Well, it's the default position, when you're born, so it's not really a choice. A better question would be to ask why people choose theism. This is largely not a choice, either, but something which is taught and accepted as fact, because it comes from authority figures. Without the teaching of religion as factual, whether from parents or other sources, it would simply seem like the fairy tale that it is to everyone and would be acknowledged as such.

Hello, nedbrek, and welcome to the forum!

To me belief is not a choice but a spontaneous reaction to evidence. I am an atheist not because I choose to be but simply because it is obvious that gods are make-believe. I could no more choose to believe in gods than I could choose to believe that the Earth is flat.

I guess it's just the opposite for me. "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psalm 19:1). The existence of God is obvious because of the way the universe was made.

I guess a better question would be, "What happens after you die?"

Thanks!

The apologists of all religions and pseudosciences develop arguments for their belief system. They are never credible (just look at the arguments of all religions but your own, whatever your religion may be) and are for the most part designed to keep existing believers from deconverting, not to convert non-believers.

Real evidence works like this: you have a hypothesis that makes empirical predictions. You then make measurements. If the predictions closely approximate the observations, you have evidence for the hypothesis. If they do not, you have evidence against the hypothesis.

Religions and pseudosciences have no legitimate evidence for their claims. Their apologists know this but instead of admitting that their theories are humbug they place the blame on the "materialistic" and "reductionistic" scientific method, demanding that their claims be tested on terms of their own choosing. For example, proponents of "alternative medicine", when reminded that double-blind tests of the efficiency of their product always come up empty, will invariably claim copious amount of anecdotal evidence in their favour.

This is precisely what I was talking about. Because there is no legitimate evidence for theism, the apologists have come up with an excuse why there is none and why you should accept the kind of "evidence" they are able to provide.

Every religion and every pseudoscience does this. There are thousands of these belief systems, and pretty much all educated adults can easily tell that everyone else's belief system is bunk. The hard part is seeing that one's own belief system is no different.

This does not make sense to me. Only if there was a god and we knew it could we make a rational, informed choice to reject him or not to reject him. And that would be a moral choice, not an epistemological one.

But there is conflicting accounts of God throughout history. Following your proposition can I assume the existence for the Gods of the vedas or Greeks?

Some of the accounts are wrong, and some are right. That's what happens with historical accounts.

I don't know anyone who asserts the Vedas or Greek mythology describe anything real. The Vedas are heavily interpreted, and taken as "guidelines" and "pointers to the truth". Greek mythology is equivalent to modern soap operas.

Isn't the bible also heavily interpreted? In regards to the Vedas, many definitely feel it describes real things, as did many Greeks did to their mythology. While certain accounts were considered mythology others were thought to be very real. I would compare this to how some christians follow creationism while others feel the creation naratives were "pointers to the truth".

Okay. What is the hypothesis and what is the historical evidence for it?

Certainly. The repeatability criterion is rarely a problem in the study of history: if I can read a document about Julius Caesar, you can read it too. Historical evidence excluded by the repeatability criterion would be something like the golden tablets "discovered" by Joseph Smith.

BTW, would you like to respond to my objection to the freedom of choice issue? I would very much like to know why so many theists seem to find the free will defence credible.

That God exists, and is revealed to us in the Bible.

The evidence is the Bible itself (protected over thousands of years). The Jewish people are also good evidence (how many other groups of people have been extinguished, with a lot less effort). There are sources outside the Bible for the life of Jesus (Josephus and certain Roman records). The empty tomb. The lives (mostly the deaths) of the early Christians.

Are you assuming God cares whether or not we believe in Him (many Christians (wrongly) assert that...)?

Do you remember what it was like before you were born? We only have evidence to show that death is similar to how you felt before you were born.

All heaven celebrates when someone is saved (see the parable of the prodigal son). But God is not sitting at home, crying, waiting for people to love Him.

God created the universe to display His glory. We can do this by letting Him show His incredible love and forgiveness by being saved (which we do not deserve), or by being judged (for God is just).

As I stated above, only the original texts are God's word without error. We rely on copies and translations, that do a very good job.

I don't have a particular favorite English version (I'm not a KJV only guy). I like the modern or new King James for word accuracy. I use a living or Bible in basic English for chapter feel. The dictionary I use is Strong's. The Hebrew Old Testament is the Tanach. The Greek New Testament is Westcott-Hort, I have also used the Textus Receptus. I have not noticed any difference. I also have a Greek Old Testament (Septuagint), that I use for Greek word searches.

Great. Back to the ship parable, then. The ship is sinking, and the captain (who loves us) would prefer to see us saved rather than have us drown. There is no reason why the captain should not make it absolutely clear to all of us passengers that the ship is sinking: we would still have the option of not getting on the lifeboats (although that would be daft). If he does not make it clear, some of his dear beloved passengers who would have wanted to live end up drowning because they did not know the ship was sinking. Now how could the loving captain allow that to happen?

Okay.

Prophesies would be an extreme form of prediction, but there are others. For example, a literal reading of Genesis would predict that plant life appeared on the planet almost simultaneously with human life, which should be reflected in the fossil record. So the question is, how do we interpret the Bible? We need to find an interpretation that makes empirical predictions so that we can compare those predictions to the data.

The reason we need to do this is that any document, whether it be the Bible, the Quran, or the Iliad, can be reconciled with reality; the real test is whether it can predict observations about the empirical world.

Agreed. But how do we know the Bible is accurate if we cannot verify it empirically? There is no shortage of documents in the world that are claimed by this sect or that to be divinely inspired. How do we tell which ones -- if any -- truly are?

