WHAT CONVINCED YOU?

Soul Winner

Just curious as to what individual facts convinced you atheists that there is no God. Was it something that you were just born with? Something you learned in life? Or, as a one time believer in God something that simply turned that belief on it's head. What was it? I want to know because I feel I can help you just kidding, I'm actually just curious to know.

But I might as well say it now, does your answer actually prove that there is no God? If not, then why hold so fast to such unstable ground? Pascal's wager puts forth that the following: That between the possibility of whether there is or is not a God there is even odds. i.e. 1/1 for belief and 1/1 against belief. But it makes much better sense to believe in God than not. Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything. And if there is a God and you bet that there is then you gain everything. But if there isn't a God and you bet that there is then you lose nothing and if there isn't a God and you bet there isn't then you gain nothing. So logic dictates that one should believe in God. If I were an atheist, then this would grab me by the short and curlys. Because we know from many of the discussions here that God is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be proven or dis-proven to exist by the scientific method and therefore either exists or doesn't, i.e. even odds. So it logically follows from Pascal's wager that its is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him even if in reality He doesn't exist, because we don't – or can't – actually know that yet. There is not an atheist on the planet that KNOWS that there is no God, only atheists with varying degrees in belief that there is no God but none that actually knows.

Anyway I'd still like to know what convinced you that there is no God.

seanybiker

no proof there is one and just not bothered with it anyways even if i knew for a fact there was a god i wouldnt give a fiddlers. Dont see point in praying to some lad who has been dead for over 2000 years and lived with his mother till he was 30+

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just curious as to what individual facts convinced you atheists that there is no God.

It was the complete and utter lack of facts, actually.

But I might as well say it now, does your answer actually prove that there is no God?

No of course not. A complete lack of facts coupled with the neccessity of many gigantic assumptions merely makes something laughably unlikely.

If not, then why hold so fast to such unstable ground?

In this strange metaphorical platform land, no ground is 100% stable. I have chosen the most stable. From my point of view you are preaching from a ricketty construct of chewing gum and playing cards, shouting across the air to me in my wrought iron and stone fortress mocking me for my poor choice.

Pascal's wager

Pascal's wager is a appalling fallacy for the following reasons:
1 - One cannot choose to believe in something, one is merely convinced or unconvinced.
2 - The fact that something is a safer choice does not make it true (this competely torpedoes the argument if you understand it).
3 - If you do not accept (1), then: It completely ignores other factors such as the fact that some people would prefer to take what they view as a miniscule risk in not believing in God rather than wasting their lives worshipping the sky.

Because we know from many of the discussions here that God is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be proven or dis-proven to exist by the scientific method and therefore either exists or doesn't, i.e. even odds.

Unfalsifiable claims are beneath the notice of science, not above it. It is the most vapid type of claim that can be made from an intellectual point of view. Also, the even odds comment is patently ridiculous. The fact that something is unfalsifiable does not mean it has 50/50 odds, it means the odds cannot be determined because the person making the claim is a useless idiot who shouldn't be let in the door.

There is an undetectable unicorn behind you. Do you consider this claim to have even odds of being true or untrue?

There is not an atheist on the planet that KNOWS that there is no God, only atheists with varying degrees in belief that there is no God but none that actually knows.

There is no one on the planet who KNOWS that I don't own an undetectable pink flying ebola covered dinosaur-cat hybrid who shoots bees from his nose but it doesn't mean anyone should regard such a claim with anything other than utter disdain.

Anyway I'd still like to know what convinced you that there is no God.

People like you.

More specifically, as I get older I feel more and more secure in my position when I encounter the inane drivel people like you use to defend your preposterous position.

Tar.Aldarion

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just curious as to what individual facts convinced you atheists that there is no God. Was it something that you were just born with? Something you learned in life? Or, as a one time believer in God something that simply turned that belief on it's head. What was it? I want to know because I feel I can help you just kidding, I'm actually just curious to know.

But I might as well say it now, does your answer actually prove that there is no God? If not, then why hold so fast to such unstable ground? Pascal's wager puts forth that the following: That between the possibility of whether there is or is not a God there is even odds. i.e. 1/1 for belief and 1/1 against belief. But it makes much better sense to believe in God than not. Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything. And if there is a God and you bet that there is then you gain everything. But if there isn't a God and you bet that there is then you lose nothing and if there isn't a God and you bet there isn't then you gain nothing. So logic dictates that one should believe in God. If I were an atheist, then this would grab me by the short and curlys. Because we know from many of the discussions here that God is unfalsifiable and therefore cannot be proven or dis-proven to exist by the scientific method and therefore either exists or doesn't, i.e. even odds. So it logically follows from Pascal's wager that its is better to believe in God than to not believe in Him even if in reality He doesn't exist, because we don't – or can't – actually know that yet. There is not an atheist on the planet that KNOWS that there is no God, only atheists with varying degrees in belief that there is no God but none that actually knows.

