God is evil, or likes it, or enjoys it whatever

[MG 2.0]

Belief is a choice. But there is a difference between believing in a flying spaghetti monster and believing in a creator God. For one thing, I can’t picture the fsm creating his children in the likeness of a noodle.

There isn’t ANY evidence of that.

Regards,
MG

Yes, the only difference is you can’t imagine the fsm. Other than that they both remain unfounded.

Well, I can’t imagine existing in a world of sentient noodles. I find it more likely, being what I am, to see myself and billions of other sentient human beings as having been patterned after a being that resembles us, and we Him, rather than a long spaghetti noodle.

But that’s me.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

And who are YOU?

Belief in God is a choice.

What propaganda are YOU propagating?

Do you have a choice in what propaganda you propagandize?

Again, who ARE you? Your words have little or no meaning to me. What does that say about you?

Regards,
MG

You have zero access to choices inside your brain. You have preferences but no choice action. That moment when you decide on something is completely hidden from you. You retro fit that choice to fit that preference.

What and how my brain does/works in no way dictates whether or not there is a God.

Sure, I can choose to believe in something that is either non existent and/or nonsensical…like a flying spaghetti god. But to then throw in ALL beliefs as being just as non sensible is nonsensical.

Two choices:
Flying spaghetti god.
Creator God in who’s image we are created.

I’ll take the second.

Of course if you start throwing in all the other gods…that messes with your mind…and with choosing, right? You then end up throwing the baby out with the bath water and then worshipping at the alter of psychological theory/explanation.

Regards,
MG

[dastardly stem]

But that’s me.

Regards,
MG

Yes. That is you. And I still think you have it all wrong.

[MG 2.0]

But that’s me.

Regards,
MG

Yes. That is you. And I still think you have it all wrong.

I’m not surprised. I don’t expect that we will agree.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Yes, the only difference is you can’t imagine the fsm. Other than that they both remain unfounded.

Excellent point.

[MG 2.0]

Yes, the only difference is you can’t imagine the fsm. Other than that they both remain unfounded.

Excellent point.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. I explained my simple reasoning. It’s not rocket science.

Be that as it may, I understand why you would side with dastardly. You both are atheists.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

You have zero access to choices inside your brain. You have preferences but no choice action. That moment when you decide on something is completely hidden from you. You retro fit that choice to fit that preference.

What and how my brain does/works in no way dictates whether or not there is a God.

Sure, I can choose to believe in something that is either non existent and/or nonsensical…like a flying spaghetti god. But to then throw in ALL beliefs as being just as non sensible is nonsensical.

Two choices:
Flying spaghetti god.
Creator God in who’s image we are created.

I’ll take the second.

Of course if you start throwing in all the other gods…that messes with your mind…and with choosing, right? You then end up throwing the baby out with the bath water and then worshipping at the alter of psychological theory/explanation.

Regards,
MG

Am I correct in assuming that your brain and its inner workings have no bearing on a god's existence? Then why are you here?

[MG 2.0]

What and how my brain does/works in no way dictates whether or not there is a God.

Sure, I can choose to believe in something that is either non existent and/or nonsensical…like a flying spaghetti god. But to then throw in ALL beliefs as being just as non sensible is nonsensical.

Two choices:
Flying spaghetti god.
Creator God in who’s image we are created.

I’ll take the second.

Of course if you start throwing in all the other gods…that messes with your mind…and with choosing, right? You then end up throwing the baby out with the bath water and then worshipping at the alter of psychological theory/explanation.

Regards,
MG

Am I correct in assuming that your brain and its inner workings have no bearing on a god's existence? Then why are you here?

I have no place better to be. I’m gaining experience. I’m learning.

How about you?

Regards,
MG

[Physics Guy]

Believers should invent their own non-Biblical God. Scientists invent their own non-textbook science, whenever the textbooks seem to be wrong. If God is real, then the possibility always exists that the reality will turn out to be different from what people have believed in the past. In fact it's such an obvious possibility that it would be weird if it hadn't occurred.

Yes, plenty of religious believers insist loudly that Scripture must be infallible. Atheists think that is silly. Of course they're right about that. So they shouldn't complain when people agree with them on that point. Instead, I think, they should cheer.

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority. As I theist I say to that, Come on, now. Atheism is better than that.

[Chap]

Believers should invent their own non-Biblical God.

Invent away. I'll invent one, called Joe. If Joe hears anyone claiming that he exists, he appears before them in a flash of lightning and says "OK, so you think I exist, huh? You got just 24 hours to come up with some really good arguments for believing that I really do exist and you are not suffering from delusions. If you fail ... well, I strongly advise you not to fail!"

Only problem is, Joe does not exist. And an invented deity who does not exist isn't, as they say, worth a pitcher of warm spit.

The only reason I can see for atheists to complain when believers re-interpret Scripture to make it less horrible is that it makes religion less ridiculous and thereby threatens the atheists' sense of superiority.

Nope. When atheists like me criticise convenient reinterpretations of scripture, it is usually because they are baseless attempts, devoid of any awareness of historical or cultural context, and/or based on poor interpretations of ancient languages, to force a convenient modern meaning onto an ancient text that simply will not bear it.