Originally posted by galveston75
Robbie stated that the belief that there is no God could be a superstitious reason.

su·per·sti·tion; suprstn/ Show Spelled[soo-per-stish-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection ...[text shortened]... accepted belief or notion.

So with this first site I found it would seem Robbie is correct.

What site?

To whom are you talking?

Originally posted by googlefudge
What site?

To whom are you talking?

Sorry..Properknob. And just an online dictionary dictionary.reference.com

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i have a rational basis for denying the existence of Santa clause, i caught my
parents putting ot the presents one year, now where is your evidence for denying that
God exists, hmmm?

So your parent put out some presents and that proves Santa doesn't exist? Well I saw someone faking a faith healing. That proves God doesn't exist!

Originally posted by twhitehead
So your parent put out some presents and that proves Santa doesn't exist? Well I saw someone faking a faith healing. That proves God doesn't exist!

Sure it does, trundle trundle

Originally posted by galveston75
Is there a reason you don't want there to be a god?

Why do you want there to be one?


Not believing in the existence of gods... Or believing in the non-existence of gods...

Does not require not wanting a god or gods to exist.


You could want there to be a god really badly and still not believe in a god if you didn't
think that the evidence supported such a belief. (or precluded such a belief)


Conversely you could really not want there to be a god and still believe in one if the
evidence did support such a position.


I find the idea of the bible god to be repulsive and terrifying and hate the idea of such
a god. However if there was evidence to support the existence of such a being then I
would be compelled by my own honesty and desire to know the truth whatever the truth
is to believe in it's existence however much I disliked it. (I believe in the existence of flat
Earthers, Creationists, and Holocaust deniers without liking any of them or wanting them
to exist)

However I distinguish between believing in the existence of a god and worshipping one.

While belief is a pre-requisite of worship, worship is not required given belief.

I would believe in the existence of a suitably evinced deity or deities, but I wouldn't worship
it/them.



The point about rationality/reason/skepticism and science is that they have at their core a
belief in searching for the truth whatever that truth is and regardless of what you might want
the truth to be.

If your pet hypothesis is unsupported by evidence (or disproved by it) then it gets thrown out.

If you really do CARE about the truth then the price is that you can't believe in things simply because
you wish the world was that way.
You believe in things only if they are adequately supported by evidence.

Reality is the arbiter of what is real, not the hopes or feelings of a monkey that falls out of trees.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i have a rational basis for denying the existence of Santa clause, i caught my
parents putting ot the presents one year, now where is your evidence for denying that
God exists, hmmm?

maybe you were just a bad boy that year and got on santa's coal list and your parents covered for him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have no idea why you might deny the existence of God, you have no rational reason
to deny the existence of God.

what is your rational for denying the existence of shiva?

Originally posted by galveston75
Is there a reason you don't want there to be a god?

No. The idea that we are not alone in the universe is quite appealling to me.

Originally posted by galveston75
Sorry..Properknob. And just an online dictionary dictionary.reference.com

To start with Rob said 'religious belief', then he changed to 'superstitious belief'. I've just outlined three reasons on the previous page why i don't believe in the God you and Rob do, to then claim my belief is not based on 'reason or knowledge' is rather spurious.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
To start with Rob said 'religious belief', then he changed to 'superstitious belief'. .

I've seen robbie try to move the goalposts by changing the wording of what is being discussed countless times. I don't think there's anyone else on the forum who tries to move goalposts in a discussion as often as he does.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
To start with Rob said 'religious belief', then he changed to 'superstitious belief'. I've just outlined three reasons on the previous page why i don't believe in the God you and Rob do, to then claim my belief is not based on 'reason or knowledge' is rather spurious.

Your reasons are no good by your own admittance there are many believers who accept the theory and who view the Biblical account of the flood and mans creation as allegorical.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I've just outlined three reasons on the previous page why i don't believe in the God you [galveston75] and Rob do, to then claim my belief is not based on 'reason or knowledge' is rather spurious.

Apparently, robbie says your reasons are invalid because there are "many believers" who disagree with you.

robbie: "Your reasons are no good by your own admittance there are many believers who accept the theory and who view the Biblical account of the flood and mans creation as allegorical.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your reasons are no good by your own admittance there are many believers who accept the theory and who view the Biblical account of the flood and mans creation as allegorical.

I stated quite categorically on the previous page that i was going to refer to the literal God of the Bible that you believe in in this thread. You want me to go through every possible interpretation of God and tell you why i don't believe each one exists?

The short answer is this - Walking on water, turning water into wine, being raised from the dead, feeding the five thousand? It's just another ancient superhero tale.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your reasons are no good by your own admittance there are many believers who accept the theory and who view the Biblical account of the flood and mans creation as allegorical.

"...there are many believers who accept the theory and who view the Biblical account of the flood and mans creation as allegorical."

Yes but they aren't true Scotsmen.

Originally posted by Proper Knob

1.Adam & Eve - a little interpretation of that allegory is pure nonsense.
2. The Flood - again, utter nonsense.
3. Evolution - my acceptance of the evidence is in complete contradiction to what your interpretation of God would have us believe.

That's for starters.

Not bad for a start.

3. Let me start off by saying one thing. I'm supremely tired of all the stupid gits in this forum claiming either Evolution OR Creationism is the correct concept and the other is pure hokum. It's clear to me that any serious thought on the matter would conclude that a combination of both must be more true than either theory alone.

This leads to:

1. Because of my belief in evolution (as well as big bang theory and most cosmological theories) as God's tool to bring about the creation of the universe and all that is in it, I see no choice but to believe that the tale of Adam & Eve is either allegorical or was an instance of God stepping in once the evolution of Man was complete. I still believe in the essence of the story, being Satan tempting Man into falling from Grace into Sin.

2. I think the Flood is a combination of stories from several civilizations of an event which was a life changing event for many in the actual region affected by the flood, i.e. many researchers believe the event was the flooding of the Black Sea basin from the Bosphorus once sea levels had risen after the melting of glaciers formed during the last ice age. How this ties in with God dealing with the problem of the Nephilim I haven't quite worked out yet.

So while you may label these as "pure" or "utter" nonsense, I see these as having at least some basis in reality. The main problem seems to be they are shrouded by the veil of time between then and now.

That's for starters. 🙂