Are you an Atheist/Believer?

[RandomSand]

How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other.

Really the question in the OP isn't very good. "God" refers to a personable individual or entity. However; many of the believers in this thread have alluded to a non-deistic belief system.

If I walked up to you and pointed to the sky and said there is not an blimp flying overhead and we both looked up and confirmed that fact would I still have to prove something that is not there? In other words, would you say well there may be a blimp overhead the fact that I don't see one may mean that the blimp is invisible?

Nice try.

If I said to a child there's electromagnetic waves in the sky, and the child wouldn't believe me because it wasn't viable to the naked eye; the child might consider me some kind of hysterical fruitcake might they?

Nice try. Electromagnetic waves are visible with a meter. You expect me to prove the nonexistence of something.

Yes, Electromagnetic waves do physically‎ exist and can be measured.

Did it occur to you that (a.) the nature of god might non-physical & (b.) that god might be incomprehensible though methods of reason and logic alone ?

I'm as logical and non-superstitious as the next man, and was never raised to believe in any god, yet I have a firm faith.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other.

Really the question in the OP isn't very good. "God" refers to a personable individual or entity. However; many of the believers in this thread have alluded to a non-deistic belief system.

If I walked up to you and pointed to the sky and said there is not an blimp flying overhead and we both looked up and confirmed that fact would I still have to prove something that is not there? In other words, would you say well there may be a blimp overhead the fact that I don't see one may mean that the blimp is invisible?

Nice try.

If I said to a child there's electromagnetic waves in the sky, and the child wouldn't believe me because it wasn't viable to the naked eye; the child might consider me some kind of hysterical fruitcake might they?

You expect me to prove the nonexistence of something.

I don't expect you, or any other person, to prove anything.

My original point was to highlight the woefulness of the 1-7 scale that was posted in the OP.

[thailiketoo]

If I walked up to you and pointed to the sky and said there is not an blimp flying overhead and we both looked up and confirmed that fact would I still have to prove something that is not there? In other words, would you say well there may be a blimp overhead the fact that I don't see one may mean that the blimp is invisible?

Nice try.

If I said to a child there's electromagnetic waves in the sky, and the child wouldn't believe me because it wasn't viable to the naked eye; the child might consider me some kind of hysterical fruitcake might they?

You expect me to prove the nonexistence of something.

I don't expect you, or any other person, to prove anything.

My original point was to highlight the woefulness of the 1-7 scale that was posted in the OP.

Short memory eh? You wrote, "How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

Now it that's not asking for proof I don't know what is.

[RandomSand]

Short memory eh? You wrote, "How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

Now it that's not asking for proof I don't know what is.

The reason I don't expect anyone to prove anything is because I believe it's not possible.

You're welcome to try, in fact you already have, but to be able to prove the non-existence of a non-mortal being in this mortal would of ours is - in my mind - an impossible task.

Therefore I don't have any expectation. It was more of a rhetorical question.

If you said to me; I have an authority or basis that disproves god. I'd be interested to hear it.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[sirineou]

How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other.

Really the question in the OP isn't very good. "God" refers to a personable individual or entity. However; many of the believers in this thread have alluded to a non-deistic belief system.

No one with half a brain would suggest that there is no god. and since most of as in this forum have half a brain we all take a number of 7 or below in this subject ( 1 being sure there is a god and 10 being sure there is No god)

If I walked up to you and pointed to the sky and said there is not an blimp flying overhead and we both looked up and confirmed that fact would I still have to prove something that is not there? In other words, would you say well there may be a blimp overhead the fact that I don't see one may mean that the blimp is invisible?

Yes , that is why you can not prove a negative, You can only prove a negative with in a limited domain,,

by placing qualifications in front of it.

For instance you could say "there is no invisible blimp in the sky" limiting the scope of your investigation to that which is visible, then you can look up and say with certainty that yes there is no Blimp in the sky that's visible to me.

But you can not say with certainty that there is no Blimp in the sky, That's why most atiblimpists give them selfs a 7 on the scale of blimp certainty.

This is where Theists hung their hat on, the fact that their god is outside our understanding and detection, and it's existence is only detectable by revelation.

Unfortunately their god chooses to reveal it's self only to a selected few and when no one else is looking

Their god resides in the domain of the undetectable and the unexplained, that is why we call him the god of the Gaps.

He used to reside in the motion of the planets, invisibly orchestrating their incomprehensible movement in the heavens,once we understood what influences the movement of the planets,and filled that Gap with understanding, he had to quickly scamper to an other unexplained region of our understanding.

