How do you tell the difference?

[Nimos]

If this God is true, and He kills, then you would be in trouble.
It was Dawkins in the God Delusion who called Jesus a 'milk
sop persona' but this same Jesus spoke often of how His
enemies would be treated, and what would become of the Jews
'until the Gentile's time is finished.' So it's interesting.

I know what he called it, but my opinion is not based on that, but by reading the bible and judging for myself. I have mentioned it before in other posts, I find God to be a incompetent God right of the bat and completely disagree with the morale of original sin, whether it is supposed to be understood symbolically or taken literally. I do not think that Adam and Eve is doing anything wrong, but that God is to blame for his own screw up. And to me, it continues throughout the whole bible.

And I don't fear God, because I don't think he exist anyway, but if he does and he punish me, so be it. At least I would know that im morally superior to him and again he is not worthy of being worshipped, I would rather take my chances with Satan to be honest or simply not continue living on. Living for an eternity in constant fear of when God will go on his next tantrum must be nerve wrecking.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

Polytheism is one thing, but monotheism is another.

Basically there is only one God, and all those who acknowledge the One God, the Creator, serve the same God, regardless of what name they call him by, whether it is Allah or the Great Spirit. I am the LORD your God and beside me there is no other.

All the polytheistic gods are illusions. Even Hindus acknowledge that these idols are merely masks of Brahman, the only true source of the Universe.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Sorry, but I don't get the point. If its currently unknown whether they are in conflict with each other or not, doesn't really change anything, except that we can conclude that the question you asked is not possible to answer at this given point. As I wrote, if one exclude the other then we have a conflict.

But that uncertainty is not in religion, we know how many Gods there is suppose to be in each of them and what they apparently told us is the truth. We have no way to verify whether these claims are true or not, so people decided that either we have faith in them or we don't. A majority of people, chose to have faith in these information and treat them as if they were facts.

Im working with these "facts", some religions claim there is only one God, others that there are more. These are the known information and I have no issue saying that there can be lots of Gods, but I do think that a lot of religious people would strongly disagree with that. And if I say there is only one God and name a specific one, then a whole lot of other people would disagree. Therein lies the conflict, you can't satisfy all religions at once, some of the God(s) must be false or at least some of the scriptures from various religions must be incorrect.

The point is that there are many different ways of looking at the material world, and while they may appear either to contradict or supersede each other, they all serve a purpose and they all work on some level. So we can say the same about our interpretations of the spiritual world, if one allows for the existence of the spirit.

The contradictions are of perception only; they are conscious choices. Bad ones imo.

I have seen nothing so far in either Zen Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism that I would consider incompatible with my own, admittedly somewhat unorthodox, take on Christianity. Doubtless I could if I looked for it, but to me these are all paths to the same ends. Which I would describe as transcendental oneness with the pure light of creation. God is Love, and Love wears many faces, and speaks many languages. But the essence is always the same.

 

[Nimos]

Dear Nimos

Speaking as a great believer, but not as member of a particular religious congregation, I’d say that he who speaks with a Hindu in their religious culture and language and then speaks with a Muslim in theirs, may come to see that they relate to one and the same world in different ways and use different words to describe the same things.

I fully understand the acceptance of others religious view and non religious view. Like me as an atheist being able to talk with religious people, and them being able to talk with each other.

I even understand that most religions in general praise the same ideas, but in different ways, which is good, that we as humans can at least to some degree get along.

My personal view on the topics in your O.P. is therefore that if religions describe the concept of God differently, it is not a question of which one is right or wrong and one will tend to choose the one which’s culture and language one best comprehends.

But this idea causes a huge amount of issues, not only for the different religious scriptures, but also for a potential God.

If there is only one God, but expressed in different ways depending on cultures etc. Then clearly the scriptures are a mess, because they are not even remotely alike in how the describe or work with these concepts.

Which ultimately lead to this God being a sadistic being. Because we know that lots and lots of people have fought and killed each other over religion. Yet this God is just sitting there looking at it, and not caring to correct it? What type of God is that and why would anyone follow such being? and even make excuses for him?

Again I fully understand where you are going with the unity of humans and that people can have different religions and everyone is happy. But the fact is that it is not the case. If it were, people would not have killed each other over these things.