I find it hard to believe that the four billion non-Christians on the planet are people who go out of their way to not believe in the Christian god. Overwhelming evidence for a proposition tends to make people believe it. Even a truth as uncomfortable as the fact that we humans are mortal is accepted by the vast majority of adults. Surely almost everyone would recognize the existence of a deity who, for example, regularly had physical, verbal converstations with his creatures -- a trivially easy task for an omnipotent being.

Just to get an idea of how easy it would be for a creator to provide overwhelming evidence of its existence, imagine that life on Earth was the product of a technologically advanced alien civilization (I hope you like science fiction!). How easy would it be for them to convince us of their existence without messing with our brains? It would be trivial! So how hard could it be for an omnipotent being?

Ok. I deconverted when I was about twelve, when I had decided that what Christianity had to offer was bunk. No personality changes etc. I didn't start eating children, or abandon christianity so I wouldn't get smited (which isn't a reason to abandon at all).

What a way to shoot yourself in the foot. Jesus also claimed to point to the truth (i.e. himself *cough*narcissism *cough*). If you can't trust all other religions about their "truths", then why trust Christianity?

The irony piles up, and the plot thickens...

You're saying the authors of the Bible made up a story to make themselves look like a bunch of idiots, so that their neighbors would kill them?

Have you read the Bible?

My apologies, but I'm confused. That didn't answer my question. Are you saying that the authors of the bible sound like idiots to you?

If so, please tell me why you quote it so liberally in this thread.

That very well might be true. However, that still doesn't mean they didn't have an agenda. It doesn't mean they didn't change some things around while writing. Perhaps it would even be in the manner of some of the slanted news reporting we see today.

You are going on blind faith that the authors wrote nothing but bare truth.

Yes, I read it years ago as a teen and wasn't impressed even then.

There was a lot of "obey the lord" and "praise the lord" and "god is good and loving." Of course that last part was New Testament.

In my opinion, a good and loving god would not allow birth defects or cancer or devastating hurricanes or children being in poverty (etc etc etc).

I don't believe that these are obstacles to make humans stronger. I see it more like an abusive husband that beats his wife just to make sure she loves him even more afterward. Who could praise that?

I am obviously not a bibical scholar. I'll leave that to Rook. However, it's human nature to "spin" stories to make things appear in a different light. That long ago, it's unlikely the authors had much, if any, first-hand knowledge of events. We all know how stories get changed in retelling. We also know how false stories take on a life of their own and people start believing them.

Just because something is written doesn't make it the truth.

Political power 'protected' the bible over thousands of years. No different then the quran, tipitaka, upanishads, tao te ching.

Maybe this is something you could answer since you feel the jews are good evidence. Are the jews good evidence that christ was indeed not the messiah? God's own people rejected him, I find that very ironic.

Ofcourse you know that Josephus's writings are controversial and not accepted by many scholars. I wonder why Philo of Alexandria mentions nothing of Christ. For me personally I don't dispute the man that was Jesus, the myth of the man is what I dispute.

Are you saying martyrdom alone is proof?

Can you explain to me why the sources of the bible and those who canonized it are trusted sources? My personally rejection of the bible is due to the veracity of the claims and most importantly, the trust worthiness of the sources. So if you can clarify that for me, who knows - you might just save my sourl. Thanks.

If so, then how can you hold that the book has any value for you today?

Furthermore, how do you know this? What exactly was the original audience? How do you know whether or not if some parts were created intentionally vague or not? Creating intentionally vague passages would be a neat trick when trying to mimick the mind of a 'god'.... it would allow authors 'wiggle room' to retrofit passages if required....

I would agree that books like Revelations were written for another audience.... the imagary and symbols of that book were intended for people long dead..... so why do christians attempt to use it as a prophecy?

And one more point: why couldn't an omnipotent god write something more universal? Euclid was able to do so. Why write a book for a few thousand sheep herders when you know that later on, billions of christians will be relying on it.

Think that one over: You have two audiences: a small collection of people, the overwhelming majority of which cannot even read....

Or billions of people who will later read the book...

Wouldn't you direct the book to the latter group? Or, conversely, simply have the sky rain down with updated versions?

Why are you, as a person living in the 21st century, trying to live by what you even consider to be an outmoded guide intended for sheep herders? Do you consider that whatever moral 'guide' you receive from the book actually originates in your own secular derived concept of morality?

The Koran says that the Bible is God's Word. The Bible says Jesus is God's son. The Koran says Allah has no son. Either the Koran is lying, or Allah is not God... If you have any other serious contenders, I am more than willing to examine them.

Ephesians vs. Matthew is an excellent find. Although better tension is raised with Ephesians vs. James 2:17.

God calls for a perfect life, as He is perfect. If you keep the whole law (ten commandments), your whole life, you will enter heaven. Unfortunately, no one except Jesus ever has...

James mentions works (versus faith). James is saying that when we are saved by faith, we undergo a change. This change brings forth good works (like fruit). If we have no works, we should question if we have truly been changed.

It is possible, but not easy. Read any science fiction story with a suspension of disbelief. You will find weak spots in the plot. That is with a single author. Now add dozens (I think the Star Wars books have had a dozen or so authors, and most of them are pretty terrible). Now span the writing over hundreds of years. Not easy to fit that all together.

We don't know what happens to them. Concern for the unsaved is a good sign, be glad!

Sorry, it is not intended as an argument. I am just saying your point of view can put a skew on the data. My understanding of cosmology is that it does not preclude the existence of God.