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.

[barneythedino]

Agree with all the above.

I am a rationalist and materialist. I am open to the supernatural although I disagree with the term. I will be happy to find out about the atomic structure of the holy spirit and how the chemistry of water turning into wine occurred.

I understand concepts such as love as biochemical pathways. If they were not, when why does surgery on the brain alter who and what we love? Why do we read increased activity in certain areas as we think of our enemies or spouses. More interestingly why are those often the same!

[atheist buddy]

Why do we read increased activity in certain areas as we think of our enemies or spouses. More interestingly why are those often the same!

Ah ah ah, I'm not gonna go there, lol. All I can say is I love my husband and would never ever think of strngling him with his smelly socks, next time he leaves them on the floor of my bedroom

[Cephus]

I don't "believe" anything. I accept things with objective evidence as true provisionally. I reject things for which there is no objective reason to accept as false, provisionally. As information changes, as we find more evidence, all of that is open to revision.

[atheist buddy]

I don't "believe" anything. I accept things with objective evidence as true provisionally. I reject things for which there is no objective reason to accept as false, provisionally. As information changes, as we find more evidence, all of that is open to revision.

Cool. I agree with that.

Is there anybody who disagrees with this?

Is there anybody who agrees with this, and thereby comes to the conclusion that God exists?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't "believe" anything. I accept things with objective evidence as true provisionally. I reject things for which there is no objective reason to accept as false, provisionally. As information changes, as we find more evidence, all of that is open to revision.

Cool. I agree with that.

Is there anybody who disagrees with this?

Is there anybody who agrees with this, and thereby comes to the conclusion that God exists?

I tend to use the terms "accept" or "conclude" as applied to myself rather than "believe" to avoid the baggage of irrational beliefs that are all too common.

Evidence, verification, reproducibility, convergence of disconnected sources, falsifiability, etc are all involved – coupled with critical / analytical thinking, sound decision making, real world experience.

Statements, claims and stories that cannot be SHOWN to be truthful and accurate are at best questionable in my world view, and not immune to being false, fictional or fraudulent.

That others choose to believe or fervently believe without strong evidence is not my concern. I would consider myself very gullible and naïve to do so.

[AdHoc]

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.

Enormous amounts of evidence against the existence of a supernatural intelligence? That's interesting... Did you mean to say lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence?

Ok here's my creed....

I believe the bible is the word of God and that Jesus Christ is God.

I believe this because I was indoctrinated as a child and then after a period when I went away from God He rescued me from that life and I was born again.

I love knowledge, logic and reason but I believe they are limited and that there are some things in life that I believe I must take on faith. There are also other times when I think its best to take risks.

[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.

Enormous amounts of evidence against the existence of a supernatural intelligence? That's interesting... Did you mean to say lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence?

Reread what I wrote.

I said that logic and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. That is the same as saying " lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence".

I then went on to say that there are enormous amounts of positive evidence against several religious claims. You cannot POSSIBLY disagree with that. There is most definitely positive evidence against, for example, the claim of chinese mythology that the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle).

Do you disagree? Do you suggest that the jury is still out on the existence of the giant turtle?

Of course some religious claims are contradicted by direct positive evidence. There is no question about that.

Ok here's my creed....

I believe the bible is the word of God and that Jesus Christ is God.

I believe this because I was indoctrinated as a child and then after a period when I went away from God He rescued me from that life and I was born again.

So you ended up with the same religion as your parents and your immediate community, just like the overwhelming majority of muslims, mormons, scientologiests, ancient greek politheists, buddhists, voodoo believers, etc. Then you went through a "rebelious phase", like many young people do, and then you went back to the same religion as your parents and your immediate community, just like the overwhelming majority of muslims, mormons, scientologiests, ancient greek politheists, buddhists, voodoo believers, etc.

Are you able to detatch yourself from your indoctrination and emotional investment in your worldview for just a moment, look at things impartially and calmly, and realize that the basis of your justification for your religion is no better than the basis for ANY belief including the most arbitrary and utterly ridiculous ones?

I love knowledge, logic and reason but I believe they are limited and that there are some things in life that I believe I must take on faith.

Can you give me an example of one belief, however absurd and clearly false, that couldn't be justified with an appeal to faith, just like you justify your belief in the Christian God?

I don't mean to bellittle your religion by comparing it with something silly, I just mean to illustrate a point by citing something absurd. Here goes:

Imagine I claimed to believe that an invisible/undetectable dragon lived in my basement. Is there any argument you could mount against that belief, that I couldn't counter by saying "I love knowledge, logic and reason but I believe they are limited and that there are some things in life that I believe I must take on faith"? By "defending" my belief in the dragon in that way, wouldn't I be justifying my belief as effectively (or ineffectively) as you justify your christianity?

By saying that some things must be taken on faith, you have lowered the bar for what it is appropriate to believe to the point that anything is a justifiable belief.

