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.

[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.

The problem with your statement, that it is preferable to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many untrue things as possible is that it is one of those 'duh' statements that everybody would agree with.

That is, the most off-his-meds schizophrenic paying very close attention to the voices in head would agree with you, as would the folks of the 'flat earth' era, the 'birthers,' the 'truthers,' and all believers in all systems, theist or not. Of course it is better to believe true things, and not believe in untrue things.

I honestly do not know anybody who chooses to believe in untrue things, and to not believe in true things; the very definition of 'belief' involves the opinion that the thing one believes in is true, after all.

The trick is to figure out which is which.

You believe that 'reason and evidence do not support' the idea of a deity. Fine...and of course, right now, you are convinced (well, I hope you aren't just blowing smoke up our noses with this) that the reason and evidence you are using is 'true.'

I happen to believe that there is a deity. More than that, I believe in the existance of a deity specifically described in the belief system I belong to. I think that 'reason and evidence" support that deity.

Perhaps not the reason and evidence you would accept, but still.....

Now here's a question for you. Why should I privilege your 'reason and evidence" over my own?

Well, as long as we both agree that believing true things and disbelieving untrue things is the right way to go, and as long as we both agree that reason and evidence are the best methods for discerning truth from untruth, and as long as you claim that reason and evidence support your deity, then please present this reason and evidence.

Nice one, atheist buddy...but I made no claim that requires such a presentation. What I DID do was ask you why I should privilege your 'reason and evidence' over my own.

This thread...I THINK, anyway...isn't about whether what I believe is true. It's about epistemology; why anybody thinks, or believes what they do. Of course, it's your thread, but that's what I got out of the OP.

Quick prequel to what I'm sure will be an interesting conversation: Can you agree that if the same type of evidence as you will present, can also be presented to support the claims of Scientology, then belief in your deity on the basis of that evidence is no more justified than belief in Scientology?

Uh...no. Scientology, as far as I am aware, doesn't use prayer as a research tool.

For example, if the "evidence" for your deity is "a feeling in your heart" or "a personal experience" or a vague "knowledge from reading about it and meditating", then you have just demonstrated your belief to be no more true than scientology or any other belief system which is based on similar claims, and which you find laughable.

I don't find any belief to be 'laughable,' actually. Unless someone is actually SERIOUS about the flying spaghetti monster. Then I'd offer him my father's recipe for his marinara sauce to put in his water blaster.

Please don't preemptively claim "my beliefs are true for me".

OK.

A person who believes washing your eyes with Drano is healthy can claim "her beliefs are true for her".

"True for me" holds no actual value in the realm of what is actually true in reality.

Please just go ahead and present the reason and evidence for your belief in a deity.

When you are here a bit longer, atheist buddy, you will know just how silly a request that is, asked of me.

I have never claimed to be able to prove that a deity exists, never mind that the one I believe in exists. Indeed, I have often stated that I don't think it's possible to prove that God exists using empirical evidence, at least right now. Science and religion are not the same, and cannot be accessed using the same methods. I would never pray to ask how high a tree is, or how old a rock is.

Nor would I use science to prove that God is. Yes, I pray and receive what I truly believe to be answers to my prayers...but if you want to know what I do, you have to pray and get your own answers. I can't do that for you, and would never claim to be able to.

Let's get back to the topic that you introduced, which is...what, precisely? Yes, I'm quite certain that we are all convinced that what we believe to be true is true. The question remains; why should I privilege your opinions over mine, in terms of religion...an area that it seems you are using the wrong methods to examine?

To me, that's like expecting me to, after having measured water in a cup and getting an accurate measure of four ounces, to toss that measurement out in favor of your taking the same liquid and measuring it with an anemometer. Wrong tools.

It seems to me that for determining the truth of the stuff I believe in there are tools that are right and tools that are wrong, there are answers that are right and answers that are wrong.

A thermometer is simply the wrong tool for measuring speed, and 28 degrees is simply the wrong answer for "what time is it".

On the other hand, when it comes to determining the truth of the stuff you and other people of different religions believe, it seems that there is no tool that is better than any other and no answer that is more true than any other.

Is squeezing the testicles of a goat a better way of divining the future than looking for prophecies in the Bible?

Is "Honor thy father and thy mother" a better commandment than "don't suffer a witch to live"?

Is "Jesus is the son of God" a more valid statement than "Apollo is the son of Zeus"?

Is a flying horse more real than a talking snake or a giant turtle holding the earth on its back?



The OP is asking a simple question: What do you believe to be true, and what method do you use to make that determination?

