What do you believe, and why

[atheist buddy]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

[Cephus]

I think you missed the thrust of my comment above. I have no issue with your comments that your knowledge is provisional. Rather I'm taking issue with your assertion that you don't "believe" anything because your knowledge is based on "objective" evidence and reasoning. Especially since you also admitted that none of us can be purely objective.

While none of us can probably be entirely objective in absolutely everything, we all can, and should, recognize irrationality where it stands and purposely attempt to excise it from our lives. It isn't something that should ever be embraced, which unfortunately many people want to do.

So, in other words, you do believe in things after all -- assuming, of course, you have opinions on matters of morality, politics, and the like. Are those not beliefs?

Everyone "believes" in things. The difference is whether it's a rational belief, one based on evidence and reason and critical thinking, or an emotional belief, held because it makes you feel good. One is rational, one is not. You can test your beliefs and see if they are intellectually worth holding. If you cannot chart your reasons for having the belief rationally, it's probably not a good belief.

[Zzyzx]

.

I am not talking about the name, the wave length or even the ocular stimulation. What we are talking about in this thread is belief.

Perhaps belief should be strongly separated from reality. Discussion of color perception is far removed from "belief."

Why should belief be separated from "reality".

Reality is defined as: "the quality or state of being real". Belief need not (and often does not) involve anything real.

Perhaps others prefer to NOT separate between reality and "beliefs" that may be nothing more than overactive imagination.

Your statement seems to imply that you believe in an objective reality.

More accurately stated, I function in the environment of the biosphere of the Earth and the conditions which apply.

There is no need for me to "believe" that the sun will become apparent from my location barring obstruction " it just does. Nor is it necessary to "believe" that a coffee cup will fall if knocked off the desk, or striking a finger with a hammer will result in pain "

I reserve use of the term "believe" for others regarding fairies, goblins, unicorns, gods, big foot, etc.

If that is not the case, please, clarify. However, presuming that to be your point, how is it that we know what that objective reality is? Is that not dependent on what we choose to believe?

There is no need for me to philosophize about the meaning of "objective reality" or to attempt to convince a believer that the real world exists. Those who doubt reality are more than welcome to inhabit a make believe or spiritual or philosophical world.

The application of the scientific method to empirical data does not make one's conclusions real. It makes them consistent with belief in the scientific method and empiricism.

The Scientific Method is simply the best way humans have discovered to gain accurate information about the world around us and the relationships that exist in nature.

Many reject science for theistic reasons but take full advantage of its benefits (including modern medicine). Belief does not cure much disease.

Belief is what this thread is about. If anything is being worked in it, it is the idea that scientific empiricism is not a belief system.

Again, the Scientific Method is the best means yet discovered to learn about the real world.

Of course, that disturbs many religionists since it does not apply to invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events that cannot be observed, measured, detected, or shown to be more that emotion or imagination.

Please, watch the program Brain Games, the episode on colors, then come back and tell me that you never see gray as green.

I do not watch television, movies or video games.

I have worked in Photogrammetry " and taught air photo interpretation and remote sensing; which involved consideration of color. I prefer real world experience to vicarious living through entertainment.

Though the program was originally broadcast on commercial TV in an entertaining fashion, it is a program that is scientifically based and I streamed it. So, it is not designed to make my point and you can stop the stream at any point to verify that there are no camera tricks.

Again, I do not watch television, movies, video games, etc " even if close friends encourage me to do so. The entertainment venues are of NO interest to me. Why should I make an exception for an anonymous person on the internet who wishes to prove a point using movies?

However, if you are not going to even examine the evidence regarding the fact that one's mind alters one's perception, then you really do not appear to be as scientifically inclined as you claim to be.

My preference for scientific study of nature is not dependent upon watching television. I leave that to others.

Regarding the microdensitometer, that also creates a mental construct for each of us that happens to correlate to what we have agree to refer to as "green", except when we are not really paying attention or are tricked into seeing some thing else as green.

Correction: a microdensitometer is "An extremely sensitive densitometer used to measure optical densities of photographic plates or film to detect small details, such as spectral lines invisible to the human eye." http://www.yourdictionary.com/microdensitometer

What that means is the instrument measures the characteristics and intensity of light associated with an image on photographic emulsions / films.

Yes, and that provides data relative to what it measures. However, just because we have an invention that provides data the correlates to a particular phenomena under certain conditions, does not make any of that objectively real.

Would you care to dispute that electromagnetic energy of a wavelength of 495"570 nm exists?