Anyway I'd still like to know what convinced you that there is no God.

Sure is a crappy god that gets fooled by somebody 'believing' due to pascals wager. And what about the other 1000 religions? Do I have to believe in them all to be safe?
The logic used in your post is equivalent to the following old chesnut: Can god create a wall so high he can not climb over it? If he can, then he can not climb over something and is not omnipotent, if he can't, he is not omnipotent because he can't do something. Therefore 'god cannot exist because his attributes would require limits'. There see, I know he doesn't exist.

Anyway, yes, some of us can say there is no god for definite because no being that could exist would be a god to me, just an alien with powers. It depends on your definition of god and it's abilities.

seanybiker

must find out who this pascal chap is.

Zillah

To specifically address Pascal's Wager, I shall elaborate using an analogous scenario:

I have drugged you and abducted you. When you wake up you are blind folded and I have put a gun to your head. I explain that there is a hundred foot drop ahead of you, with two platforms, one of which you must step on to. On your left, I tell you, is a weak and shaky platform that could break. On your right, I tell you, is a very stable platform that will not break. I also tell you, however, that one of my descriptions is a lie, there is only one platform, the other side is empty space and certain death.

Secretly I know that only the shaky platform on the left is real, while the one on the right was a lie. You, following the logic of Pascal's Wager, step out into empty space and die.

Speaking purely in terms of the afterlife, Pascal's Wager argues that it is the safer choice to go with belief in God. It says absolutely nothing about how likely the existence of God is.


Also, as Tar points out, the argument can be applied to any and all claims about a positive after life, including all existing and hypothetical religions and claims. A truly empty argument.

seanybiker

excellent explanation there. Cheers for that. Now i can use that in all my debates .

Matt Holck

we are self aware and create

fatmammycat

I'll see your Pascal's wager and raise you an Occam's razor.
No evidence of a god or gods> wishful thinking and belief/faith in invisible deity.
Hmm, who is on the shaky ground again?

pH

Pascal's wager doesn't work. It makes the very basic mistake of producing a False Dilema and then attempting to evaluate the risk/reward of each option.

Firstly you're incorrect in stating that Pascal's wager says anything about 1/1 (?) probabilities of each option, I'm not sure where you got that from or if you just made it up, but the next bit is a reasonable representation of Pascal's original 'logic'.

Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything. And if there is a God and you bet that there is then you gain everything. But if there isn't a God and you bet that there is then you lose nothing and if there isn't a God and you bet there isn't then you gain nothing. So logic dictates that one should believe in God.

As I said above it falsely creates an either or situation, and then substitutes in a single God, and I'm presuming that in your mind that's your 3 in 1 baby Jesus, original sin biblical God all the way. Also Christians have developed a habit recently of reducing this to a very simplistic position of as you say "believing in God", when we all know that religion is far more than merely believing in him, it's about believing in him, following his rules and more importantly worshipping him.

So what about all the other options? What about Shiva? What about a God that really does exist and doesn't care one way or another if we believe in him? What about a jealous God who damns all those who worship false Gods? Maybe atheists are saved because they have never worshipped a false God like you Christians.

There are an infinite number of possible gods, all of which have different wants, and no one has suggested that merely 'believing' in one of them will mean that no matter which one (if any) exists then that's OK and you're saved.

If you *really* believed in the truth Pascal's wager then why aren't you at least following the rules that Muslim's live by? They might not be true, but if they are then you get everlasting life if heaven, if not (by your argument above) you lose nothing.

limerick_woody

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just curious as to what individual facts convinced you atheists that there is no God.

As soon as i realised it was important not to believe in anything without evidence (at least some!) and to have some intellectual-integrity is essential if you are to remain honest.

limerick_woody

I love the way theists are absolutely convinced that they have the 'ultimate argument' - just how pathetic is Pascal's Wager!

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Pascal's wager is a appalling fallacy for the following reasons:
1 - One cannot choose to believe in something, one is merely convinced or unconvinced.