I'll give you an example. I believe the earth is a sphere and I use the scientific method to make that determination.

Here is an example of what I would find a bad belief and a bad reason for believing it: "I believe zeus exists in the clouds, and I use the otherwise-how-do-you-explain-lightning method to make that determination".

Now you give me an example.

[atheist buddy]

I'm really curious as to why I'm not getting any real response here.

I'm just asking what you believe to be true, and by what method you come to that conclusion.

What's the problem?

[Goat]

I'm really curious as to why I'm not getting any real response here.

I'm just asking what you believe to be true, and by what method you come to that conclusion.

What's the problem?

I personally do not believe there is any deity. The method is there is a lack of consistent definition about what a deity is, and there is no evidence for any reasonable definition. There are some definitions that 'force' things into place, and when confronted with those definitions, I have to ask 'Why call that God'?

[atheist buddy]

I'm really curious as to why I'm not getting any real response here.

I'm just asking what you believe to be true, and by what method you come to that conclusion.

What's the problem?

I personally do not believe there is any deity. The method is there is a lack of consistent definition about what a deity is, and there is no evidence for any reasonable definition. There are some definitions that 'force' things into place, and when confronted with those definitions, I have to ask 'Why call that God'?

Fair enough. Thank you.

I think I know what you mean with regards to definitions that force things into place.

It's like when some say "God is Love". The implicit argument is this: "God is Love, Love exists, therefore God exists".

In that argument, "God" can be substituted for anything one wants to prove exists, the word "Love" can be substituted with anything that does exist, and the argument works equally "well".

"Zeus is Love, Love exists, therefore Zeus exists". There, I proved Zeus exists

"Allah is Energy, Energy exists, therefore Allah exists".

"Leprechauns are fun, fun exists, therefore Leprechauns exist".

"The invisible dragon in my basement is a pancake, pancakes exist, therefore the invisible dragon in my basement exists".

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

"What do you believe and why?"

I believe in the ultimate value of Truth, and in its pursuit, that we guide our emotions (faith) with reason. Faith (emotions) without reason is blind. Reason without emotions is dead.

As to a reasonable approach to the question of God, it boils down to how the universe came to be, and that we have no evidence of any kind from "before" or "outside" of the universe--or even if those terms have any meaning at all in that context. Our ignorance being so complete on the subject, how can we reasonably make any argument at all about it. Atheists are relying just as absolutely on their faith (emotions) as are the theists when they declare that God does not exist. There isn't the first bit or reasonable evidence for either position.

[dgruber]

I'm really curious as to why I'm not getting any real response here.

I'm just asking what you believe to be true, and by what method you come to that conclusion.

What's the problem?

I believe that there probably is an intelligent creative force that "began" or set the universe in motion. I openly acknowledge that at the present (and may never be) there is no way to validate such a belief. I base that belief on all of the arguments that I have encountered and presently believe this "deistic" view to be the most accurate for me.

I believe that mankind's many specific religions are humanity's way of attempting to explain the divine. While many christians or muslims believe the Bible or Koran, for example, were inspired by God (top down approach), I believe it is more of a bottom up approach, mankind's attempt to understand/rationalize, what is doesn't comprehend.

I believe that science is limited in its role to understand and explain but has taken many of the religious attempts to explain the universes functions and refined them with empirical data. It does an impeccable job of helping us understand our universe, but has no say about details beyond the universe. I have not found any of the current scientific theories of the beginning of the universe to be convincing to this point. Multiverses, quantum fluctations, et al, lack any strong evidence as well. Keep in mind I do not disagree with Big Bang Cosmology, only what caused it.

As I continue to learn I will no doubt refine and adjust those beliefs and will certainly change my stance if adequate evidence is brought forth to convince me that I should do so. Notice it has to convince me, just because it convinces someone else, or even many others, does not mean it will necessarily convince me.

Nice thread by the way, sometimes we get so involved in debating tiny specifics that we forget to back up and talk about what we actually believe.

[atheist buddy]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

"What do you believe and why?"

I believe in the ultimate value of Truth, and in its pursuit, that we guide our emotions (faith) with reason. Faith (emotions) without reason is blind. Reason without emotions is dead.

As to a reasonable approach to the question of God, it boils down to how the universe came to be, and that we have no evidence of any kind from "before" or "outside" of the universe--or even if those terms have any meaning at all in that context. Our ignorance being so complete on the subject, how can we reasonably make any argument at all about it. Atheists are relying just as absolutely on their faith (emotions) as are the theists when they declare that God does not exist. There isn't the first bit or reasonable evidence for either position.

