judgment here. Someday we may find evidence for the GFSM [may his pasta be praised] and you know that toad thing has got me thinking. I think I'll reserve judgement. Now that I think of it, the last girl I dated had definite toad possibilities...."

Simply add god, as number 4 to the list.

Now why is this so? Because otherwise anyone, at anytime, anywhere could invent the silliest notion possible and say, "not so fast. You should consider all the evidence"

In fact, that's exactly what the Young Earther's have done. And scientists are quite right to not even bother to debate them.

Billions of people on planet earth are driven for some reason to imagine a god to be worshiped. I know of no one on the earth that worships a FSM. If there is no God why does the overwhelming majority feel the need to imagine one? Approximately 80% of the worlds population is religious. Some of us are even college educated. Imagine that.

[Danmark]

Atheism is a belief just as with any religion. You believe that no god exists. You have no scientific data to support your claim. As I have stated, I do not think belief in God should be the default belief, I just don't believe it is rational to make a judgment either way without evidence to support your claim. Ok so you dont have enough evidence to believe. Thats fine. That is your reality. But you don't have any evidence that suggests that one day a god will not be discovered either. I do not bother myself to declare the things I lack belief in since I cant think of any names for them. If it weren't for god you wouldn't have anything to not believe in.

Do I have to explain everything to you? atheism is the lack of a belief. The burden of proof is on he who alleges. The default position is always lack of belief.

Let me give you an example so you can understand your error in asserting the default position should be neither belief nor lack of belief:

The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, astrology, and the belief that we are actually toads and not human. Pick one or go with all three. It is the height of silliness to suggest the default position should be as you might put it:

"Hmmmm... well... uh... I wouldn't want to rush to judgment here. Someday we may find evidence for the GFSM [may his pasta be praised] and you know that toad thing has got me thinking. I think I'll reserve judgement. Now that I think of it, the last girl I dated had definite toad possibilities...."

Simply add god, as number 4 to the list.

Now why is this so? Because otherwise anyone, at anytime, anywhere could invent the silliest notion possible and say, "not so fast. You should consider all the evidence"

In fact, that's exactly what the Young Earther's have done. And scientists are quite right to not even bother to debate them.

Billions of people on planet earth are driven for some reason to imagine a god to be worshiped. I know of no one on the earth that worships a FSM. If there is no God why does the overwhelming majority feel the need to imagine one? Approximately 80% of the worlds population is religious. Some of us are even college educated. Imagine that.

The majority of people believe in ghosts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html

Some claim more people believe in aliens and ghosts than in god.
http://www.livescience.com/7608-people- ... s-god.html

Why do people believe in the irrational, the religious, the non empirical?

I suspect people simply have an inner need, a desire for meaning, for purpose. The human brain simply got too big [for 20% of us anyway ]. Our only purpose is to live long enough to reproduce and help our children live long enough so they too can reproduce. That's the biological imperative. That's all there is.

We, up to 80% of humans according to you, refuse to accept this. The desire to find meaning is stronger than the desire for truth or cautious judgment.

There is a rational alternative without resorting to fantasy and wishful thinking.
Make your own meaning. Life is a canvas. Paint!

Many find their purpose in helping others. Those who have recovered from serious drug addictions will tell you they get more meaning and help from their efforts to help others, than the help they give.

Creating art or literature, or building homes and roads, in addition to what it does for others, gives the builder satisfaction. Yes indeed, there seems to be a need to believe in the supernatural. Why not transform that irrational need into something real, into helping others and thus into helping yourself?

Tho' in many cases the task appears hopeless, I get satisfaction from helping others think more clearly.