Soul Winner - I'd specifically like you to address Zillah's point here. For me it is the main reason why Pascal's Wager fails.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Pascal's wager puts forth that the following: That between the possibility of whether there is or is not a God there is even odds. i.e. 1/1 for belief and 1/1 against belief.

Just because there are two options does not mean those options should be given equal odds. That is simply ridiculous. The Loch Ness monster either exists or it does not. Does that mean the chances for each of those options are 1:1?

Lastly, this topic has been seen before several times, but since at least you are not Gareth37 we might as well enjoy some banter.


Your Athiest epiphany

Was there a defining moment for you?

rockbeer

Interesting question OP.

I was born not believing and nothing has happened since to change my mind.

Others have savaged Pascal's wager so no extra comment needed except to ask how he figures a 50% probability of God existing? I'd love to see the maths. To say that either god exists or god doesn't exist isn't the same thing as there being an equal probability of each outcome.

And even if there is a god, how do you know it's the christian one? To paraphrase Homer Simpson, what if you've been worshipping the wrong one all this time and just making him madder and madder? Pascal doesn't take account of the number of possible different faiths. If all these are equally likely then the probability of you being correct is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths you could believe in. And if we assume that n is infinite then your chances of being correct are in fact infinitely small.

And finally, if choosing to believe is a realistic proposition, why don't you choose not to believe for a while and let us know how you get on?

Goduznt Xzst

*sigh* Pascals Wager again... as has already been said, it's logic is fairly shoddy, it would be worth your while OP not bringing it up again around Atheists as any Atheist worth his salt will tear it down in a matter of seconds, we wouldn't want you having egg on your face now would we

Lets assume there is a God and a punishment for people who don't follow him. You can not be sure OP that you are not actually in a heretical/apostate/infidel/heathen religion at the moment. For all you know a life of torture/non-existence awaits you at death as much as it does us. You might be sure that you are in the right religion, but you wouldn't be the first human in History to be arrogant enough to think their opinions are infallible, and yet be marvelously wrong.

The only humble and logical choice is to choose no religion. As I accept my imperfection I accept that there is no way I can be a member of any religion or belief system and be sure that I am correct as, in the end of the day, all religions have their foundations in unproven assumptions.

For me the choice was easy once I realized that.

Daemonic

I started as a little blank canvas. My parents and others told me about santa claus, the tooth fairy, god and other little myths and lies to get me to behave.
As I got older and asked questions the tooth fairy fell by the wayside, followed by santa and as there was as much evidence of god as there was of them (less maybe, santa could be relied on once a year) god went too.
No great revelation etc. just a natural end to belief in something for which there is no evidence.

As for 'choosing' to believe in something cause I've nothing to lose? If I choose to believe in Santa again will I get more pressies????

pH

Dades wrote: »

Just because there are two options does not mean those options should be given equal odds. That is simply ridiculous. The Loch Ness monster either exists or it does not. Does that mean the chances for each of those options are 1:1?

This came up before in the most logical belief thread where probability of God was discussed. The OP never really got it, and I think that seeing peoples' responses to "Monty Hall" and "Boy or Girl" that probability, even with small numbers probability can just be hard to understand.

What's counter-intuitive is that "There is a 50% chance of being right about God's (or the Loch Ness monster's) existence" is true, but it says nothing about the actual probability of either existing.

For example, in a room there are 2 boxes (say red and blue), in one box is a prize, in the other nothing. If you send people into that room to open one of those boxes at random, you'd expect 50% of those people to win a prize.

The prize could always be in the red box, always in the blue, placed randomly 50% of the time in either, of placed 99/100 in the red and 1/100 in the blue.

No matter which, given 2 choices (and say you flip a coin to decide) you do have a 50% chance of being right, but that still doesn't mean that both options are equally likely.

So to be clear there is a 50% chance of being right about the Loch Ness monster, but this doesn't mean that there's a 50% chance that it exists!
:eek:

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

i'm not insane.....but serious answer, i'm using my common sense when deciding

i don't agree with the church, i.e. they have caused more harm than good

i don't believe any biblical story even though some are grounded by historical events

i don't want to "worship" anything, a detestable word to me

no proof has been offered that there is a god

and looking at the situation logically, why would i believe something that hasn't been proved, it would not make sense for me to believe it

when a theory is proposed, people go about proving the theory, they don't just sit on their laurels living there life accord to something which has not been proven

CerebralCortex

I'm noticing a distinct lack of Soul Winner right now. You there? Any opinions?