What it does is verify consistency within the framework of a given belief system. How the mind perceives what the microdensitometer measures is another matter. If one buys into, ie believes, the premises of the meter, which I am not questioning, that data is significant. However, if one refuses to accept that premise, as you are doing with regard to the program Brain Games, that one just accepts the world as his mind perceives it and goes on his merry way. In either case, neither one can claim to be looking at unbiased reality. Both interpret the world based their respective belief systems.

I have no interest in communicating with those who refuse to accept the "premise" that a meter exists or that a microdensitometer measures electromagnetic energy (which also exists).

Yes, but have they shown that everyone has the same mental image.

It makes no difference if everyone has the same mental image of "green" (for instance) provided that they are consistent in its application. When their optical and mental systems are stimulated by electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495"570 nm. The response to a given wavelength or combination of wavelengths can be assigned a number rather than a name.

Yes, then they are agreeing to a shared mental construct related to that number, based on a belief in electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths. Everything we think we know is based on our belief in something.

"Everything is based on belief" is a common platitude by religionists " perhaps to explain or excuse their dependence upon belief.

I encourage theorists and theists to spin off into their belief worlds aside from the real world. If they wish to deny the existence of gravity or of the solar system, fine by me. That makes as much sense as promoting belief in gods, goblins, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns.

I believe that my mental image is correct, but it may be different from your mental image. That is the nature of belief. It is a mental construct, even for the scientist.

Is electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths in the range of 495"570 nm as measured by instruments a "mental construct?"

What that phrase relates to may not be, but that phrase and what it means is. When one believes in the concepts that phrase refers to, one is agreeing to a shared mental construct that is used to refer to that phenomenon consistent with that belief system. Science does not make things real, science defines things consistent with the premises on which it is based.

Science is merely a means to STUDY and learn about the real world around us.

We are not talking about terms, we are talking about belief, ie the mental image.

Perhaps you are confining discussion to beliefs; however, effective communication requires some consideration of TERMS used to convey concepts.

Well, this thread is talking about what one believes and why. In order to communicate there must be agreed upon terms, correct. We are half way there. In order for those terms to have any meaning there also must be an agreed upon concept, otherwise one party is just subjugating his perception to that of the other. Either way, it is the mental construct that dictates what is accepted as real.

How much mental construct is required to accept as real falling if one steps off a cliff?

Exactly, it is the abstract of communication that forces us to come to agreements on things. There only needs to be a partial agreement between what each of us believes and how things happen for there to be communication. The essence of what each of us believes and what actually is may very well be different. For example, what is the essence of a light wave?

I state no position regarding the "essence of a light wave" " perhaps you would like to expound on the topic.

That is my point. How one explains the essence of a light wave is subject one's prospective on the universe. Regardless of how one defines the essence of a thing, that definition can be challenged based on a conflicting belief system.

See stepping off a cliff above and demonstrate how the "essence of a thing" or a "belief system" is involved.

No, regardless of the fact that they have been augmented, modified, replaced, whichever view was prominent at the time was presumed to apply to times when man was not even believed to exist. That is where science moves into the area of belief.

Are you saying that if thunderstorms occurred before humans existed that present knowledge is "belief?"

If there is evidence of lava flows that can be dated to millions of years ago is it "belief" to say that volcanic activity occurred then?

Your use of the term "if" supports my point. The only way to establish that thunderstorms occurred or lava flows can be dated is to make certain assumptions and an assumption is a form of belief.

Is this an attempt to equate scientific investigation with supernatural beliefs?

Therefore, one can not verify empirically, by means of the scientific method that those things happened before man existed.


One can believe based on current experimentation, that one can verify empirically today, that what has been verified today occurred in the same way before man existed. However, one can not verify that belief empirically, because no one was there to experience it.

Sure enough, one cannot demonstrate by personal experience what happened before man existed.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to assume that gods exist. Right?

[arian]

.

I am not talking about the name, the wave length or even the ocular stimulation. What we are talking about in this thread is belief.

Perhaps belief should be strongly separated from reality. Discussion of color perception is far removed from "belief."

Why should belief be separated from "reality".

Reality is defined as: "the quality or state of being real". Belief need not (and often does not) involve anything real.

Perhaps others prefer to NOT separate between reality and "beliefs" that may be nothing more than overactive imagination.

"the quality or state of being real"
OK, then tell me if Santa Claus is real or not?

