Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

Brandon9000 wrote:

The fact that I cannot explain a phenomenon does not make it rational for me to accept a very specific one advanced without evidence that it is correct.

I don't suggest that accepting such an explanation is a "rational" act in the sense that I assume you are using the word (i.e. the exclusive result of a reasoned, objectively provable argument). However, it still may be reasonable and prudent behavior for some to accept such an explanation. Consider, for example Pascal's Wager.

If you could conclusively offer a provable explanation for our origin and existence, and that of the universe as an alternative to such "superstition", then I would join you in your criticism. However, you cannot do so.

Setanta wrote:

This does not signify, and it is disingenuous. Unless you have rejected the teaching of the Jesuits, but never told us, you are yourself to be considered a thesist. Therefore, your remarks are covertly in support of your theism.

It is not only unnecessary to provide an alternative explanation for the origin of the cosmos, suggesting that it be done is an attempt to enjoin others in an exercise of belief whereby their belief can be discounted as having no more value than the opposing belief.

I'll freely and openly confess to my"theism". I have taken the'blind leap to faith' --mostly because the alternative seems to me to involve a much greater jump and to something less promising.

I don't know whether you are atheistic or agnostic, but I do not see any basis on which your belief can be said to "have more value" than mine.

Why would anybody consider Pascal's Wager?

You can't sincerely believe something just to "be on the safe side." Without the sincerity, you are just a hypocrite. If there is a god, which do you think he/she/it would prefer? Honest disbelief, or hypocritical belief? And which god you pick? To be really safe, you'd have to believe in them all. Christian or a Moslem? A Zoroastrian or a Hindu? If you choose Christianity, what flavor? If you are Methodist, how about the possibility that Catholicism may be the true religion? To really be on the safe side, you'd have to become a believer in all religions in the world, and this would be utterly impossible, since many religions forbid beliefs in others.


So, all things considered, I have a 50/50 chance of being right-god vs no god. You, on the other hand have a ...somebody help me out here..how many gods are there? Well, ok, lets say a thousand, that's a nice round number. So you have 999 chances of being wrong. So, I'll keep my 50/50 and raise ya two small gods.
P

In my opinion, logic in the attempt to determine truth has more value than illogic. It is more likely to lead to truth.

Brandon9000 wrote:

In my opinion, logic in the attempt to determine truth has more value than illogic. It is more likely to lead to truth.

Are you claiming that, because you choose disbelief now, you are necessarily more open to new information or understanding in the determination of truth should it arise? If you think about it , I'm confident that, since neither of us knows the final truth, you will conclude that this is merely a prejudgement on your part.

Momma Angel wrote:

So, my question is Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?[/b][/color]

Because I find the evidence for his existence no more convincing than the evidence for unicorns, or for the pagan gods of ancient Greece. The reason is the same in all cases: Generally speaking, I know from experience that a story is probably false when it cannot be fact-checked, but sounds good enough to survive on its merits as a story. The Bible is full of those stories, and its stories about god all fit into that category.

Let me turn this question around: I am pretty sure that you, Momma Angel, would agree with my argument if I only applied it to unicorns and Greek gods. You don't believe in those either. Since you do believe in the god of (selected parts of) the Bible, what reason do you have for it that you don't have for believing in unicorns and Greek gods?

Pauligirl,
Their sin was that they didn't believe the truth, but took pleasure in unrighteousness. They did not love the truth, and therefore they did not believe it and, because they did not believe the truth, they had pleasure in unrighteousness. They did wicked actions, and were pleased with false notions. Their ruin is expressed as God shall send them strong delusions, to believe a lie. He will punish men for their unbelief, and for their dislike of the truth and love to sin and wickedness, not that God is the author of sin, but in righteousness he sometimes withdraws his grace from such sinners as are mentioned here. He gives them over to Satan, or leaves them to be deluded by his instruments. He gives them up to their own hearts' lusts, and leaves them to themselves, and then sin will follow. God is just when he inflicts spiritual judgments here upon those who have no love to the truths of the gospel and who will not believe them or live by them. Rather they indulge false doctrines in their minds, and wicked practices in their lives and conversations.[/quote[/size]]

Golly, and you wonder why people don't get in line all the time to worship this creature of hate. He punishes men, he gives them over to Satan, leaves them to be deluded by his (Satan's) instruments. He (God) gives them up to their own heart's lust and leaves them to themselves... .

This is the God the Father you are speaking of? The one we are supposed to believe in?
If I were a child of this god I would file child abuse charges against him.

What kind of father withdraws his grace from his children?

What kind of sadist creates a race of thinking beings and then punishs them for thinking?
Where, in the hundreds of pages of the Bible, is the Loving Father?
The one who doesn't toss billions into hell, the one who isn't full of rage and wrath and vengeance and blood.
This GuyGod, described very well by Intrepid, appears to have all the elements a social worker would recognize in an abusive parent, and somehow we are supposed to be attracted?


What kind of father withdraws his grace from his children?
What kind of father withdraws his grace from his children?
What kind of father withdraws his grace from his children?
What kind of monster does that?

Joe(Of course, He was abusive to his own Son so what can we expect?)Nation

Seems every "believer" insists that "unbelief" is an equal and opposite form of belief.

Momma Angel wrote:

So, my question is Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?[/b]

Thomas Wrote:

Because I find the evidence for his existence no more convincing than the evidence for unicorns, or for the pagan gods of ancient Greece. The reason is the same in all cases: Generally speaking, I know from experience that a story is probably false when it cannot be fact-checked, but sounds good enough to survive on its merits as a story. The Bible is full of those stories, and its stories about god all fit into that category.

Let me turn this question around: I am pretty sure that you, Momma Angel, would agree with my argument if I only applied it to unicorns and Greek gods. You don't believe in those either. Since you do believe in the god of (selected parts of) the Bible, what reason do you have for it that you don't have for believing in unicorns and Greek gods?

P.S. The more that I think about it, the angrier that I am getting. Personally, I always had a tremendous amount of personal respect for the bible. I treasured it as one of the cornerstones of the emerging western society, and an immense achievement of some primitive peoples attempting to make sense out of their lives, and their place in the universe.

But, instead of consigning this book to where it belongs.......the annals of antiquity, people are actually using this treatise as a means of justifying today's behavior. To me, that would be tantamount to taking a centuries old science book, and using it to explain the workings of the world today.

Sure, the bible has some truths in it. It is also filled with inaccuracies and contradictions. I find now that I am utterly disgusted with the concept that the bible is useful for anything more than a glimpse into the workings of the minds of people in the days that it was written.

Eorl wrote:

Seems every "believer" insists that "unbelief" is an equal and opposite form of belief.

I have had similar experiences with (small-d) democrats during the occasional episodes in my life when I was an anarchist. Most of them simply could not comprehend that what I wished for wasn't one vote in sixty million on who governs me -- but that did not wish to be governed, period. The experience has taught me some lenience with deists. People who believe in gods usually can't see that atheism isn't just another form of religion, just as people who believe in governments usually can't understand that anarchism isn't just another form of government. In both cases, you have people who believe in a concept, and it dominates their perception so thoroughly that they can't see how people can perceive anything without that concept. (And in both cases, I haven't come up with a good solution to the perceptional problem yet.)

Joe Nation,

You expect God to not turn away from someone when they turn away from Him first? He tries to get people to come back to Him. Once their hearts have hardened toward Him, He will let them go. That is your free will at work, Joe Nation. If you decide to turn from God, why would you expect Him to not turn away from you?

It's like Intrepid said, it's simple.