For this idea to work, we would have to agree that all scriptures ever written are completely nonsense, because they do not reflect reality in any way. And if we have no scriptures, then we know nothing about a potential God, except what people can make up, which ruins the whole idea of even believing in a God in the first place.

Do you see, that it is fine that people can accept each other views, and each one can believe in whatever they prefer. There is nothing wrong in that. The moment, that scriptures are held up as the evidence for a particular religious view, it all goes to hell. Because they are not compatible in anyway. So there is a conflict between person (A) claiming that his religion is the true one and that his scriptures are the right ones, and person (B) making a similar claim. One of them or both of them are wrong. They can't both be correct, unless one would agree that the whole idea of God is completely pointless, because we would have to throw the scriptures aside, and therefore there is no foundation for even believing that one would exists in the first place.

 

[Nimos]

Polytheism is one thing, but monotheism is another.

Basically there is only one God, and all those who acknowledge the One God, the Creator, serve the same God, regardless of what name they call him by, whether it is Allah or the Great Spirit. I am the LORD your God and beside me there is no other.

All the polytheistic gods are illusions. Even Hindus acknowledge that these idols are merely masks of Brahman, the only true source of the Universe.

Read the reply in #124, I would reply the same to you

 

[Nimos]

The point is that there are many different ways of looking at the material world, and while they may appear either to contradict or supersede each other, they all serve a purpose and they all work on some level. So we can say the same about our interpretations of the spiritual world, if one allows for the existence of the spirit.

I agree the moment we allow for things which we can't prove, such as my idea of existence and the idea of spirits, we are guessing and basically just mudding the water. But to me there is a huge difference between admitting when something is simply an idea, which have no particular basis for being true compared to assuming that some idea is true and that others ought to accept it as being so, for no particular reason.

I have seen nothing so far in either Zen Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism that I would consider incompatible with my own, admittedly somewhat unorthodox, take on Christianity.

I just looked up Taoism as I don't know anything about it.

To be a Christian one would have to accept Jesus right? Catholics also believes in the holy trinity as far as I know.

So just those two point, how are they compatible with Taoism?

Taoist Beliefs
Taoism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion. Taoists have many gods and goddesses, none of whom are eternal or omnipotent. All deities are the products of celestial energy.

How many goddesses exists in Bible? Is God said to be eternal and omnipotent? Nothing in this statement fits Christianity.

Who Jesus Is to Them
Because they do not embrace monotheism or the concept of an eternal and omnipotent God, Taoists do not view Jesus as relevant, though as pantheists they do not openly reject other faiths.

So they accept other religions, because they are pantheists, I wouldn't say that God of bible agree and also Jesus is fairly relevant to Christians.

I would agree with you that you are fairly unorthodox in your Christian views. Nothing wrong in that, but I also think you would agree, that a lot of Christians would disagree with you.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

If there is only one God, but expressed in different ways depending on cultures etc.

This makes me think of the story of the Tower of Babel. Remember…?

…/Which ultimately lead to this God being a sadistic being. Because we know that lots and lots of people have fought and killed each other over religion.

I understand your sentiment but do not personally view God as a sadist.

From a believer’s view, there would be no
meaning to worldliness (manifested reality) if God governed Man as a marionette without free agency. Worldliness is for Man to learn, not for God. And Man learns through his free will and through the choices that he makes for himself.

So there is a conflict between person (A) claiming that his religion is the true one and that his scriptures are the right ones, and person (B) making a similar claim.

Again, I do understand your feelings on this but I’d say that the fact that Man believes worldliness to be a question of truth and that he kills for his own beliefs (about truth, God and everything else), says more about Man’s flaws (his ego and sins) than about any God.


I’d add this, Nimos:
Some religions use the concept of Satan to address the aspects you here ascribe to God. It serves the purpose of distinguishing between what God rules over and what Man’s ego results in. In such terms, your question is rather: why does God allow for Satan? - That is a beautiful theological question that has occupied many, in all cultures, over the history of time.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree the moment we allow for things which we can't prove, such as my idea of existence and the idea of spirits, we are guessing and basically just mudding the water. But to me there is a huge difference between admitting when something is simply an idea, which have no particular basis for being true compared to assuming that some idea is true and that others ought to accept it as being so, for no particular reason.


I just looked up Taoism as I don't know anything about it.

To be a Christian one would have to accept Jesus right? Catholics also believes in the holy trinity as far as I know.