First you would have to define 'Santa Claus', right?
Now I checked into this, and according to the definition (which are varied some) but according to the overall definition of Santa Claus, he is real. I have seen him, and he does fill the socks above the fireplace, and place some gifts under the tree. I have actually observed this, not just 'believe' he does.

Now if someone was to define Santa as 'Odin' who lives around the system Anaheim as someone who comes every December to deliver toys to children, I would say: "That there is NOT Santa Clause. I know who and what and where Santa lives, on the North Pole, not in a system called Anaheim! Santa doesn't have a son named Thor, he has adopted demonic elves as children, or 'helpers' as he likes to call them."

The same when someone says; "I believe in God." I bet they do. There are tens of thousands of gods, so what would I say: "No you don't, because I don't believe in God, .. because I am an atheist" ??
Each God/gods exist just as defined by the 'believer'.

Atheism in MHO is the most contradictory and nonsensical belief I have ever come across in my entire life. You could explain to them about your God or gods, and they would even admit of having worshipped those gods previously, and then they'll end up saying; "I don't believe in any of them". HUH?

Therefore, one can not verify empirically, by means of the scientific method that those things happened before man existed.
One can believe based on current experimentation, that one can verify empirically today, that what has been verified today occurred in the same way before man existed. However, one can not verify that belief empirically, because no one was there to experience it.

Sure enough, one cannot demonstrate by personal experience what happened before man existed.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to assume that gods exist. Right?

If let's say a scientist couldn't demonstrate by personal experience (observation) what happened before man existed, why would it be 'perfectly logical' for that scientist to 'assume gods exist'?? That's religious, and not scientific reasoning.

There are tens of thousands of religions that invented, each with it's own unique design tens of thousands of gods. They all exist in their individual framework, each with it's own doctrine exactly as they have been created.

Now I believe in a God who is the Creator because of how I understand how things work within this universe, and that philosophically none of the other gods could fit in as 'Creator' since they were all created (infinite regress).

As I am growing in Spiritual wisdom (Godly wisdom) I no longer deny any of the other created gods. They all exist, and people have the right to believe in them as they are described.
As I said, I myself believe in a God, but this one by all scientific evidence is the Creator, not one of the created (ideologies, fairytales). I can defend my faith in the 'Creator' of the universe by evidence that has substance. But knowing and believing in my 'Creator' does not mean that I don't believe in Santa Claus, or that no other gods exist. I respect all religious beliefs and a right to hold on to those beliefs, as long as you don't try to press your belief whatever that may be, whether they'd be theories, or doctrines, or gods, and force me to accept it as the Creator. The Creator can only be ONE, or we face infinite regress. This is what I believe.

[bluethread]

.

Why should belief be separated from "reality".

Reality is defined as: "the quality or state of being real". Belief need not (and often does not) involve anything real.

Perhaps others prefer to NOT separate between reality and "beliefs" that may be nothing more than overactive imagination.

The question is then how one knows what is "real". This places reality into the areas of perception and consensus. If reality is defined as that which can be empirically verified, one is placing faith in how one's brain analyzes signals from one's five senses. I have attempted to show that this can be at variance with what is accepted as "real" by consensus. Therefore, in empiricism, there is constant conflict between perception and consensus. The mind resolves these conflicts based on the premise that it chooses to believe at any given time.

Your statement seems to imply that you believe in an objective reality.

More accurately stated, I function in the environment of the biosphere of the Earth and the conditions which apply.

There is no need for me to "believe" that the sun will become apparent from my location barring obstruction " it just does. Nor is it necessary to "believe" that a coffee cup will fall if knocked off the desk, or striking a finger with a hammer will result in pain "

I reserve use of the term "believe" for others regarding fairies, goblins, unicorns, gods, big foot, etc.

Your first two examples are difficult to counter, because they have been generally consistent for all of recorded history. However, your third example is more useful in making my point. Striking one's finger with a hammer only results in pain when that is perceived. There are many for whom that is not the case. In fact, in the seeing is believing episode of Brain Games, they show that when a dummy hand is attached to one's shoulder, the brain will react the same to hitting it with a hammer as it does with the hitting of one's actual hand.

If that is not the case, please, clarify. However, presuming that to be your point, how is it that we know what that objective reality is? Is that not dependent on what we choose to believe?

There is no need for me to philosophize about the meaning of "objective reality" or to attempt to convince a believer that the real world exists. Those who doubt reality are more than welcome to inhabit a make believe or spiritual or philosophical world.

I am not asking you to convince me that the real world exists. I am just discussing how we know that what we perceive and agree to in regard to the real world is correct and how one differentiates that from what one would call the spiritual word.

