Why Atheists don't believe

I've never argued with this, so there's no need to keep repeating it. I merely make the point that though you feel that you KNOW the truth of your belief there is no empirical way to show it's validity over other faiths. This is YOUR opinion, your belief, your "knowledge". People of other faiths have theirs. What if Islam is the correct path and you are wrong? As far as I'm concerned they are ALL man made!

CK, I haven't done a trawl through your recent post history, but were I to, I would suspect no change in the behaviour demonstrated since I arrived here. 1 or 2 lines posts which don't argue a position but just nip at the ankles of those who attempt to engage each other.Get a series of 10-20 line posts established somewhere else, which lay out a position of yours and which is attacked and defended a while and I'll considering engaging with you. But for now, no thanks .

Given that one will never get concrete evidence of Gods non-existance (either one dies and there is no God in which case you still get no concrete evidence. Or you die and find out he does in fact exist) this is a path one can waste a life following.Or one can look for reasons to believe which at least holds out the potential for concrete evidence being gained (knowing is about as concrete as it comes)One search without end or a search with a potential end. Even to a neutral bystander the latter appears to make more sense.Like its not that it is very difficult!

That is not what I meant. Your existance is contingent on the existance of your god. Whether or not you knew about your god or not was not what I meant. You seem to by saying that you cannot exist with out your god' existance.My question is why is this so?[qa] If I can know he exists when he actually doesn't, then I can know I exist when I actually don't. [/qs]This is logically false. We are back to KNOWing again. Your use and definition of KNOWing (as I understand it) is erroneous.You also continue to link your existance with your gods existance.Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to be saying:Iano exist.Therefor Iano's god exist.Again I ask: why must this be true?How can anyone come to the xian (or any church) if this is the logic you use?

quote:

---

""What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others."

---

It is featured in Analects of Confucius which are the collected writings of the Chinese thinker Confucius.You might also be interested in -

quote:

---

"Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you" (Mahabharata 5:15:17)

​

"One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva, 113.8

---

(I'm unclear about the dates associated with the Mahabharata but as far as I can see that is a BC event as well).Edited by CK, : Hindu verses.Edited by CK, : Formatting first quote.Edited by CK, : argg bloody tagsEdited by CK, : No reason given.

Your position is inconsistent - I don't need to engage in any long confusion with you to point that out. Indeed, such a point is likely to be lost in any lenghty post. I'm actually more interested in bring it to the attention of the reader than you. My post entirely served the purpose it was intended to.If anyone else wants to engage in long waffle with you - that's upto them, I have no interest.

Iano, I would love it if there was a god (any god) who could show that all the bad things that happen to people are the result of some grand plan and that there is an after life where we can meet our loved ones etc.. and all we have to do is follow a few well meaning rules and all would be well.That would be great.But as the OP asks and I answer: the reason for my belief in a universe without any creator gods as written in many mutually exclusive texts is that there is NO positive evidence.None at all.There is no reason for me to believe except here say in word and text.Thats it.People will believe anything if it's put the right way. But only if they get exposed to it. Your belief structure is no different to ANY other and is just as full of glaring logical holes as the rest. That many people ascribe to it means nothing.

Thanks mate, appreciate the heads up

Lets try it this way.My existance is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of the computer on front of me is contingant only on my knowing it. The existance of God is contingant on my knowing it.If things that I know exist don't actually, then my knowing is no guide to anything actually existing - not even myself. Do you know you exist? Or, on what is your existance contingant?

quote:

---

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:18

---

Jesus in his summing up of the law and the prophets is the same Lord who spoke somewhat earlier in timeHeads down time again Larni

But this is self evidently wrong.If you do not exist, of course the world goes on. We could argue the point of whether the world is a creation of your imagination but why bother? You either accept that the worlds existance is independent of your existance (this is the Theory of Mind) or all bets are off. Again this is a false dichotomy.You can know that invisible pink unicorns do not exist and this will not invalidate you existance. You can believe ANYTHNG and it will have NO effect on your existance or the existance of anything else.That one exist is self evident to oneself. Appending the verasity of a belief on this self evidence is what you seem to be doing and is egocentricity in the highest form.You appear to contend that because you exist, a belief you hold is by definition true because you are as sure of you god's existance as you are sure of your own.This is a false dichotomy and to hold that view is logically flawed.

I would have thought that a God who didn't demand that we follow a few well meaning rules in order for that to be would be an even better proposition... If you would like to point one out then go ahead. But it can be jading so no probs if you don't fancy it. Bear in mind that 'not about following the rules' business if ever you get to wondering which item you should try from the spiritual menu.Ian

That's from the torah which was constructed sometime between 500bc and 200bc - unless you have some starling evidence of it being e-mailed to china I fail to see the relevance.All that quote shows is that the golden rules also appeared in the book that the bible was eventually developed out of.... It in no way shape or form negates the point that lots of people said the same thing as Jesus (which was the original point you made that was challenged) and many of them said it before him. You can also find evidence of the golden rule in even earlier texts (some from Egypt for example).

quote:

---

Hillel the Elder (Talmud, Shabbat 31a).

​

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary."

---

Edited by CK, : Typos.

The 'hole' that springs to mind is that no two xians (to pick one religion) can ever agree on any one view of christianity.But thats not for this thread is it?How about addressing my previous post.

The world exists and I exist and you exist. We are different, separate things (not the world-a-product-of-mind). On what basis do we accept that is the case? Do we pluck it out of thin air? Or do we base it ultimately on our knowing this to be the case?If not knowing (see self-evidence later), then on what basis do we accept it? Could you spell out the false dichotomy using an example of something that I know exists - rather than something I know doesn't - for that is the area I was dealing with. Self-evident. Evidence. And if the evidence is compelling enough then knowledge it becomes. For that is what knowing (I exist) is - knowledge of which there is no doubt. If there is no such thing as such knowledge - then there can be no certainty of our existance.For us to exist relies on us knowing so. The more certain we are the more our knowing is certain. I am certain I exist Larni. Are you? The switch to belief happened in the twinkling of an eye here. Can we first dismantle the knowing arguement before assuming that belief is the debris left over from said dismantling