There isn't reasonable evidence that a God doesn't exist?

Well, that depends on the definition of God, doesn't it?

If "God" is "The literal God of the Bible, who created the universe 6000 years ago", then there is OVERWHELMING evidence for the position that such God doesn't exist. Like for example everything we know for sure about science.

If "God" is "Zeus, the literal king of the Gods of Olympus, who literally stands on top of clouds and causes lightning with his spear", then, yeah, there is overwhelming evidence in support of the notion that such an entity does not exist.

Therefore, without a shadow of a doubt, for the majority of religious claims and beliefs, there is no reasonable evidence in support of the belief, and overwhelming reasonable evidence in support of the disbelief.

Now, separate from this majority of religious claims and beliefs, there are some claims for which there is no evidence in support, and no evidence against. These are called unfalsifiable claims.

Here are a few examples:
In a parallel universe which is completely impossible for us to detect, there exist parallel people who are identical to us, except for the fact that they have three eyes
An intelligent entity which does not manifest itself in any detectable way, is responsible for creating the universe

You are right that a dogmatic evidence-free firm belief in the definite existence or non-existence of the entities outlined above, is equally unjustifiable.

The right answer to the question "are there pareallel people with three eyes in parallel universes" or "does a deist God exist" is this: "Stop wasting my time with meaningless questions. Come back to me when we have some data". another acceptable answer could be "We can reasonably tentatively operate under the functional assumption that entities which do not and cannot manifest themselves in any way, are equivalent to not existing".

In any case your attempt at drawing an equivalency between the faith of theism and the "faith of atheism", is woefully misguided.

[atheist buddy]

I'm really curious as to why I'm not getting any real response here.

I'm just asking what you believe to be true, and by what method you come to that conclusion.

What's the problem?

I believe that there probably is an intelligent creative force that "began" or set the universe in motion. I openly acknowledge that at the present (and may never be) there is no way to validate such a belief. I base that belief on all of the arguments that I have encountered

What arguments are you referring to?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by atheist buddy]

"What do you believe and why?"

I believe in the ultimate value of Truth, and in its pursuit, that we guide our emotions (faith) with reason. Faith (emotions) without reason is blind. Reason without emotions is dead.

As to a reasonable approach to the question of God, it boils down to how the universe came to be, and that we have no evidence of any kind from "before" or "outside" of the universe--or even if those terms have any meaning at all in that context. Our ignorance being so complete on the subject, how can we reasonably make any argument at all about it. Atheists are relying just as absolutely on their faith (emotions) as are the theists when they declare that God does not exist. There isn't the first bit or reasonable evidence for either position.

There isn't reasonable evidence that a God doesn't exist?

The question is whether the universe was created/designed, or came to be spontaneously. There is no evidence for either...at all. You can't show any evidence that there is no designer just and I can't show any that there is.

If "God" is "The literal God of the Bible....

Stop right there. You can disprove revealed strawman gods till your blue in the face, but your still left with the two possibilities above: a laissez-faire God or no god.

Your parallel completely undetectable universe is undetectable and therefore irrelevant. There could be other universes that we can't detect which were also created by God or by nothing. So what?

In any case your attempt at drawing an equivalency between the faith of theism and the "faith of atheism", is woefully misguided.

What faith of theism and how have I attempted to equate them. And it's generally accepted (and as I use it here) that deism is a special case of theism, where God does not interact in the universe. So all your arguments against theism are actually for the equally reasonable possibility of deism and atheism. It's an incredibly simple concept yet theists and (hard) atheists fight it tooth and nail.

[wiploc]

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that gods do not exist.

Why do I believe this? Because there's no reason to imagine extra bits of the universe that are perfectly undetectable. If there's no evidence for something, it probably doesn't exist.

Plus, the theists really want us to believe. They are passionate in their desire to persuade us. It follows that they are probably using their best and most logical arguments in their attempt to share the news about gods.

But all of their arguments are turkeys ; they shouldn't fool a sixth grader. If their best arguments are lame and fraudulent, then they don't have any good arguments.

It is reasonable to believe, then, that there are no reasonable arguments for theism.

We can divide gods, then, into two categories: those that should be believed in for some reason, and those that should be believed in for no reason at all.

The reasons for believing in the first group turn out not to be plausible. Those gods do not exist.

Which leaves the gods that there is no reason to believe in. There is no reason to believe in them. But they are still gods, weird and improbable things that would need powerful evidence even to justify a neutral stance. If logical people should believe that Russell's teapot doesn't exist, then they should also believe that un-evidenced gods do not exist.