So just those two point, how are they compatible with Taoism?

Taoist Beliefs
Taoism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion. Taoists have many gods and goddesses, none of whom are eternal or omnipotent. All deities are the products of celestial energy.

How many goddesses exists in Bible? Is God said to be eternal and omnipotent? Nothing in this statement fits Christianity.

Who Jesus Is to Them
Because they do not embrace monotheism or the concept of an eternal and omnipotent God, Taoists do not view Jesus as relevant, though as pantheists they do not openly reject other faiths.

So they accept other religions, because they are pantheists, I wouldn't say that God of bible agree and also Jesus is fairly relevant to Christians.

I would agree with you that you are fairly unorthodox in your Christian views. Nothing wrong in that, but I also think you would agree, that a lot of Christians would disagree with you.

It's how we look at things that determines what we see. Life is lived subjectively, and while we do not choose our own reality, we do choose how to live in the world. We choose what to value, and we choose what has meaning, to some extent..

I don't claim to be an expert in Taoism, but I have read the Tao Te Ching. It was written some centuries before the birth of Christ, so it's no surprise that Taoists do not concern themselves with Jesus of Nazareth. I only meant that the pursuit of "the Way", is compatible, as I see it, with Christ's message of love and compassion. I also see a connection between Eastern concept of Mind Body and Spirit with the Christian Trinity of Father (Mind), Son (Body), and Holy Ghost (spirit).

As for Hinduism, that's a huge subject I don't claim to know a great deal about. But again, I have read the Bhagavad Gita, and was struck by how many of it's more esoteric verses mirror certain mystical passages in John's Gospel.

I am more interested in the universality of religious faith, of non religious philosophy too, than I am in the claims of exclusivity certain practitioners espouse.

I suppose a lot of Christians probably would disagree with me, but I have spoken with some Catholic and some Anglican priests about these things, and never met with anything but openness by way of response..

 

[Nimos]

This makes me think of the story of the Tower of Babel. Remember…?

Yeah, humans were united and God threw gravel in it

I understand your sentiment but do not personally view God as a sadist.

I understand that.

I can obviously only explain my own reason for reaching such conclusion. If I saw two people being extremely angry at each other to the point where it would eventually end with one of them ending up dead, and I had information or the ability without any harm to myself to prevent it from happening, but chose not to do it. I would call such behaviour slightly sadistic and immoral.

Again, I do understand your feelings on this but I’d say that the fact that Man believes worldliness to be a question of truth and that he kills for his own beliefs (about truth, God and everything else), says more about Man’s flaws (his ego and sins) than about any God.

Why would it, when the scriptures that you have been taught by justify it? Lots of verses in the bible refer to non believers as the worse scum on the Earth, If God disagreed with it, why not correct it?

2 Corinthians 6:14
14 - Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?

Its pretty obvious that there are two sides, the righteousness and lawlessness and one is related to light and the other darkness. Not exactly looking good for non believers.

2 John 1:9-11
9 - Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
10 - If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting,
11 - for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

So this pretty much lashes out at everyone other than biblical believers. If you read this as the word of God, how is it not logic, that Christians are superior to those of other or no religion? They are so wicked that you shouldn't even greet them.

Proverbs 3:5-7
5 - Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.
6 - In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.
7 - Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away from evil.

If you question God and think for yourself you are basically evil. Which is a nice way to unite the teachings of bible with other religions teachings. How do you imagine a hindu or someone of another or no religion look at this, when they are being compared to being evil for doing so?

And the list goes on.... There are lots of examples of how God think that non believers should be treated. As a believer in this, you are fully in your right to handle according to Gods will, because its not difficult to find verses that support it. So saying that it is humans fault, is not really right is it, when God apparently haven't bothered to correct it, so either he is just lazy or he actually means it.

Some religions use the concept of Satan to address the aspects you here ascribe to God. It serves the purpose of distinguishing between what God rules over and what Man’s ego results in. In such terms, your question is rather: why does God allow for Satan? - That is a beautiful theological question that has occupied many, in all cultures, over the history of time.

Satan is evil because God say he is, however Satan doesn't actually kill a lot of people in the bible, to be honest he is hardly mentioned in it.

