Identifying false religions.

Well, the various Gods or gods are described in the different tales. I can look at the characteristics presented in the stories and make judgments about them just as I can about the likelihood of Superman or Spiderman.The evidence is the various stories themselves. There is NO evidence that I can or will present in support of my belief in GOD. When it comes to God or gods though I can point to the actual tales, to the stories themselves. I have never said that atheism is not a rational position about any of the GOD, God or gods. Of course, highly improbable even. I have never said otherwise. Because regardless of whether I wish it were true, regardless of what I would prefer, it is what I believe is true.I would much rather the GOD I believe in could be supported by evidence that all could see, examine and accept. Unfortunately, I see no way to do that.I still believe that there is a GOD, the creator of all that is, seen and unseen, that there will be an afterlife and that I will have to stand before that GOD to be judged based on my behavior during this life.Edited by jar, : left out the word 'my' in based on my behavior

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So belief in which Gods or gods are rational and logical - Based on which "stories" specifically? Then this is the fundamental difference betwen you and RAZD who claims that any statement of relative improbability regarding unfalsified gods is unfounded, irrational and illogical. In fact he bizzarrely believes that he has mathematically shown this to be the case!! Message 135OK. Then on what basis is agnosticism, beyond the trivial possible but improbable atheist position, not an irrational position?

Regardless of the fact that I wish I liked the taste of chocolate ice cream the fact is that I don't. I prefer strawberry.But my dislike of chocolate ice cream, whilst socially awkward and unwanted at times, remains a personal preference. No?How is your un-evidenced belief different?

I think you still don't get it. I think it is rational to decide whether you believe in or do not believe in a God or god based on the evidence presented.That applies to each and EVERY story.I think saying "I don't know" when you really don't know is ALWAYS rational.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Because I believe it is true. It is not a personal preference and in fact not at all what I wished.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well if you have a personal prefererence for something your belief in that as true is just inarguable. This is a tautological. I believe that I personally dislike chocolate ice-cream. My dislike of chocolate ice-cream is true. How could it be any other way? Nor is my disliike of chocolate ice cream at all what I would wish. But that remains a personal preference does it not?How is your belief any different?

You keep asking questions as though you thought that I could show how my belief in GOD was rational. I have already told you that it is irrational, illogical and unreasonable.Yet it is what I believe.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And I am asking you which specific god or Gods you consider your belief in as rational and on what evidential (i.e. story) basis you make this conclusion? OK. So tell me one of these stories and the god or God that you consider it to be evidence of. No atheist here claims to know. But is denying the improbability of unevidenced conclusions rational or irrational?

No. I am asking you how this irrational, illogical and unreasonable unevidenced belief is any different from mere personal preference. And I believe that I dislike chocolate ice-cream. And this belief is entirely unchosen and entirely synonymous with my personal preference.How is your belief in GOD different?

And I am telling you that my processes I use applies to EVERY God or god. Personally I don't believe any of them are likely to exists however I also admit that I might well be wrong. I base that belief of the evidence presented in the stories. I have, but I'll go through the process yet again for you.Consider the God in Genesis 1 and the God in Genesis 2.The God depicted in Genesis 1 is overarching, aloof, supremely competent but separate from Her creation, impersonal.Now look at the God of Genesis 2 & 3. This God is personal, hands on, very human, often fumbling and unsure, frightened.Two entire different Gods, one that can be loving if demanding, the other grander, magnificent but impersonal.Now I believe that neither is likely but the former more likely than the latter. Irrational.But I have always said that. Because I say it is different and is NOT a matter of personal preference. See above.But on reflection, does it matter whether it is different or not?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Could you clarify this? You have an irrational, illogical, unreasonable belief that is contrary to your will and you would prefer to not have... and yet you don't seem to consider this to be mental illness.I don't see how this is different from, for instance, hallucinating that there are large, hairy, terrifying spiders crawling on your bedroom walls. Surely you would seek to rid yourself of such a belief through logical reassurance and perhaps medication and psychiatric treatment. Yet you seem to be defending your belief in "GOD". Why?

Well, I don't see where my belief causes me any troubles, and I do believe that I may, note only may, get a conclusive answer after I die so I don't see any reason to get rid of it.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

OK. So you rationally and logically believe that the actual existence of any god, God or GOD is unlikely.Is that correct? Why? Personal preference? You have also said "I would agree with RAZD." Message 263 but RAZD absolutely and vehemently denies that improbability is a remotely rationally justifiable conclusion.Have you actually read his posts in this thread (or a multitude of others on the same subject)? Well then how is it different? Your personal conviction would of course require you to insist that it is somehow more profound or different. But in what way is it actually different? Be specific. Well earlier I asked if your belief in GOD was derived from anything other than personal preference and you got quite uppity in insisting that it was. So obviously it matters to you.Why is that?

No. I irrationally believe that the existence of GOD is certain. No, not personal preference but rather personal beliefs.But remember, if presented with more evidence then I will likely change my beliefs. I think you still misunderstand what I or RAZD are saying or perhaps I misunderstand what RAZD is saying.I think RAZD and I would both see "I don't know" to cover a very broad spectrum. In fact, the only thing excluded from the "I don't know" position is absolute surety. Well, if you think I was uppity, I apologize. I certainly didn't mean it as uppity, more just amusement.I really don't much care whether you think it is a matter of personal preference or not, I don't believe it is a matter of personal preference and your beliefs about my beliefs will of course not have any effect on my beliefs.Edited by jar, : try to fix wording

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yes. I am well aware of that. But that isn't what I asked is it? What do you consider to be the rational and logical conclusion? Everything you have said here indicates that you consider it rational and logical to believe that the actual existence of any empirically unevidenced entity is highly improbable.Is this correct? Or not? And absolutely nobody here either disagrees with you on that or is advocating a position of absolute certainty. So don't even bother replying to Bluegenes, myself, Phage or anybody else taking part in this thread on the basis that we are advocating absolute certainty about anything. Is that clear?The endless debate with RAZD is concerned with whether or not it is rational to consider the existence of GOD/God/god as highly improbable. On this you seem to fundamentally disagree with RAZD. Despite claiming to agree with him. As is the position of every atheist here. As I understand it after seeing their comments in numerous threads on this same related topic. Yet again - What is the actual difference? Of course not. But if you cannot explain what the diefference is between unevidenced beliefs and personal preferences to anyone else on what basis do you conclude that there is a difference?Beyond simply being unwilling to equate the two because you find that synonimity personally distasteful?