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.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I don't think anyone would argue with this.

In fact, it seems to me that this is precisely what they are arguing for. And here you have just confirmed what they are arguing for.

You go beyond reasonable faith and jump off the deep end into unreasonable faith.

Why would you do that?

[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?

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.

To be clear, the example of the giant turtle holding a flat earth, specifically selected for how abusrd it is, is NOT the only religious claim against which positive evidence exists.

There is a plethora of direct, repeatable, empirical evidence against many religious claims, inlcuding those of christianity.

For example the law of gravity constitutes very strong positive evidence against the Bible claim that the earth stopped on its rotational axis around the sun for a few hours. Or that Moses parted the Red Sea.

There is overwhelmingly strong positive direct evidence against the Bible's creation myth that plants were created before stars.

etc.

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.

Well that's unfortunate. You should be able to make hypothetical forays outside your worldview... using your mind. That's kind of the hallmark of having a higher brain.

Try it out. I'll give you an examples.

Right now I'm using my mind to imagine I was a dog. If I were a dog, I would be able to smell much better, but I would see everything more blurry (and from a lower angle). I would not mind going around naked, and I would have a much more hazy sense of time.

See what I did? Using the power of my mind, I was able to imagine some elements of a worldview other than my own.

Now you try! In reality you are a Christian who finds the beliefs of Scientology ridiculous. Now, with the power of your mind, imagine you were a Scientologist who finds Christianity ridiculous.

Is there any aspect of a Christian's disbelief in Scientology that is qualitatively superior to a Scientologist's disbelief in Christianity?

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.

No you don't. The claim that truth has intrinsic value can be tested.

Jim always tells the truth, and Steve sometimes lies. You are wearing a parachute and are about to jump from a plane. What would you prefer, for Jim or for Steve to reassure you that he checked the parachute himself and can promise you that everything is in working order?

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.

Well, that's a pretty big difference, isn't it?

That's as big as the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable, right?

Why is it ok to hold unreasonabe beliefs?

If it were ok to hold unreasonable beliefs, then there would be no yardstick with which to determine if any belief is more valid than any other. Believing the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is a flat disk sitting on a turtle's back would be no better and no worse than the belief that you should inject yourself with antivenom after a cobra bites you, or the belief that it's best not to jump off of tall buildings.

If humanity actually operated under the assumption that unreasonable beliefs were ok, we would have gone extinct eons ago.

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

The word faith, in this context, is polluted by the use in religious circles, but sure, the ability to extrapolate from incomplete data and form tentative conclusions on the basis of informed guesses, is useful. That in no way justifies believing in the giant turtle or in the talking snake or any other claim against which there is strong positive evidence.

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?

yes

There is absolutely NO evidence that you could ever possibly present me that could ever convince me it was real.

Are you joking? If it were a visible dragon, I could show it to you! That's what the word visible means!

Barneythedino outlines the absurdity of your position in his great post, so I don't need to repeat it. Suffice it to say that the difference between that which is real and that which is make-believe, is that I can demonstrate to you that real stuff actually exists!

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.

You wouldn't have to listen to me! You could go to the London zoo and see my dragon with your own two eyes. THAT'S THE POINT!

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

I'm equally skeptical about things that don't fit my worldview as I am about those that fit my worldview.

I just tentativly believe claims for which there is reasonable justification for belief, and tentatively disbelieve claims for which there is reasonable justification for disbelief.

Operating word: Reasonable.

Is it reasonable to believe that Kansas is north of Oklahoma? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat and on the back of a turtle? No
Is it reasonable to believe that drinking drano will damage your stomach? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that Moses parted the red sea? No

The whole point of having a brain, is the ability to discern between easonable and unreasonable ideas, opinions and actions, so that if something is unreasonable, you can stop doing it!

Why don't you stop being a Christian if you realize it's unreasonable?

[AdHoc]

[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.

None of this evidence would convince me except if you were able to get it universally accepted as truth. I think I would be suspicious that it was some sort of elaborate april fools joke. Think about it we're not talking about an insect discovered in the amazon or a deep sea creature. We're talking about a fire-breathing dragon that's been living in your basement.

Sure I will concede that I probably would have to accepte at some point that it was true if I fully give my self over to your description of how you could prove its existence in this thought experiment. But do you believe in bigfoot? Because there is supposedly tons of "evidence" for its existence. Photos, first hand experiences, foot prints, supposedly like 50 years ago they caught one in washington or somewhere.

I don't

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?

Like I said I'm skeptical about dragons in your basement, giant cosmic turtles and I'll add big foot to the list.

If you showed me proof of something reasonable (newly discovered fish or insects) then I would accept it with one or two pieces of evidence.

[dianaiad]

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?

[AdHoc]

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.

I don't think anyone would argue with this.

In fact, it seems to me that this is precisely what they are arguing for. And here you have just confirmed what they are arguing for.

You go beyond reasonable faith and jump off the deep end into unreasonable faith.

Why would you do that?

Because I have been on the other side standing on the shore looking at the people in the water.