Galvasean

The main thing that converted me to atheism was the lack of evidence showing any particular religion to be more true than the next. If one is right then surely it should be glaringly obvious to the neutral onlooker.
That and since pretty much everything that used to be described as 'God did it' now has a rational explanation, why need God?

re: Pascal's Wager, if God is all knowing (like they claim he is) surely he can easily see through a mortal man's deception of feigned belief.

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm noticing a distinct lack of Soul Winner right now. You there? Any opinions?

Yeah sorry about that. Not long up. I've read the arguments and the reasons as to why you are convinced and yeah sure they are strong enough arguments alright and one could grasp them if one was that way inclined. But I never actually said that the wager related to the God of the Bible, just a God in general, a creator, not part of the creation per say and therefore not made of the same stuff that its made of. The fact that we don't know whether a being of this sort exists or not give it a 50-50 chance of being possibly being true even if it isn't true, when we find out that it actually isn't true then it has no chance at all.

Now to some of the points made:

Re God not being omnipotent because He cannot make a wall so high that He can't climb it and so forth, that is like saying that if God cannot make a four sided triangle then He is not all powerful. God can't make a four sided triangle. Four sided triangles are not triangles. So that doesn't prove anything. To bring in absurdities like this into the argument just weakens the argument. What ever happened to solid facts? Belief in God for the most part – in the case for Christianity at least - is based on the hearing of a report about facts, and not on the solid facts themselves although those who do the reporting claim to be reporting solid facts, so it all hinges on whether they are telling the truth or not, and there are many good reasons to believe that they were not lying.



Re the fact of all other religions and why don't I believe in them? Well I can't believe in all of them because they cannot all be right. They can be all wrong, but they cannot all be right. Christianity rings true for me primarily because when I read the record I see no cause to suspect the reporters to be lying but that's just on face value. When I delved deeper into it I became even more convinced that they were not lying or even mistaken. But that's all just personally speaking. For those who believe in Shiva then what do you want m to say? If they genuinely have a belief in Shiva and assuming the God I worship exists then He is a just God and even the New Testament states that those without a knowledge of the Gospel are in His hands and they will be judged according to their own standards,even those who worship Shiva.



Re my shaking ground shouting at Zilah. Zilah you are arguing from the point of view that what I believe in is unarguably and categorically wrong so of course to you it would appear that I'm shouting at you in your cast iron foundation from my flimsy structure. Plus I'm not mocking anyone. If you are convinced of your position then I salute you. I'm also convinced of mine but it is not based on mere blind faith. Faith can only come when one is convinced that the object to have faith in actually exists. I have yet to read a book by anyone who categorically proves that God doesn't exist. You might be able to recommend one for me. To mock the Bible one has to know its history. Most people including most Christians are ignorant of its historical background and subject matter. The just hunt and peck versus from it and take them out of context and beat people to death with them if they don not conform to what they have decided is God's will. The Bible is made up of many many varied and different types of smaller books all having their own historical background and individual message and more often than not the message in the books have a specific target in mind namely the people living in the time the books were written all be it there are some exceptions and even with those the messages in specific ones can still be applied to everyday life even today.



As for Zilah's point re Pascal's wager that Dades pointed me to:

Zilah wrote:

Pascal's wager is a appalling fallacy for the following reasons:
1 - One cannot choose to believe in something, one is merely convinced or unconvinced.

Ok then. One cannot choose to believe in something? Are you serious? When one becomes convinced by the facts then one chooses to believe them. If you remain unconvinced by the facts then you choose not to believe. Is this not blatantly obvious or am my missing something? In any case I fail to see what this has to do with Pascal's wager. The Lockness Monster analogy is better. The fact that we don't know whether it exists or not gives it a 50-50 chance of being true but only till the point when we know for sure from the facts that it doesn't exist only then can it have no chance of existing. Where the analogy breaks down is that God - assuming He exists – is a being to which the creation of the universe is attributed. Now not long ago it was held just like Zilah's cast iron foundation – that the universe always existed, in other words it was eternal in the past. But we know now that it wasn't and therefore has its beginning in a finite time in the past. For centuries Jews, Christians and Muslims believed that God created the universe from nothing in a finite time in the psat. That it had a beginning. Science has only recently caught up with this concept. So either the universe just popped into existence from nothing and by nothing as an atheistic proponent of the Big Bang theory would believe or an entity which exists out side of that space time dimension brought it into being from nothing. Either way you have a pretty miraculous happening. I think this is a pretty good reason for believing that a God exists. Which gives more validity to Pascal's wager, because you could argue that its between either/or i.e. Odds even.