If you recall the story about Job, God allows Satan to do whatever he wants to Job except that he can't kill him, if I recall correctly. The first issue here, is that God is all knowing, Satan knows this, so what is the point in the first place? God and Satan knows that he will fail.

Now Satan goes to work and does a lot of bad things to Job, including killing his children... These are completely innocent and God is so hyped up on himself, that he doesn't give a flying turd about them. What type of God is that? When its all done, obviously God steps in and make it all good, so Job gets blessed and gets new children and God is happy that he won over Satan, but still, what about the children that was killed? God simply doesn't care, like simply throwing Job some new ones will make up for the lost of the first ones. That to me, tells a lot about how God view human lifes, he doesn't care at all. Yet, Satan is questioning God and is pointed out as the evil one. Despite God being on a killing spree throughout most of the bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

I know what he called it, but my opinion is not based on that, but by reading the bible and judging for myself. I have mentioned it before in other posts, I find God to be a incompetent God right of the bat and completely disagree with the morale of original sin, whether it is supposed to be understood symbolically or taken literally. I do not think that Adam and Eve is doing anything wrong, but that God is to blame for his own screw up. And to me, it continues throughout the whole bible.

And I don't fear God, because I don't think he exist anyway, but if he does and he punish me, so be it. At least I would know that im morally superior to him and again he is not worthy of being worshipped, I would rather take my chances with Satan to be honest or simply not continue living on. Living for an eternity in constant fear of when God will go on his next tantrum must be nerve wrecking.

'Original sin' was a very real concept for people once. We are born in sin. Nowadays
we aren't born in sin, apparently - so with all the sin the world, who is to blame? It has
to be the 'system', otherwise we would be living in paradise on earth. So in ditching the
notion of original sin we have politicized sin - and allowing political people to tell us what
is and what isn't sin, and what's the latest fashion in their oppressor/oppressed narrative.
That's where modern liberals come into the picture, and its ugly and getting uglier.

 

[Nimos]

It's how we look at things that determines what we see. Life is lived subjectively, and while we do not choose our own reality, we do choose how to live in the world. We choose what to value, and we choose what has meaning, to some extent..

Im not even sure that is true, it might be. What I mean with it, is that most things we don't actively choose. For instance I couldn't simply choose to believe in God if I wanted, its not like a decision I made, I might be convinced otherwise by sufficient evidence. But me being a non believer, means that I don't directly choose how to live in this world, because there is a lot of things I won't or simply doesn't cross my mind to do, because of it. I could obviously pretend to be a muslim and do and follow whatever tradition they do, but it wouldn't really make sense to do, and I doubt any people live like that. Because it applies to all beliefs, not only religious ones.

If you are afraid of water, you probably will not choose to spend a lot of time in the ocean, but you didn't choose to be afraid of water. So im not really sure, I would say that life in general is subjective. But its an interesting topic, I like it

I don't claim to be an expert in Taoism, but I have read the Tao Te Ching. It was written some centuries before the birth of Christ, so it's no surprise that Taoists do not concern themselves with Jesus of Nazareth. I only meant that the pursuit of "the Way", is compatible, as I see it, with Christ's message of love and compassion. I also see a connection between Eastern concept of Mind Body and Spirit with the Christian Trinity of Father (Mind), Son (Body), and Holy Ghost (spirit).

I get that, but you do see the issue here, that if we are talking about the same God, it is extremely strange that God would go to these people first, when he clearly favours the Jews? and he didn't even give these the true teachings, because one would assume that those in the bible are the correct one, if that is what one believe.

It just becomes extremely messy very fast, when one is trying to fit all religious idea into the same God. Sort of like God going, Im going to tell these people this and that... Hmmm.. ok that didn't really go as planned... Ohh there are some people over here with feathers in their hair, lets tell them about spirit animals.. Hmm.. didn't go to well either.. AHHhh people in the north, some kind of One eyed God, Giants and big worms, they like that... Screw it... Jews.. they will like me, or ill will force them!!

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

The first issue here, is that God is all knowing, Satan knows this, so what is the point in the first place? God and Satan knows that he will fail.

Precisely. Spiritually speaking, it would make absolutely no sense - as would nothing else worldly either - were what occurs here to be about God (or Satan). But it is not about them; it’s about Man.

Your example, for instance, is about Job and Job’s view on Job’s context… it’s about Job’s options and Job’s choices and where Job’s choices lead Job’s person.
It is Job that is manifested and it is Job who manifests for himself. If you will, God and Satan can be seen as Job’s options but Job’s choices must be Job’s and Job’s alone.