Thus , the god of the Gaps

Now he is mostly found in that ever decreasing region of what happened before the Big Bang.

But don't worry there will always be a little Gap in our knowledge where he can hide, after all. all increments can be infinitely divided into smaller parts.

Edited January 17, 2014 by sirineou

[RandomSand]

Certainly; If I was in your position of non-belief, and I could not gather any proof, and I had to make a choice and say outright "I know there isn't a god"... I couldn't. I wouldn't feel qualified to make that statement.

If you're prepared to say, because you can't see the presence of god with your eyes, ears or smell, you then feel qualified to say you know the non-existent of god, then I would consider you a person with a rash and illogical mind and would prefer not to be picked apart in your troll-like - although quite sincere - manner.

So! I ask you, Do you think yourself qualified to say you know the non-existent of god ?

[thailiketoo]

Short memory eh? You wrote, "How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

Now it that's not asking for proof I don't know what is.

The reason I don't expect anyone to prove anything is because I believe it's not possible.

You're welcome to try, in fact you already have, but to be able to prove the non-existence of a non-mortal being in this mortal would of ours is - in my mind - an impossible task.

Therefore I don't have any expectation. It was more of a rhetorical question.

If you said to me; I have an authority or basis that disproves god. I'd be interested to hear it.

Twas you who wrote, "If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

So why is the believer correct? You did write, "I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other,"

You made the statement a belief in God was more logical. So why?

[RandomSand]

Short memory eh? You wrote, "How can anyone say they know that there isn't a god ?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

Now it that's not asking for proof I don't know what is.

The reason I don't expect anyone to prove anything is because I believe it's not possible.

You're welcome to try, in fact you already have, but to be able to prove the non-existence of a non-mortal being in this mortal would of ours is - in my mind - an impossible task.

Therefore I don't have any expectation. It was more of a rhetorical question.

If you said to me; I have an authority or basis that disproves god. I'd be interested to hear it.

Twas you who wrote, "If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other."

So why is the believer correct? You did write, "I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other,"

You made the statement a belief in God was more logical. So why?

I can't answer your question because you misquote/misunderstand me. I think it fairer for the subject matter at hand that I don't answer an improper question.

The intention of my writing was this "The person who believed they are 100% sure of god is logically more likely to be correct than the person who is 100% sure of no god".

You asked "You made the statement a belief in God was more logical. So why?"

However; I didn't make a statement that a belief was more logical to me*

* although a belief system might be more logical than 100% non-belief, and I might also be able to argue that point... Indeed that is case you asking me to argue.... That basis is not the crux of my position.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[RandomSand]

OK, I'll answer the question without all the semantics...

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

edit * courteous note to Atheists: I'm in no way saying a non-belief in god is paradoxical or illogical. I do respect your beliefs.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[thailiketoo]

OK, I'll answer the question without all the semantics...

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable.

[sirineou]

Certainly; If I was in your position of non-belief, and I could not gather any proof, and I had to make a choice and say outright "I know there isn't a god"... I couldn't. I wouldn't feel qualified to make that statement.

If you're prepared to say, because you can't see the presence of god with your eyes, ears or smell, you then feel qualified to say you know the non-existent of god, then I would consider you a person with a rash and illogical mind and would prefer not to be picked apart in your troll-like - although quite sincere - manner.

So! I ask you, Do you think yourself qualified to say you know the non-existent of god ?

Did you not read anything I said? or do you ignore convincing argument choosing instead to set up straw man that you can easily knock down.

we are in no position at all, it is you that make the claim that there is , and it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence on why you say it is.

Would you not say that if you could not verify the existence of something with your senses then any belief you have of such existence is NONSENSICAL ?

Edited January 17, 2014 by sirineou

[notmyself]

Did it occur to you that (a.) the nature of god might non-physical & (b.) that god might be incomprehensible though methods of reason and logic alone ?

a. ?

Do you mean we cannot find the supposed god because it is outside of space and time?

[RandomSand]

OK, I'll answer the question without all the semantics...

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I have already ascertained that such proof would be paradoxical. Do you not agree with - or can you not see - that point of view ?

If you can't read, comprehend, and reply to what I've already written; then I hardly see much point in continuing.

[sirineou]

Did it occur to you that (a.) the nature of god might non-physical & (b.) that god might be incomprehensible though methods of reason and logic alone ?

a. ?

Do you mean we cannot find the supposed god because it is outside of space and time?

I think he is now arguing with him self, by saying that his comprehension of god, is unreasonable and illogical.