Now the question of who is worshiping the right God is a theological question not a scientific one. For instance if Hinduism is right then the universe is eternal. But we know its not eternal from the evidence so bang there goes one, nearly a billion people wrong just like that. Does that mean they are all damned? If it does then that is not a Christina doctrine. I challenge anyone to give me chapter and verse that specifically damns people who hold to Hinduism or any other religion for that matter? Sure if God exists of course He'd be angry at people who worship false Gods, Gods He knows do not exist. Wouldn't any parent get angry if their kids started treating someone else as their parent instead of them? I would, so imagine yourself as being God and you want your people to worship you instead of something else which they attribute the traits that you alone posses to a false being. Only a none loving God wouldn't care what you did. And even at that, those people are not damned for worshiping false Gods, rather they are damned because they will not listen to the one telling them that is it a vain endeavor to do so and to cease it immediately and repent to the one who knows this as a self subsisting fact that it only leads to death and destruction. God circumvents this destruction by standing firm on the premise that only He is to be worshiped and given glory. Now you might not like this kind of God and might not want to worship Him but that does nothing to take away His attributes if He does in fact exist.

eoin5

Soul Winner wrote: »

The fact that we don't know whether a being of this sort exists or not give it a 50-50 chance of being possibly being true even if it isn't true, when we find out that it actually isn't true then it has no chance at all.

Could you please clarify this, I'm not sure what youre getting at.

qt9ukbg60ivjrn

comprehensive answerto be fair although as most believers do, mucho glossimos ovaros as the spanish say

Soul Winner wrote: »

What ever happened to solid facts? Belief in God

the answer to your question lies in the following sentence you wrote kindly highlighted by me:D

i know that nobody can prove that god doesn't exist, but my belief is that if it has not been proved then it can not be so, its a logical way of thinking

Dades

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've read the arguments and the reasons as to why you are convinced and yeah sure they are strong enough arguments alright and one could grasp them if one was that way inclined. But I never actually said that the wager related to the God of the Bible, just a God in general, a creator, not part of the creation per say and therefore not made of the same stuff that its made of.

Pascal's Wager would not make any sense unless the god in question offered to reward believers, or indeed to punish unbelievers. Otherwise there would be no point in choosing to believe something. So at the very least the god must be some form of omnipotent being with a list of VIPs.

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for Zilah's point re Pascal's wager that Dades pointed me to:

Ok then. One cannot choose to believe in something? Are you serious? When one becomes convinced by the facts then one chooses to believe them. If you remain unconvinced by the facts then you choose not to believe. Is this not blatantly obvious or am my missing something? In any case I fail to see what this has to do with Pascal's wager.

Pascals Wager suggests believing in something so as to cover one's options, so to speak, regardless of whether or not you are convinced by the facts. Hence the suggestion is you choose to believe irrespective of what you actually believe.

Mark Hamill

Soul Winner wrote: »

But I never actually said that the wager related to the God of the Bible, just a God in general, a creator, not part of the creation per say and therefore not made of the same stuff that its made of. The fact that we don't know whether a being of this sort exists or not give it a 50-50 chance of being possibly being true even if it isn't true, when we find out that it actually isn't true then it has no chance at all.

You are confusing probability with possibility again. While there may only be two possible answers (ie 1: there is a god, and 2: there isn't a god), it doesnt mean they have equal possible probabilities of 50/50.
Think of it like this. Either I am god, or I am not god. Does that mean there is a 50/50 chance for me being god? Should you be getting be getting down on your knees to worship me just in case?

Soul Winner wrote: »

One cannot choose to believe in something? Are you serious? When one becomes convinced by the facts then one chooses to believe them.

You cannot choose to believe something. You can pretend to believe something, you can base your whole life around acting as if you do, you can even come to believe it, but you cant just choose to believe, you cant just turn belief on.

Zamboni

There is approximately 0% evidence for a supernatural creator.

If you have some, I will change my mind. Promise

pH

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've read the arguments and the reasons as to why you are convinced and yeah sure they are strong enough arguments alright and one could grasp them if one was that way inclined. But I never actually said that the wager related to the God of the Bible, just a God in general, a creator, not part of the creation per say and therefore not made of the same stuff that its made of.

No, you're mistaken, what you said was :

Why? Because if there is a God and you bet that there isn't then you lose everything.

