Why are you are an atheist

Originally posted by moonbus
Because there are still Jews and pagans in the world.

How exactly does that answer my question?

Originally posted by moonbus
Strange use of the word "decided" there. I decided what socks to put on this morning and what jam to put on my toast, but I did not decide that it would rain--I realized it would rain and decided to take an umbrella.

I find it strange that Christians think one decides to believe in God (or not to). I suppose it's to do with the freewi ...[text shortened]... is flat (or round, for that matter), though I can become persuaded by accumulation of evidence.

No, you decided, in your mind, that the probability was high that it would rain, and so you prudently decided that you would take the umbrella. You could not realize that it would rain, because no matter how cloudy and dark the sky became, it still might not rain.

You could also realize that you would take the umbrella, based on your decision that it would probably rain. You could also say that you realized (different meaning) your decision to take the umbrella.

But if it never rains today, you could not have realized that it would rain, because it didn't rain. You realized nothing, except taking your umbrella for nothing.

It all might be accused of being pedantic, and it most certainly IS pedantic. 🙂

And about that last bit of your post... What Christians are talking about when they talk about "choosing God" is not strictly about "choosing to believe" in God. It is actually "choosing to accept Jesus Christ". One can believe in God until the cows come home. One can even believe in Jesus as the Son of God. But strictly speaking, if one does not choose to accept Jesus Christ as their Savior and to allow Him into their lives, then that person cannot become a Christian.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My definition of "realize" is "to make real".

That's a different meaning of the same word. "realize" also means to come to perceive an idea or situation mentally ~ as in "after the first day of knocking on a few strangers' doors, he realized politics is less glamorous than he had imagined.".

You're thinking of the meaning of "realize" that's about turning a plan or idea into something real or concrete; giving reality or substance to as in "Passing the gender equality law was relatively easy but realizing the aims behind it will take a generation or more."

In objecting to the use of "realize" by people when describing a change in their beliefs or perceptions (as opposed to a decision) you have simply made a vocabulary error - you have seized upon the wrong meaning of the word and applied it incorrectly to the process or change that people are describing.

Originally posted by Suzianne
It all might be accused of being pedantic, and it most certainly IS pedantic. 🙂

Its also wrong. Learn to use a dictionary.

What Christians are talking about when they talk about "choosing God" is not strictly about "choosing to believe" in God.
When Christians bring it up on this forum in relation to atheism they are usually talking about choosing to believe in God. (strictly).

Originally posted by Suzianne
We've gone around on this (a few times), and you claiming that I do not know its meaning merely to make yourself feel better isn't entirely honest either.

No, it wasn't honest, it was an intentional trick, and a test of your logic. You can either say you did know the meaning and were lying about it, or admit you didn't know the meaning.

My definition of "realize" is "to make real".
And it is wrong. Look it up in a dictionary and you will find that is only one of many meanings and not the most common.

Originally posted by Suzianne
(Added Edit: Logic fails for me based on how I've seen some people use it to convince themselves they're right (or that someone else is right) based on incomplete data. Like deciding God is not real.)

Yes, most of my beefs against the "logic" of some posters is precisely because the premise is incorrect, or because the logic fails on a very early ...[text shortened]... doesn't make sense.

Call it a "sixth sense"... (yes, I'm being facetious with that last one)

Ok, well objecting to logic because a premise is wrong is to fatally and totally misunderstand what
logic actually is.

Logic [for our purposes here] is a system of reasoning that allows the creation of an argument where
IF the premise or premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.

If the premises are false that is not the fault of logic.

If you see a logical argument where you think the premises are false or flawed or unproven then SAY SO!
THAT is a perfectly valid form of criticism, and doesn't require throwing out logic. [The classic baby with the
bath water].

And no, I do not understand the "name" of some logic manipulations (a loaded term, I admit, but that is how I see it) but that doesn't mean that I cannot recognize BS when I hear it.
...........
I don't "need" a course in college "logic" to know what makes sense and what doesn't make sense.

Actually it clearly does. You do atrociously badly at trying to counter reasoned and reasonable arguments
purely and simply because you utterly refuse to understand and analyse logic and logical reasoning.
You frequently simply insult those making the arguments and impute their motives without ever making
any reasoned or reasonable attempt to argue that they are wrong.
You DO need to understand basic logic, and it doesn't require a collage course in order to do so.