And, it does not much matter wether or not God and Satan know what Job will choose because Job does not know this and only by experiencing the consequences of his choices, will Job understand what he actually chose. And that is what Job’s worldliness (his having been physically manifested) is for: for Job to know and understand his own choices.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Nimos]

Your example, for instance, is about Job and Job’s view on Job’s context… it’s about Job’s options and Job’s choices and where Job’s choices lead Job’s person.
It is Job that is manifested and it is Job who manifests for himself. If you will, God and Satan can be seen as Job’s options but Job’s choices must be Job’s and Job’s alone.

And, it does not much matter wether or not God and Satan know what Job will choose because Job does not know this and only by experiencing the consequences of his choices, will Job understand what he actually chose. And that is what Job’s worldliness (his having been physically manifested) is for: for Job to know and understand his own choices.

Its some time since I read the story, but I think I would disagree that this is about Job as you seem to suggest. Rather it's about loyalty and trusting God, even during hard times and how good it will all turn out, if you do, said in another way, it's about blind faith. Job is just the character in this story, which purpose is to suffer as much as possible to get the point across, which is also why God doesn't seem to care at all about whether or not his children are killed. Because it's not important for the point of the story.

 

[firedragon]

In principal I can see your point. However I do find a creator such as a God running into several problems as a creator, when comparing it to what we know about the Universe.

To me the design itself doesn't make a whole lot sense, if it were intelligently designed and we run with the God of the bible, he created everything, yet he apparently decided to make it so it took several billions years for it to even be possible for there to be humans? Even before humans came along, he decided that Earth should be home for all sorts of other lifeforms, including dinosaurs, which lived here for 165 million years. If humans were what he thought was important, why all that nonsense? And the list goes on as I see it.

If existences is a state such as I am talking about it, time is irrelevant as it is not an intelligent creator which have a purpose or favorite goal in mind, but rather a natural process as a result of a state that everything is in.

Prior to getting into a religion, you must first conclude the logic.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Its some time since I read the story, but I think I would disagree that this is about Job as you seem to suggest. Rather it's about loyalty and trusting God, even during hard times and how good it will all turn out, if you do, said in another way, it's about blind faith. Job is just the character in this story, which purpose is to suffer as much as possible to get the point across, which is also why God doesn't seem to care at all about whether or not his children are killed. Because it's not important for the point of the story.

One can choose to interpret it so of course, but then it becomes meaningless. However, there are ways of looking at it, through which it becomes meaningful. It is a choice how to view it and that choice comes from whether we want the story to have meaning or not. Beautiful, right? Just like with life in general.

I think of it as Job depicting Man. When I read your reply for instance, I think yes, it is about whether Man (Job) chooses to trust in God or not, just like you yourself say! And yet, we come to opposite conclusions about
whether this God is sadistic or not. But that is okay.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[Nimos]

One can choose to interpret it so of course, but then it becomes meaningless. However, there are ways of looking at it, through which it becomes meaningful. It is a choice how to view it and that choice comes from whether we want the story to have meaning or not. Beautiful, right? Just like with life in general.

I think of it as Job depicting Man. When I read your reply for instance, I think yes, it is about whether Man (Job) chooses to trust in God or not, just like you yourself say! And yet, we come to opposite conclusions about
whether this God is sadistic or not. But that is okay.


Humbly
Hermit

Yes I guess there is almost as many interpretations of the bible as there are pages in it, wouldn't it be great if God's message to us was as clear as day.

That way one would almost be convinced that it was divine

 

[Muffled]

If you as a believer, let's say a muslim, believe in God and this is the only God that exist. Yet you have people that believe differently, let's say a hindu, which must from the muslims point of view mean that they are wrong about their gods.

So how do you tell the difference between your own God(s) (the real ones) and the wrong ones (made up ones)?

And if you can't tell the difference, what reason do you have for choosing one God over the other?

I believe there is only one God and a lot of lower gods that don't amount to much. What is often different is the view of God in each religion.

 

[Muffled]

I just listen to my heart.

I believe the Bible says the heart is wicked and I suppose that is because everyone is a sinner.

 

[Muffled]

Really? Well, my heart and brain are on pretty good terms, so I'd assume they're sharing information.