The application of the scientific method to empirical data does not make one's conclusions real. It makes them consistent with belief in the scientific method and empiricism.

The Scientific Method is simply the best way humans have discovered to gain accurate information about the world around us and the relationships that exist in nature.

Many reject science for theistic reasons but take full advantage of its benefits (including modern medicine). Belief does not cure much disease.

Yes, that is your position and I know of very few theists who reject science as you appear to be implying. They just do not accept it as the only method for gaining information regarding the world around us and in some instances the accuracy of that information. According to how you appear to be defining things, reason and consciousness do not really exist either, because they can not be measured. They are beyond the realm of science.

Belief is what this thread is about. If anything is being worked in it, it is the idea that scientific empiricism is not a belief system.

Again, the Scientific Method is the best means yet discovered to learn about the real world.

Of course, that disturbs many religionists since it does not apply to invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities and events that cannot be observed, measured, detected, or shown to be more that emotion or imagination.

Again, that is your contention. I think that is why you are unwilling to acknowledge how much perception and consensus play in that process. It probably is disturbing to think that matter may consist of nothing but energy and what is real is just a matter of how we perceive it.

Though the program was originally broadcast on commercial TV in an entertaining fashion, it is a program that is scientifically based and I streamed it. So, it is not designed to make my point and you can stop the stream at any point to verify that there are no camera tricks.

Again, I do not watch television, movies, video games, etc " even if close friends encourage me to do so. The entertainment venues are of NO interest to me. Why should I make an exception for an anonymous person on the internet who wishes to prove a point using movies?

For one who claims to study Photogrammetry, I find it hard to believe that you do not look at information that is presented via photographic means. However, short of my coming to you personally and recreating these experiments, there isn't much I can do convince a dogmatic empiricist.

However, if you are not going to even examine the evidence regarding the fact that one's mind alters one's perception, then you really do not appear to be as scientifically inclined as you claim to be.

My preference for scientific study of nature is not dependent upon watching television. I leave that to others.

It's pretty simple stuff, but I am not going to research academic studies to show how the human brain distorts reality.

Yes, and that provides data relative to what it measures. However, just because we have an invention that provides data the correlates to a particular phenomena under certain conditions, does not make any of that objectively real.

Would you care to dispute that electromagnetic energy of a wavelength of 495"570 nm exists?

No, I do not care to dispute that there is a phenomena that when measured by a particular invention registers 495-570 on the scale used. However, that is only of value to those who's mind recognizes that as having value. The color blind person could say that is blue and green does not exist.

What it does is verify consistency within the framework of a given belief system. How the mind perceives what the microdensitometer measures is another matter. If one buys into, ie believes, the premises of the meter, which I am not questioning, that data is significant. However, if one refuses to accept that premise, as you are doing with regard to the program Brain Games, that one just accepts the world as his mind perceives it and goes on his merry way. In either case, neither one can claim to be looking at unbiased reality. Both interpret the world based their respective belief systems.

I have no interest in communicating with those who refuse to accept the "premise" that a meter exists or that a microdensitometer measures electromagnetic energy (which also exists).

If you will reexamine my post, you will see that I am not questioning that. I am saying that the premise that the significance of that measurement constitutes an entity that we call green is a belief. Color blind people accept that there is such a thing as green, as opposed to blue, because other people say so. Can you not see how your argument is similar to the person says that they are not interested in communicating with someone who does not experience "spiritual" things. The color blind person does not experience green, but considers it blue. You do not experience certain things, but consider them as something that fits your preferred world view. In both cases a person is choosing to not believe something, because it does not fit his personal world view.

Yes, then they are agreeing to a shared mental construct related to that number, based on a belief in electromagnetic radiation of wavelengths. Everything we think we know is based on our belief in something.

"Everything is based on belief" is a common platitude by religionists " perhaps to explain or excuse their dependence upon belief.

I encourage theorists and theists to spin off into their belief worlds aside from the real world. If they wish to deny the existence of gravity or of the solar system, fine by me. That makes as much sense as promoting belief in gods, goblins, fairies, unicorns, and leprechauns.

Why are you blowing off the argument in favor of what you choose to see as a platitude. Who is denying the existence of gravity or of the solar system, and who is promoting belief in god, goblins, fairies, unicorns and leprechauns. It definitely isn't me. Not in this discussion. All I am doing is trying to show that since scientific empiricism is based on data acquired through the five senses using the scientific method. Such an one is placing faith in data and a method that, under certain circumstances, is subject to speculation. One what basis must the measurement be established at 495"570 nm? Why not 490-580 nm?