Safer and more comfortable yes but I don't want to miss out the most important things in life.

Do you know what I mean?

[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.


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?

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.

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

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.

[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.

To be clear, the example of the giant turtle holding a flat earth, specifically selected for how abusrd it is, is NOT the only religious claim against which positive evidence exists.

There is a plethora of direct, repeatable, empirical evidence against many religious claims, inlcuding those of christianity.

For example the law of gravity constitutes very strong positive evidence against the Bible claim that the earth stopped on its rotational axis around the sun for a few hours. Or that Moses parted the Red Sea.

There is overwhelmingly strong positive direct evidence against the Bible's creation myth that plants were created before stars.

etc.

Granted but of course what we're talking about is miracles. You would say miracles have never happened because supernatural miracles don't exist and you would have the fact that no one has ever demonstrated one to have happened as your proof. I accept on faith that they have occurred.

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.

Well that's unfortunate. You should be able to make hypothetical forays outside your worldview... using your mind. That's kind of the hallmark of having a higher brain.

Try it out. I'll give you an examples.

Right now I'm using my mind to imagine I was a dog. If I were a dog, I would be able to smell much better, but I would see everything more blurry (and from a lower angle). I would not mind going around naked, and I would have a much more hazy sense of time.

Ok so like when I was a teenager.

See what I did? Using the power of my mind, I was able to imagine some elements of a worldview other than my own.

Now you try! In reality you are a Christian who finds the beliefs of Scientology ridiculous. Now, with the power of your mind, imagine you were a Scientologist who finds Christianity ridiculous.

Is there any aspect of a Christian's disbelief in Scientology that is qualitatively superior to a Scientologist's disbelief in Christianity?

I don't know anything about scientology except that Tom Cruise and John Travolta are scientologists. I think they believe in spaceships from other planets? I could be wrong about that.
I guess I would need to know why they believe what they believe.

Is there a scientologist in the forum?

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.

No you don't. The claim that truth has intrinsic value can be tested.

Jim always tells the truth, and Steve sometimes lies. You are wearing a parachute and are about to jump from a plane. What would you prefer, for Jim or for Steve to reassure you that he checked the parachute himself and can promise you that everything is in working order?

And you will put your faith in Jim's word because in your experience he always tells the truth. Myself I live by the creed... Pack you own chute

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.

Well, that's a pretty big difference, isn't it?

That's as big as the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable, right?

Why is it ok to hold unreasonabe beliefs?

I didn't say it was OK, I'm just being honest that from your's and other people's perspectives I can see them through your eyes as being unreasonable. The closest thing I can describe it like is being in love. You can't tell anyone what's love and whats not, you only know when it happens to you.

If it were ok to hold unreasonable beliefs, then there would be no yardstick with which to determine if any belief is more valid than any other. Believing the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is a flat disk sitting on a turtle's back would be no better and no worse than the belief that you should inject yourself with antivenom after a cobra bites you, or the belief that it's best not to jump off of tall buildings.

If humanity actually operated under the assumption that unreasonable beliefs were ok, we would have gone extinct eons ago.

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

The word faith, in this context, is polluted by the use in religious circles, but sure, the ability to extrapolate from incomplete data and form tentative conclusions on the basis of informed guesses, is useful. That in no way justifies believing in the giant turtle or in the talking snake or any other claim against which there is strong positive evidence.

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?

yes

There is absolutely NO evidence that you could ever possibly present me that could ever convince me it was real.

Are you joking? If it were a visible dragon, I could show it to you! That's what the word visible means!

Barneythedino outlines the absurdity of your position in his great post, so I don't need to repeat it. Suffice it to say that the difference between that which is real and that which is make-believe, is that I can demonstrate to you that real stuff actually exists!

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.

You wouldn't have to listen to me! You could go to the London zoo and see my dragon with your own two eyes. THAT'S THE POINT!

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

I'm equally skeptical about things that don't fit my worldview as I am about those that fit my worldview.

I just tentativly believe claims for which there is reasonable justification for belief, and tentatively disbelieve claims for which there is reasonable justification for disbelief.

Operating word: Reasonable.

Is it reasonable to believe that Kansas is north of Oklahoma? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat and on the back of a turtle? No
Is it reasonable to believe that drinking drano will damage your stomach? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that Moses parted the red sea? No

The whole point of having a brain, is the ability to discern between easonable and unreasonable ideas, opinions and actions, so that if something is unreasonable, you can stop doing it!

Why don't you stop being a Christian if you realize it's unreasonable?

Haha I can't tell you that.

[atheist buddy]

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.

I don't think anyone would argue with this.

In fact, it seems to me that this is precisely what they are arguing for. And here you have just confirmed what they are arguing for.

You go beyond reasonable faith and jump off the deep end into unreasonable faith.

Why would you do that?

Because I have been on the other side standing on the shore looking at the people in the water.

Safer and more comfortable yes but I don't want to miss out the most important things in life.

Do you know what I mean?