For a Deist God who created the universe and then disappeared or otherwise left us alone whether we 'believe' in him or not is irrelevant, not believing in him doesn't make us 'lose everything'.

This is typical for many Christians posting here, they put forward an argument for a deist creating God, and then halfway through have now switched to their personal baby-Jesus God, hoping no one will notice.

The fact that we don't know whether a being of this sort exists or not give it a 50-50 chance of being possibly being true even if it isn't true, when we find out that it actually isn't true then it has no chance at all.

If I deciphered that correctly, the answer is still no - you've 50% chance of being right if you make a random choice in the question "Does God exist", but that's not the same thing at all as saying "There's a 50% chance that god exists (or is true)".

If they genuinely have a belief in Shiva and assuming the God I worship exists then He is a just God and even the New Testament states that those without a knowledge of the Gospel are in His hands and they will be judged according to their own standards,even those who worship Shiva.

Which is to miss the point entirely once again! When using pascal's wager as an argument, considering what happens to followers of Shiva if your belief is true is only one side, you've also got to consider what happens to believers of Christ if Shiva's (or indeed any of the other gods) followers are correct. To only see the possibilities of being on the wrong or right side of pascal's wager through your own beliefs rewards/punishments means you haven't understood truly the ramifications of the question : "What if Hindus are correct and Christians entirely wrong?"

The Lockness Monster analogy is better. The fact that we don't know whether it exists or not gives it a 50-50 chance of being true but only till the point when we know for sure from the facts that it doesn't exist only then can it have no chance of existing.

Like I said above, understanding probability is hard for some people.

Now the question of who is worshiping the right God is a theological question not a scientific one. For instance if Hinduism is right then the universe is eternal. But we know its not eternal from the evidence so bang there goes one, nearly a billion people wrong just like that. Does that mean they are all damned?

No more wrong that most of the bible regarding creation and history though. We now have evidence that it's impossible for a human to survive for days inside the body of a large fish or whale, so bang there goes Christianity and Judaism, who's next?

If it does then that is not a Christina doctrine. I challenge anyone to give me chapter and verse that specifically damns people who hold to Hinduism or any other religion for that matter? Sure if God exists of course He'd be angry at people who worship false Gods, Gods He knows do not exist.

Wow, this is grasping at straws of the finest, interpreting the whole saved/damned thing through the narrow "born again" view of being saved trough belief in Jesus. And anyway in the discussion of Pascal's wager it's not important what happens to other believers if *your* beliefs turn out to be true, you need to be concentrating on what happens to you if *theirs* do.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah sorry about that. Not long up. I've read the arguments and the reasons as to why you are convinced and yeah sure they are strong enough arguments alright and one could grasp them if one was that way inclined......

Soul Winner it would seem to me that this thread is an example of you just peddling the same old crap you always do. How is this thread any different from this one? What is your point? Whats your agenda? It seems to me like you are desperate for us atheists to believe that which is unbelievable just like you. The arguments are tedious and boring because you are preoccupied with the need for the christian god to exist which is just a manipulation of the anthropomorphising of that which we don't understand.

rockbeer

Soul Winner:

Number of possible faiths = infinity.

Are we agreed on that?

Only a maximum of one can be correct. Agreed?

So the probability of your faith being correct = 1/infinity

i.e. very, very small indeed. Do you see? So as pH and others have said, you shouldn't be worrying about other believers turning out to be wrong but about you turning out to be wrong, since the chances of you being right are literally infinitesmally small.

ChocolateSauce

No one thing convinced me, but the two biggest ones are absence of evidence (which is evidence of absence) and the ever expanding and extremely persuasive field(s) of science which explained things like how life and the universe developed.

Why do you care?

Just curious.

Gambler

Ok then. One cannot choose to believe in something? Are you serious? When one becomes convinced by the facts then one chooses to believe them. If you remain unconvinced by the facts then you choose not to believe.

The definition of the word Believe: To accept as true or real

If you are unconvinced by the facts there there is no act of choosing not to believe, you just don't. If anyone was able to show me firm repeatably verifiable proof of god then I would have no choice but to accept it as true and thus believe.

In my life time I have found scientific fact to be repeatedly verified as true. I have seen no single thing ever that has left me with any inclination to even slightly believe that there is a god and overall I personally feel that religion has had a net negative influence on mankind.

For example religious types have been pushing for years that creationism is actually something that can not only be compared to evolution theory (despite the mountain of fossil evidence) but should actually be taught in school!! To me this can only stunt the development of civilisation, not help it!