What that phrase relates to may not be, but that phrase and what it means is. When one believes in the concepts that phrase refers to, one is agreeing to a shared mental construct that is used to refer to that phenomenon consistent with that belief system. Science does not make things real, science defines things consistent with the premises on which it is based.

Science is merely a means to STUDY and learn about the real world around us.

Yes, it is A means of STUDY. There are other means of study that provide use with different views of the real world around us. Science my be very good at telling use about empirical events that can be replicated in the present. However, it is not necessarily the best source of information about what has happened in the past, will happen in the future or may happen in manners that can not be easily replicated in a controlled environment.

Well, this thread is talking about what one believes and why. In order to communicate there must be agreed upon terms, correct. We are half way there. In order for those terms to have any meaning there also must be an agreed upon concept, otherwise one party is just subjugating his perception to that of the other. Either way, it is the mental construct that dictates what is accepted as real.

How much mental construct is required to accept as real falling if one steps off a cliff?

More than is in the mind of s toddler. You see until the concept of a cliff is introduced to the child, for the child a cliff does not exist. That is why many parents try to introduce that mental concept without the child having experience it. Thus, those parents are not using the empirical scientific method, but are depending on something else to teach the child about the world around him. Possibly, television, movies, video games, etc. As horrific as that sounds, it seems to work fairly well. Even when a child learns by systematic trial and error, the child only learns when that child trust his senses and repeats experiences and trust before acceptance is belief.

That is my point. How one explains the essence of a light wave is subject one's prospective on the universe. Regardless of how one defines the essence of a thing, that definition can be challenged based on a conflicting belief system.

See stepping off a cliff above and demonstrate how the "essence of a thing" or a "belief system" is involved.

To one person the essence of stepping off a cliff is a death sentence, to another it is a opportunity to learn how to fly. One's belief system is based on keeping one's feet one the ground. The others belief system includes the possibility that one need not keep one's feet on the ground.

Your use of the term "if" supports my point. The only way to establish that thunderstorms occurred or lava flows can be dated is to make certain assumptions and an assumption is a form of belief.

Is this an attempt to equate scientific investigation with supernatural beliefs?

Of course they are not equal. Scientific investigation is a method not a belief. Scientific humanism is a belief system that claims to only accept what can be empirically verified via the scientific method. The fact that you appear to be so dogmatic in that claim makes it very difficult to get you to see that it is a belief system. It's kind of like an extreme biblical literalist refusing to accept that his views are part of a belief system, because it's right there in black and white. When challenged he always falls back out, "Are you going to deny that it is written right there?

Therefore, one can not verify empirically, by means of the scientific method that those things happened before man existed.


One can believe based on current experimentation, that one can verify empirically today, that what has been verified today occurred in the same way before man existed. However, one can not verify that belief empirically, because no one was there to experience it.

Sure enough, one cannot demonstrate by personal experience what happened before man existed.

Therefore, it is perfectly logical to assume that gods exist. Right?

No, it is perfectly logical to accept that scientific empiricism is a belief system and that things stated regarding the past, based on science, are beliefs. You may think that they are justified beliefs, but they are beliefs.

[UFO]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

In this universe, I believe anything's possible. As such, I believe it's possible there is an all knowing god out there somewhere. I don't not see evidence for it any longer (though I did once). As I grew and learned more of the world, my admittedly narrow view of life changed and I outgrew Christianity as it was exceptionally limiting to me.
So I know there are people that believe in Christianity and God, but that's not for me.
I believe the early reports of God (and gods) is nothing more than mis-identification that grew into various movements via the uneducated (though no fault to them at the time - we will likely be considered uneducated in 1000 years!) and charismatic leaders bent on domination of their lesser. Even today I think most religious leaders fall into this category.
I, for one, prefer to lead and not be led.
In closing, there may be a god (or even God) but I just dont see it. What I DO see is evidence for the opposite.

[Wordleymaster1]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

I believe it's possible for a god to exist, but I don't think it would have any interest in use except for maybe a passing one at best!
I don't see any GOOD evidence for a god existing in the world today. I don't see full intelligent design in nature. I see beauty in it but no god. I see very little god in people, even those who claim to be godly themselves.
So is there a god? Sure, could be. But I don't think it would care much about us and then would not interact with us.