....

If I started a new thread on the topic, to avoid completely derailing this or any other, would you be prepared to
have a civilised discussion about logic and what it is and why it's valuable?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its also wrong. Learn to use a dictionary.

[b]What Christians are talking about when they talk about "choosing God" is not strictly about "choosing to believe" in God.
When Christians bring it up on this forum in relation to atheism they are usually talking about choosing to believe in God. (strictly).[/b]

Learn to use a dictionary.

Hmmm, it's ok to use dictionary definitions when they suit you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't agree or disagree, I just want a definition to work with. The dictionary definition is too vague to be useful. Is your consciousness part of your soul? When you make a decision, or think, is that your soul or your brain or some combination of both?

[b]Then it shouldn't be too hard to explain.
Look around you. Look at the suffering in the ...[text shortened]... ore sources, but you you could just as easily Google it for yourself. It really isn't that hard.[/b]

The dictionary definition is too vague to be useful. Is your consciousness part of your soul? When you make a decision, or think, is that your soul or your brain or some combination of both?

I think the body and soul are distinctly separate entities.

Look around you. Look at the suffering in the world. Disease, natural disasters and even to some extent poverty, are not a result of free will, and even war and such are not a necessary result of free will.

Obviously the fall also plays a role.

Except a significant percentage of people granted this 'free will' die in childhood before they are even able to really exercise it.

Yes, but they may be killed by people who are exercising their free will.

And what is so great about heaven if there is no free will there?

Don't think anyone knows for sure whether or not there is free will in heaven.

That is because I am not referring to a particular source or a historian.

Surely if you claim something to be a fact you should be able to back it up. Also, a lack of historical evidence for something that happened so long ago doesn't meant it didn't happen.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk

I think the body and soul are distinctly separate entities.

How would one establish the existence of a soul?

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Hmmm, it's ok to use dictionary definitions when they suit you?

My stance on definitions is well known and my position in this case is solid. When using standard English, if I use a dictionary definition for a word nobody can tell me I am 'wrong' as Suzanne has attempted to to. When using a word in a way that does not fit a dictionary definition it is wise for me to specify that I am doing so, to aid better communication. But again, I can never really be 'wrong'. Definitions are not statements of fact and do not have a truth value. They are not 'right' or 'wrong'. They may be 'standard' or 'non-standard'.
My use of the word 'realised' is standard'.
My use of the word 'atheist' is standard, but one of several common uses and some dictionaries do not list all the common uses, just as I found a dictionary that did not list Suzanne use of 'realised' but she is not wrong that that use is a standard use of the word. She is just wrong that it is the only use.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
I think the body and soul are distinctly separate entities.

Still too vague. So far you are just telling us the soul isn't part of the body, but we know nothing about it. It might as well be a pink unicorn and it would still fit your definition. Who cares if it exists if we know nothing about it and it has no known properties?

Obviously the fall also plays a role.
What role? What does the suffering in question have to do with free will?

Yes, but they may be killed by people who are exercising their free will.
So why can't God prevent that? It is perfectly possible to allow free will but ban murder. We do that in most civilised societies, why hasn't God thought of that? The claim that free will requires war is just plain stupid.

Don't think anyone knows for sure whether or not there is free will in heaven.
Well according to what you have said so far, the cannot be. Either heaven is full of suffering,(contradicting claims of Christianity) or free will does not require suffering (contradicting your claims trying to explain suffering).

Surely if you claim something to be a fact you should be able to back it up.
If course I can back it up. You didn't ask me to back it up. You have already been pointed to Wikipedia which backs it up.

Also, a lack of historical evidence for something that happened so long ago doesn't meant it didn't happen.
I never claimed otherwise.
In this case however, the historical consensus is that it didn't happen. I am not a historian and have no intention of becoming one, nor do I care to go into the details of how that consensus came about etc. I know what the consensus is and I accept it. If you wish to convince me that the consensus is wrong then you have your work cut out for you as you have to provide the evidence / argument.
I really don't care that much about whether or not it happened. I just gave it as one example of an obviously fictitious account in the Bible. It is one of many. Even if you convince me that the Exodus really did take place as described, you will still have to go through all the other accounts and convince me of them too. And that will only be one of my objections to the claims of Christianity.