Anything can be believed on faith. Anything.

To say that you believe something on faith is to negate the instrinsic value of truth.

[AdHoc]

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.

Enormous amounts of evidence against the existence of a supernatural intelligence? That's interesting... Did you mean to say lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence?

Reread what I wrote.

I said that logic and evidence do not support the notion that a supernatural intelligence exists. That is the same as saying " lack of evidence for a supernatural intelligence".

I then went on to say that there are enormous amounts of positive evidence against several religious claims. You cannot POSSIBLY disagree with that. There is most definitely positive evidence against, for example, the claim of chinese mythology that the earth is a flat disk resting on the back of a giant turtle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle).

Do you disagree? Do you suggest that the jury is still out on the existence of the giant turtle?

Oh OK I didn't think you were talking about giant cosmic turtles... I agree with your conclusion that the earth is not riding on the back of a giant turtle.

Of course some religious claims are contradicted by direct positive evidence. There is no question about that.

Ok here's my creed....

I believe the bible is the word of God and that Jesus Christ is God.

I believe this because I was indoctrinated as a child and then after a period when I went away from God He rescued me from that life and I was born again.

So you ended up with the same religion as your parents and your immediate community, just like the overwhelming majority of muslims, mormons, scientologiests, ancient greek politheists, buddhists, voodoo believers, etc. Then you went through a "rebelious phase", like many young people do, and then you went back to the same religion as your parents and your immediate community, just like the overwhelming majority of muslims, mormons, scientologiests, ancient greek politheists, buddhists, voodoo believers, etc.

Well it sounds kind of base when you put it like that... I guess you've got me all figured out.

Are you able to detatch yourself from your indoctrination and emotional investment in your worldview for just a moment, look at things impartially and calmly, and realize that the basis of your justification for your religion is no better than the basis for ANY belief including the most arbitrary and utterly ridiculous ones?

No I am hopelessly biased and I see everything through the lens of my worldview.

I love knowledge, logic and reason but I believe they are limited and that there are some things in life that I believe I must take on faith.

Can you give me an example of one belief, however absurd and clearly false, that couldn't be justified with an appeal to faith, just like you justify your belief in the Christian God?

I don't mean to bellittle your religion by comparing it with something silly, I just mean to illustrate a point by citing something absurd. Here goes:

Imagine I claimed to believe that an invisible/undetectable dragon lived in my basement. Is there any argument you could mount against that belief, that I couldn't counter by saying "I love knowledge, logic and reason but I believe they are limited and that there are some things in life that I believe I must take on faith"? By "defending" my belief in the dragon in that way, wouldn't I be justifying my belief as effectively (or ineffectively) as you justify your christianity?

Sure. I guess so.

If you did believe that I guess I would ask you why you believed in that dragon.

And based on how you answered that I'd make my mind up whether I thought you were mad as a hatter or temporarily insane or maybe 3 years old. This is because your example doesn't exist in my worldview.

By saying that some things must be taken on faith, you have lowered the bar for what it is appropriate to believe to the point that anything is a justifiable belief.

Anything can be believed on faith. Anything.

To say that you believe something on faith is to negate the instrinsic value of truth.

The irony is to accept your last statement I would have to take on faith that it itself is true.

... And probably the two before it.

We all put reasonable faith in tons of things and people all the time. The difference between you and me is I go further into unreasonable faith.

If a person didn't have any faith or even take calculated risks sometimes then they'd never get anywhere.

Here's a scenario for you... Lets say you do actually have a fire-breathing dragon living in your basement but its a visible one. Pretend that's true for a second.

You with me?

There is absolutely NO evidence that you could ever possibly present me that could ever convince me it was real. I'd probably listen to you and ask you questions to try and figure out why you believe that but in the end I'd think you were nuts.

We're all skeptics when it comes to stuff that doesn't fit our worldview.

[barneythedino]

[Replying to AdHoc]

Actually I think you might be mistaken.

A fire breathing Dragon in the basement could be handily proved in a few easy steps.

1) Contact the local newspapers: say there is a unknown animal in your house and you feel they should take a look.
2) Contact the police
3) Contact the local councils environmental pest control
4) Invite your neighbors
5) Take camera and video footage.
6) Shoot it with a bucket full of tranquilizers and bring it out, take DNA samples, send them to a zoologist. Have the Zoologist present.
7) Display its still breathing form in the center of town.
8) Take Biopsy, xrays, stool samples, saliva.
9) By now eminent biologists will be involved. They may measure and examine the creature.
10) This should be world news by now. there will be a million people on the internet calling it a hoax. Secure it in London zoo and present it for any skeptic to see for themselves.

At this point we have a new species. New ones are discovered each day. This would be an unusual example but nothing magical about it.

I would say that anyone skeptical of this evidence would not be a freethinker. Just a closed minded denier of reality.
In this thought experiment what do you feel about this level of mundane proof. Would it be enough for you that you could access all of it for yourself?