[thailiketoo]

OK, I'll answer the question without all the semantics...

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I have already ascertained that such proof would be paradoxical. Do you not agree with - or can you not see - that point of view ?

If you can't read, comprehend, and reply to what I've already written; then I hardly see much point in continuing.

Of course you are asking me to prove something. You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering." (you use this statement to declare your belief in a God. (from the previous post.) "The person who believed they are 100% sure of god is logically more likely to be correct than the person who is 100% sure of no god".

The answer to that is, "You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable."

Your statement about a paradox has no logical relationship to your first statement about 100% sure there is no God. You have to consider the statements one at a time because your second statement makes no sense in relationship to your first statement or the discussion.

First you said a believer is more logical than a non believer and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

[RandomSand]

Certainly; If I was in your position of non-belief, and I could not gather any proof, and I had to make a choice and say outright "I know there isn't a god"... I couldn't. I wouldn't feel qualified to make that statement.

If you're prepared to say, because you can't see the presence of god with your eyes, ears or smell, you then feel qualified to say you know the non-existent of god, then I would consider you a person with a rash and illogical mind and would prefer not to be picked apart in your troll-like - although quite sincere - manner.

So! I ask you, Do you think yourself qualified to say you know the non-existent of god ?

Did you not read anything I said? or do you ignore convincing argument choosing instead to set up straw man that you can easily knock down.

we are in no position at all, it is you that make the claim that there is , and it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence on why you say it is.

Would you not say that if you could not verify the existence of something with your senses then any belief you have of such existence is NONSENSICAL ?

The discussion is/has been about the non-existence of god and if we can be sure about it.

I propose that we can't know about the non-existence of god.

I can't provide evidence that the non-existence of god is false as only a god would be able to offer such authoritative information. Of course; this is highly paradoxical and I doubt that such evidence would be able to be found... and if such evidence was to be found then it would only prove there was a god.

Let's keep things in perspective guys. The subject matter is not simple nor should we make presumptions.

[RandomSand]

Did it occur to you that (a.) the nature of god might non-physical & (b.) that god might be incomprehensible though methods of reason and logic alone ?

a. ?

Do you mean we cannot find the supposed god because it is outside of space and time?

I don't mean that.

[thailiketoo]

Certainly; If I was in your position of non-belief, and I could not gather any proof, and I had to make a choice and say outright "I know there isn't a god"... I couldn't. I wouldn't feel qualified to make that statement.

If you're prepared to say, because you can't see the presence of god with your eyes, ears or smell, you then feel qualified to say you know the non-existent of god, then I would consider you a person with a rash and illogical mind and would prefer not to be picked apart in your troll-like - although quite sincere - manner.

So! I ask you, Do you think yourself qualified to say you know the non-existent of god ?

Did you not read anything I said? or do you ignore convincing argument choosing instead to set up straw man that you can easily knock down.

we are in no position at all, it is you that make the claim that there is , and it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence on why you say it is.

Would you not say that if you could not verify the existence of something with your senses then any belief you have of such existence is NONSENSICAL ?

The discussion is/has been about the non-existence of god and if we can be sure about it.

I propose that we can't know about the non-existence of god.

I can't provide evidence that the non-existence of god is false as only a god would be able to offer such authoritative information. Of course; this is highly paradoxical and I doubt that such evidence would be able to be found... and if such evidence was to be found then it would only prove there was a god.

Let's keep things in perspective guys. The subject matter is not simple nor should we make presumptions.

I thought it was about the existence of a God and if we can be sure about it. When did the subject change?

[RandomSand]

OK, I'll answer the question without all the semantics...

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I have already ascertained that such proof would be paradoxical. Do you not agree with - or can you not see - that point of view ?

If you can't read, comprehend, and reply to what I've already written; then I hardly see much point in continuing.

Of course you are asking me to prove something. You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering." (you use this statement to declare your belief in a God. (from the previous post.) "The person who believed they are 100% sure of god is logically more likely to be correct than the person who is 100% sure of no god".

The answer to that is, "You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable."

Your statement about a paradox has no logical relationship to your first statement about 100% sure there is no God. You have to consider the statements one at a time because your second statement makes no sense in relationship to your first statement or the discussion.

First you said a believer is more logical than a non believer and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

I'm certainly not trying to weasel out of anything and take offence at your remark. I have already answered your question. You should go back and review what I wrote.

I've been very active in this thread for several pages and have tried my best to answer all your questions.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[thailiketoo]

You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable.

