Why do you believe in God?

[logical thinking]

Why do you believe in God?

What specific argument or evidence is it, that persuades you?

Can you please outline the argument or piece of evidence that you believe is the STRONGEST reason to believe in God?

For example, is it the beauty and majesty of trees? Is it the Kalam Cosmological argument? Pascal's wager? Is it that you witnessed what you believe is a miracle? Is it the fact that you think the Bible contains prophecies? Is it because it feels good to believe in something greater than yourself?

Why do you believe in God?

[JLB32168]

Please provide your sources. If you found them, and use them for the purposes of persuasion, you should be able to provide them for us to CHECK.

Im having trouble finding the 34% source. I found another one that places it at 32% irreligious (still the highest) with a breakdown of religions:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/2011/religion-of- ... ales-2010/

Sources, please.

Sweden least religious nation in Western world
http://www.thelocal.se/20150413/swedes- ... tern-world

"Sweden: Rape Capital of the West"
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195 ... xk.twitter

Is that sufficient?

[EduChris]

Why do you believe in God?

Why shouldn't we?

I believe in God for the simple reason that there is absolutely no good reason to believe in any alternate theory that has ever been proposed.

As humans, we are inveterate makers of meaning. Only theism can infuse consciousness with meaning. Non-theism renders consciousness absurd; theism, by contrast, allows the possibility that reality--at its most fundamental level--consists of a living, loving, relational agency which intends to create a symphony of unique, individual, conscious agents also capable of sharing loving relationships.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 222 by EduChris]

Why do you believe in God?

Why shouldn't we?

I believe in God for the simple reason that there is absolutely no good reason to believe in any alternate theory that has ever been proposed.

Alternate theory to WHAT.... ?
To NOT the theory that a god exists?

Believing because you can't think of a reason to NOT believe is NOT a good reason. Why not believe in VISHNU and BIGFOOT?

We don't judge if things are true because we lack imagination. Why not is a very bad reason to think things are true. WHY NOT?

IF you don't have a reason better than that... you shouldn't, that's why not.

As humans, we are inveterate makers of meaning. Only theism can infuse consciousness with meaning.

Wrong.
Maybe consciousness IS like a tea that gets "infused" with meaning... but as an atheist, somehow... I MANAGE to "infuse" my own consciousness with as much meaning as my little heart desires.

Non-theism renders consciousness absurd;

Wrong.
But... that STATEMENT is rather absurd.
Did you ever TALK to an atheist?

theism, by contrast, allows the possibility that reality--at its most fundamental level--consists of a living, loving, relational agency which intends to create a symphony of unique, individual, conscious agents also capable of sharing loving relationships.

Wow, doesn't THAT sound nice !
Is there any hope that you might have some EVIDENCE that it's also TRUE?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 222:

I believe in God for the simple reason that there is absolutely no good reason to believe in any alternate theory that has ever been proposed.

Consciousness is the product of a being having sensory perception. Where such notions as pain "trigger" an action, that is consciousness of one's surroundings. Multiply that by the various senses, and evolutionary pressures, and not only is such a notion more "good reason", it far surpasses "God did it".

As humans, we are inveterate makers of meaning.

Sentience'll do that to a critter.

Only theism can infuse consciousness with meaning.

No, only you can find meaning in consciousness by infusing it with a not shown to exist god.

Non-theism renders consciousness absurd...

Argument from ignorance. That you can't find meaning in consciousness without your belief in god is a condition of your own making.

theism, by contrast, allows the possibility that reality--at its most fundamental level--consists of a living, loving, relational agency which intends to create a symphony of unique, individual, conscious agents also capable of sharing loving relationships.

More slanders and libels implying non-theists have no means by which they can experience love, or share loving relationships with - now follow me here - the ones they love (read "can't love, the godless heathens").

What is it with the raft of theists lately who prefer to slander and smear anyone who doesn't accept their god beliefs?

[Zzyzx]

.

Non-theism renders consciousness absurd;

Thus, it is irrational to think about consciousness for those without belief in gods. Right?

Isn't it a bit presumptuous for god worshipers to contend that their ideology has a monopoly on consciousness (whatever that is taken to mean)?

theism, by contrast, allows the possibility that reality--

Theism can offer whatever its practitioners can imagine since they do not have to deliver the goods (threats and promises) until after you die.

at its most fundamental level--consists of a living, loving, relational agency

Theism can also imagine a jealous, angry, vindictive, egocentric supernatural entity " or combine the two sets of characteristics " or point out one set if that fits the argument and another when it fits a different argument.

which intends to create a symphony of unique, individual, conscious agents also capable of sharing loving relationships.

There is no evidence that a creator is responsible for the unique, individual, conscious agents capable of sharing loving relationships. In fact, those conscious agents are capable to creating (imagining) thousands of gods with varying characteristics " and when challenged to show such things actually exist can produce a flurry of word salads, testimonials, and opinions (ancient or modern) to justify their belief in invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities that they read about in an ancient book and/or make up on their own.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 221 by JLB32168]

Please provide your sources. If you found them, and use them for the purposes of persuasion, you should be able to provide them for us to CHECK.

Im having trouble finding the 34% source. I found another one that places it at 32% irreligious (still the highest) with a breakdown of religions:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/2011/religion-of- ... ales-2010/

Sources, please.

Sweden least religious nation in Western world
http://www.thelocal.se/20150413/swedes- ... tern-world

"Sweden: Rape Capital of the West"
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5195 ... xk.twitter

Is that sufficient?

Yes thank you for the links.
Can I ask what it is you wanted to prove with their data?

[JLB32168]

Yes thank you for the links. Can I ask what it is you wanted to prove with their data?

I wished to prove that an atheist saying, Sorry, it seems we are just better than you, (yes, it was said) is oh so tacky and should perhaps be avoided. We all have skeletons in our closet and we would do well to remember that lest someone else trot them out for public viewing.

[Zzyzx]

.

Yes thank you for the links. Can I ask what it is you wanted to prove with their data?

I wished to prove that an atheist saying, Sorry, it seems we are just better than you, (yes, it was said)

Thus, a blanket statement is justified if one member of a group says something. Right?

is oh so tacky and should perhaps be avoided.

Does that apply to everyone involved?

We all have skeletons in our closet and we would do well to remember that lest someone else trot them out for public viewing.

It is no skeleton in my closet when someone else makes a statement. Others do not speak for me or give me skeletons. Any that may be there are of my own making are my total responsibility.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 227 by JLB32168]

Yes thank you for the links. Can I ask what it is you wanted to prove with their data?

I wished to prove that an atheist saying, Sorry, it seems we are just better than you, (yes, it was said) is oh so tacky and should perhaps be avoided. We all have skeletons in our closet and we would do well to remember that lest someone else trot them out for public viewing.

The article doesn't do anything of the sort.
Could you explain how you THINK it does?

In the first article, it says that:

"32% of prisoners in England and Wales on 30 June 2010 professed no religion"
How does that embarrass atheists in any way?

[Zzyzx]

.

In the first article, it says that:

"32% of prisoners in England and Wales on 30 June 2010 professed no religion"
How does that embarrass atheists in any way?

What should embarrass Christians are US incarceration statistics showing that about 70% of federal prisoners claim Christianity as their religion " about the same as the percentage of the US population who claim to be Christians.

However, prisoners who claim no religious affiliation make up about 10% of the prison population while in the general population about 20% claim no religious affiliation.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2346 ... prisoners/
http://religionnews.com/2015/05/12/chri ... -religion/

Thus, it appears as though those with no religious affiliation are HALF as likely to be prisoners as those who claim to be Christians.