I believe the brain is only as good as its ability to reason and reason often falls sort.

 

[PureX]

What I mean when I say that it is not subjective, is that certain things from the religious texts when we look at the established religions are not based on people's subjective opinions about them. Like for instance, it's not your subjective opinion whether or not you believe that God of the bible had a sidekick called God the second. The bible is fairly clear about how many "real" Gods there is. Same when it comes to Islam, and I assume hinduism is probably also pretty clear about how many gods they have, or at least that there are more than one.

Humans may choose to believe these depictions of God are "objective", but they are not. Believing it does not make it so. Humans may write religious texts claiming that God is an objective fact, but writing it down does not make it so. Humans may claim that the "miracles" they've witnessed prove the "objective reality" of God, but their claims do not make it so. God is an ideal; the objective reality of which is either existence, itself, or there simply is none. And there is no way for we humans to know.

God is an idea that the nature of which we must define for ourselves, as we choose, and then either trust in or not. The criteria of "objective evidence" is simply inapplicable.

The experience a person might have relating to God(s) is subjective, which is basically what im asking about, how they know that this experience is from the God they believe in or from one of the false god(s). Because you have people on both sides, and all the gods can't be true. So if people can't tell the difference between true and false gods, what reason did they then have to choose the god they did?

What people think they "know" is relative to what they think constitutes "knowledge". Which varies widely from person to person. Many religious believers wrongly assume that their belief equates to knowledge when some circumstance aligns with their belief. Like praying for rain, and then seeing it rain. But this is a very loose and subjective understanding of evidence. Technically, it is evidence, but it is very weak evidence since the correlation between asking God and receiving rain is not being directly established. There are people who will claim this to be "objective proof", but that does not make it so.

So it is not the same, when talking about art, because it is not specifically stated that one artist or painting is better than the other

People make such claims all the time, in writing, and with the presumed authority of academia. I have done so, myself.

So it's a subjective opinion ...

ALL opinions are subjective. They are subject to the conceptual paradigm of the person offering it. It can be no other way. Even the idea of an "objective reality" is subject to the conceptual paradigm of the person agreeing to it's existence.

But if you claim that your experience of God is the correct one,

It is the "best one" by the criteria of my conceptual paradigm. Beyond that, none of us can go. So none of us can know. You're trying to hobble my opinion with an air of absolutism that is not obtainable for we humans. I can claim "My God is THE God" til the cows come home, but there is no way I can know this to be so (even if it IS so). All I can claim is what is true according to my own conceptual paradigm of truth and reality. Same as everyone else does. And if these differ ... well of course. Why wouldn't they? None of us has the whole picture.

You are completely correct, it is very possible that no gods exist, that is a valid option. But a lot of people tend to disagree with that and do believe that at least the God(s) of the religion they follow are real. I don't impose anything on anyone, it is a fact, otherwise how would one explain that there are religions at all?

Even those people who choose to believe that a God exists understand that there may be no such God. They are not choosing to believe based on "objective evidence", They are choosing to believe based on faith. Faith being the decision to act on what they hope to be so, even though they cannot know it to be so.

But if these claims are false or simply made up, let's say the Bible, what reason do you have to believe in the biblical God in the first place?.

Biblical text, like ALL text, must be interpreted. People who "believe the text" have interpreted it in a way that makes sense to them. They believe the messages that they have determined the text to be conveying to them. You may interpret the text differently, and so choose not to believe the messages that you think the text is trying to convey to you.

I'm an atheist, because I do believe that these religious text about gods, most of the stories, angels and miracles are made up.

Of course they're 'made up'. But that does not mean they cannot convey important truths to us. Shakespeare's stories are made up, too, and yet they have conveyed many great truths to a lot of people about human nature over centuries. We would be fools to dismiss these revelatory truths just because Shakespeare's stories are fictional. And the same is true for the Bible, and of many other similar sacred texts,

It might work for your particular religious view, which is fair enough. But whether or not that is how you view it, you would get in a conflict with Christians, Jews, Muslims and probably a lot of other religions as well, because that is simply not true to them, according to their scriptures.

But there is no real "conflict" once we understand that it's ALL SUBJECTIVE. Everyone's idea of "God" is unique to themselves. Most theists understand this. Certainly all of them that I have ever come across.