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I have already ascertained that such proof would be paradoxical. Do you not agree with - or can you not see - that point of view ?

If you can't read, comprehend, and reply to what I've already written; then I hardly see much point in continuing.

Of course you are asking me to prove something. You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering." (you use this statement to declare your belief in a God. (from the previous post.) "The person who believed they are 100% sure of god is logically more likely to be correct than the person who is 100% sure of no god".

The answer to that is, "You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable."

Your statement about a paradox has no logical relationship to your first statement about 100% sure there is no God. You have to consider the statements one at a time because your second statement makes no sense in relationship to your first statement or the discussion.

First you said a believer is more logical than a non believer and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

I'm certainly not trying to weasle out of anything and take offence at your remark.

I've been very active in this thread for several pages and have tried my best to answer all your questions.

So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?

[notmyself]

Keep it civil.

[RandomSand]

So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other.

Why?

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

Edited January 17, 2014 by RandomSand

[thailiketoo]

So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?

If two people came up to me, the first is 100% sure of god, and the second 100% sure of no god, I'd say the believer was logically more likely to be correct than the other.

Why?

The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical.

So where would the believer get his information (source of knowledge)?

Edited January 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[RandomSand]

Where have believers historically got their information from ?

From prophets, saints and sages... throughout the ages.

And those prophets, saints and sages claim to have received their knowledge directly from god.

Of course; you can explore these matters, academically, for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

[notmyself]

Did it occur to you that (a.) the nature of god might non-physical & (b.) that god might be incomprehensible though methods of reason and logic alone ?

a. ?

Do you mean we cannot find the supposed god because it is outside of space and time?

I don't mean that.

Care to elucidate?

[sirineou]

Certainly; If I was in your position of non-belief, and I could not gather any proof, and I had to make a choice and say outright "I know there isn't a god"... I couldn't. I wouldn't feel qualified to make that statement.

If you're prepared to say, because you can't see the presence of god with your eyes, ears or smell, you then feel qualified to say you know the non-existent of god, then I would consider you a person with a rash and illogical mind and would prefer not to be picked apart in your troll-like - although quite sincere - manner.

So! I ask you, Do you think yourself qualified to say you know the non-existent of god ?

Did you not read anything I said? or do you ignore convincing argument choosing instead to set up straw man that you can easily knock down.

we are in no position at all, it is you that make the claim that there is , and it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence on why you say it is.

Would you not say that if you could not verify the existence of something with your senses then any belief you have of such existence is NONSENSICAL ?

The discussion is/has been about the non-existence of god and if we can be sure about it.

I propose that we can't know about the non-existence of god.

I can't provide evidence that the non-existence of god is false as only a god would be able to offer such authoritative information. Of course; this is highly paradoxical and I doubt that such evidence would be able to be found... and if such evidence was to be found then it would only prove there was a god.

Let's keep things in perspective guys. The subject matter is not simple nor should we make presumptions.

No it is not!!! the title of this thread is:

Are you an Atheist/Believer?

but it is not a poll, To simply state "yes I am" or "no I am not" would be just a poll of who is and who is not,

So those who say "Yes I am" have to offer reasons why they are, As you your self said, we can not prove a negative, so all we can say is" your claim is incredible, and based on your absence of credible evidence we don't believe you" we don't say we don't believe there is no god, we say we are reasonable convinced there is not.

If this thread was "the nonexistence of god" it would had being over in one reply...

You can not prove the nonexistence of anything, period, topic close but it is not.

The crux of the problem when having this discussion with believers is,

Believers are incredible intellectual contortionists, they are willing to bend their arguments in incredible ways to support their belief system.

And that's understandable,

what I am asking you to do is to reject the foundation of your being, and invent a whole new narrative. Not an easy thing to do.

It is good that you are having this conversation, that's how you move in the right direction,

we did not wake up one day and say " hey we don't believe",

It was a process

we had similar conversations with our selves and others, and finally we came to the conclusion that we have.

You sound like an intelligent well intending individual. I am sure that if you continue exploring the subject you will eventually come to a similar position .

[thailiketoo]

I'm not asking you to prove anything. I have already ascertained that such proof would be paradoxical. Do you not agree with - or can you not see - that point of view ?

If you can't read, comprehend, and reply to what I've already written; then I hardly see much point in continuing.

Of course you are asking me to prove something. You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering." (you use this statement to declare your belief in a God. (from the previous post.) "The person who believed they are 100% sure of god is logically more likely to be correct than the person who is 100% sure of no god".