[arian]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

I believe it's possible for a god to exist, but I don't think it would have any interest in use except for maybe a passing one at best!
I don't see any GOOD evidence for a god existing in the world today. I don't see full intelligent design in nature. I see beauty in it but no god. I see very little god in people, even those who claim to be godly themselves.
So is there a god? Sure, could be. But I don't think it would care much about us and then would not interact with us.

If you don't see 'intelligent design in nature', then what do you see when you go to an 'Auto Show', like the 'Detroit Auto Show'?
If you don't see ID in a human, then I am afraid to even ask what idiocy you must see at the auto show!? You probably walk out of there all disgusted and nauseated, .. right?

I sure am interested to hear your version, or definition of 'Intelligent Design', .. I mean Oh what created wonders you must have seen in your life to not see Intelligent Design in nature!!??!

[Clownboat]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

I believe it's possible for a god to exist, but I don't think it would have any interest in use except for maybe a passing one at best!
I don't see any GOOD evidence for a god existing in the world today. I don't see full intelligent design in nature. I see beauty in it but no god. I see very little god in people, even those who claim to be godly themselves.
So is there a god? Sure, could be. But I don't think it would care much about us and then would not interact with us.

If you don't see 'intelligent design in nature', then what do you see when you go to an 'Auto Show', like the 'Detroit Auto Show'?
If you don't see ID in a human, then I am afraid to even ask what idiocy you must see at the auto show!? You probably walk out of there all disgusted and nauseated, .. right?

I sure am interested to hear your version, or definition of 'Intelligent Design', .. I mean Oh what created wonders you must have seen in your life to not see Intelligent Design in nature!!??!

When will you ever stop comparing self replicating molecules with cars? Try comparing self replicating molecules with self replicating cars and you might be on to something.

The only way a person could see Intelligent Design in nature would be if they ignore all the unintelligent design.
Now with over 220 EXAMPLES of unintelligent design.
http://centreforunintelligentdesign.yolasite.com/

I suggest we have some confirmation bias going on. How can you only see what you consider intelligent design? How are you able to ignore all the un-intelligently designed stuff in order to make your claim?

[Freddy_Scissorhands]

In my second post I borrow a popular question from the "Atheist Experience" show.

It is a rather broad question: When it comes to religion, God, spirituality, etc, what do you believe, and why.

I'll go first:

I believe that it's preferable to belive as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible.

I believe that reason and evidence are the best methods to discern what is true from what is not true.

I believe that reason and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. To the contrary, in the case of several religious claims, it's not just a matter of lack of evidence for, it's a matter of enormous amounts of evidence against.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

I believe it's possible for a god to exist, but I don't think it would have any interest in use except for maybe a passing one at best!
I don't see any GOOD evidence for a god existing in the world today. I don't see full intelligent design in nature. I see beauty in it but no god. I see very little god in people, even those who claim to be godly themselves.
So is there a god? Sure, could be. But I don't think it would care much about us and then would not interact with us.

If you don't see 'intelligent design in nature', then what do you see when you go to an 'Auto Show', like the 'Detroit Auto Show'?
If you don't see ID in a human, then I am afraid to even ask what idiocy you must see at the auto show!? You probably walk out of there all disgusted and nauseated, .. right?

I sure am interested to hear your version, or definition of 'Intelligent Design', .. I mean Oh what created wonders you must have seen in your life to not see Intelligent Design in nature!!??!

See, here is the problem... or rather are the problems with your argument.:

Comparing cars to living beings makes no sense. Life has very specific attributes, which need to be taken into account (such as being self-replicating). Unless the thing you present as an analogy shares these characteristics, your analogy is bound to fail.

Also, given that there is no known mechanism that could result in cars by non-artificial ways, we can confidently say that every car we see has been artificially created and designed.
On the other hand, we have ONLY natural ways that can lead to people or other life-forms. And so far we don't have any artificial way that can actually actually artificially create life.

Comparing these two things therefore leads to the conclusion that all life-forms we see are the result of nature (because that's the process all examples we have have as their basis) and all cars are the results of arrtificial design.

[Zzyzx]

.

How are you able to ignore all the un-intelligently designed stuff in order to make your claim?

The term "willful ignorance" is defined as: "the state and practice of ignoring any sensory input that appears to contradict ones inner model of reality."

One can decide for themselves where and when the term applies.

I have debated religionists here and elsewhere who absolutely refuse to accept ANY evidence that conflicts with their religious convictions. While teaching university science classes I observed students dropping classes or changing majors when they discovered that evidence presented conflicted with their religious indoctrination / training.