The answer to that is, "You are asking to prove non existence. That is backward. You prove existence. What is the speed of light? What is not the speed of light? I can only answer the speed not the absence of speed. Speed is measurable. Not speed is not measurable."

Your statement about a paradox has no logical relationship to your first statement about 100% sure there is no God. You have to consider the statements one at a time because your second statement makes no sense in relationship to your first statement or the discussion.

First you said a believer is more logical than a non believer and now you are trying to weasel out of it.

I'm certainly not trying to weasle out of anything and take offence at your remark.

I've been very active in this thread for several pages and have tried my best to answer all your questions.

So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?

To recap you wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering."

I wrote "So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?"

You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical"

I wrote, "So where would the believer get his information (source of knowledge)?"

You wrote, "From prophets, saints and sages... throughout the ages.

And those prophets, saints and sages claim to have received their knowledge directly from god."

So the believer gets his knowledge about the existence of god directly from god.

And the non believer gets his knowledge about the non existence of god from a god like source.

God told the believer he was.

My dog thinks I'm god so lets say for a minute my dog is right and I told all the atheists in the world that there is no god. I can do that because a god can do anything.

Why is the believer who god told he is; more logical than an atheist who I told I wasn't?

Edited January 17, 2014 by thailiketoo

[RandomSand]

No it is not!!! the title of this thread is:

Are you an Atheist/Believer?

but it is not a poll, To simply state "yes I am" or "no I am not" would be just a poll of who is and who is not,

So those who say "Yes I am" have to offer reasons why they are, As you your self said, we can not prove a negative, so all we can say is" your claim is incredible, and based on your absence of credible evidence we don't believe you" we don't say we don't believe there is no god, we say we are reasonable convinced there is not.

If this thread was "the nonexistence of god" it would had being over in one reply...

You can not prove the nonexistence of anything, period, topic close but it is not.

The crux of the problem when having this discussion with believers is,

Believers are incredible intellectual contortionists, they are willing to bend their arguments in incredible ways to support their belief system.

And that's understandable,

what I am asking you to do is to reject the foundation of your being, and invent a whole new narrative. Not an easy thing to do.

It is good that you are having this conversation, that's how you move in the right direction,

we did not wake up one day and say " hey we don't believe",

It was a process

we had similar conversations with our selves and others, and finally we came to the conclusion that we have.

You sound like an intelligent well intending individual. I am sure that if you continue exploring the subject you will eventually come to a similar position .

On the one hand you're a bit offensive with your "Believers are incredible intellectual contortionists" line. - Still I understand where you're coming from so continue reading your text.

Then you say "what I am asking you to do is to reject the foundation of your being, and invent a whole new narrative." I really don't know what you're asking. I guess you asking for lucid information presented without the unbelievable 2000yr old stories that usually gets thrown-in to "stun you into belief" lol.

It is good that you are having this conversation, that's how you move in the right direction, - What the hell are you on about here ?

I am sure that if you continue exploring the subject you will eventually come to a similar position - <deleted> ?

[sirineou]

again you either fail or you choose not to understand,

as they say in Thailand "Up to you"

[RandomSand]

To recap you wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering."

I wrote "So why is it more logical to believe in the existence of a God rather than not?"

You wrote, "The person who is 100% sure of no god would only be able to get such certainty from a source of knowledge that was god-like in its offering. Of course; this is paradoxical in itself and therefore stands as illogical"

I wrote, "So where would the believer get his information (source of knowledge)?"

You wrote, "From prophets, saints and sages... throughout the ages.

And those prophets, saints and sages claim to have received their knowledge directly from god."

So the believer gets his knowledge about the existence of god directly from god.

And the non believer gets his knowledge about the non existence of god from a god like source.

God told the believer he was.

My dog thinks I'm god so lets say for a minute my dog is right and I told all the atheists in the world that there is no god. I can do that because a god can do anything.

Why is the believer who god told he is; more logical than an atheist who I told I wasn't?

Anyone want to discuss thailiketoo's theist dog, or his god-like ability to divinely inform the non-believers that he does not, in fact, exist ?

You can't prove there's no god. Likewise; You can't prove there is a god.

Just because we can't prove either; doesn't mean one is true and the other false.

Now; you've quite rightly come to understand that I'm a believer. Either from how I've presented my arguments or you just read it many pages ago.

However; You'd be mistaken if you thought I'm here to argue the case for a god. Also you'd be mistaken if you thought that my argument against the proof of no god *is* some kind of argument in favour of a god.