Yes, but unreasonably believing you're in the water when in reality you're at the bottom of an empty pool, convinced that you're swimming in fresh and cool water when in reality you're just rolling around in the abrasive filth at the bottom of the empty pool, is not very smart.

You might love swimming, it might be the most important thing in the world to you, you might hate being outside the pool not swimming, but even so, before jumping in the pool, CHECK THAT THERE IS WATER IN IT!

"I really want to swim, therefore I'll jump in the pool even thought there clearly is no water in it"

That is not a reasonable position to hold.

You AGREE that your position is unreasonable.

And yet you do it.

Why?

[dianaiad]

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.

[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?

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.

To be clear, the example of the giant turtle holding a flat earth, specifically selected for how abusrd it is, is NOT the only religious claim against which positive evidence exists.

There is a plethora of direct, repeatable, empirical evidence against many religious claims, inlcuding those of christianity.

For example the law of gravity constitutes very strong positive evidence against the Bible claim that the earth stopped on its rotational axis around the sun for a few hours. Or that Moses parted the Red Sea.

There is overwhelmingly strong positive direct evidence against the Bible's creation myth that plants were created before stars.

etc.

Granted but of course what we're talking about is miracles. You would say miracles have never happened because supernatural miracles don't exist and you would have the fact that no one has ever demonstrated one to have happened as your proof. I accept on faith that they have occurred.

You accept on faith that gravity isn't real (or that it sometimes stops) and thereby planet earth sometimes stops its roation around the sun. Some 8th century cinese farmer believes in the giant turtle carrying the flat planet on it's back. Both are based on a rationally indifensible decision to ignore evidence.

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.

Well that's unfortunate. You should be able to make hypothetical forays outside your worldview... using your mind. That's kind of the hallmark of having a higher brain.

Try it out. I'll give you an examples.

Right now I'm using my mind to imagine I was a dog. If I were a dog, I would be able to smell much better, but I would see everything more blurry (and from a lower angle). I would not mind going around naked, and I would have a much more hazy sense of time.

Ok so like when I was a teenager.

See what I did? Using the power of my mind, I was able to imagine some elements of a worldview other than my own.

Now you try! In reality you are a Christian who finds the beliefs of Scientology ridiculous. Now, with the power of your mind, imagine you were a Scientologist who finds Christianity ridiculous.

Is there any aspect of a Christian's disbelief in Scientology that is qualitatively superior to a Scientologist's disbelief in Christianity?

I don't know anything about scientology except that Tom Cruise and John Travolta are scientologists. I think they believe in spaceships from other planets? I could be wrong about that.
I guess I would need to know why they believe what they believe.

Is there a scientologist in the forum?

This seems to me an attempt to dodge answering the point I made. IF YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY, PRETEND YOU'RE A MEMBER OF ANY RELIGION YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN BUT KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT! The point is the same.

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.

No you don't. The claim that truth has intrinsic value can be tested.

Jim always tells the truth, and Steve sometimes lies. You are wearing a parachute and are about to jump from a plane. What would you prefer, for Jim or for Steve to reassure you that he checked the parachute himself and can promise you that everything is in working order?

And you will put your faith in Jim's word because in your experience he always tells the truth. Myself I live by the creed... Pack you own chute

In your own words, you reinforced my point that the intrinsic validity of truth can be demonstrated without faith.

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.

Well, that's a pretty big difference, isn't it?

That's as big as the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable, right?

Why is it ok to hold unreasonabe beliefs?

I didn't say it was OK, I'm just being honest that from your's and other people's perspectives I can see them through your eyes as being unreasonable.

Well, do you agree that it's not ok to believe things there is no good reason for believing?

The closest thing I can describe it like is being in love. You can't tell anyone what's love and whats not, you only know when it happens to you.

False. Love is a brain state, triggered by hormonal secretions, triggered in turn by outside stimuli received by the brain. A scientist can take somebody's blood sample, run a brain scan, and determine if he or she is in love.

It's reasonable to be in love. It's reasonable to come to the conclusion that somebody is in love based on empirical data.

It is NOT reasonable to believe in the giant turtle or the talking snake.

That's just crazy! There is absolutely no justification for that.

If it were ok to hold unreasonable beliefs, then there would be no yardstick with which to determine if any belief is more valid than any other. Believing the moon is made of cheese, or the earth is a flat disk sitting on a turtle's back would be no better and no worse than the belief that you should inject yourself with antivenom after a cobra bites you, or the belief that it's best not to jump off of tall buildings.

If humanity actually operated under the assumption that unreasonable beliefs were ok, we would have gone extinct eons ago.

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

The word faith, in this context, is polluted by the use in religious circles, but sure, the ability to extrapolate from incomplete data and form tentative conclusions on the basis of informed guesses, is useful. That in no way justifies believing in the giant turtle or in the talking snake or any other claim against which there is strong positive evidence.

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?

yes

There is absolutely NO evidence that you could ever possibly present me that could ever convince me it was real.

Are you joking? If it were a visible dragon, I could show it to you! That's what the word visible means!

Barneythedino outlines the absurdity of your position in his great post, so I don't need to repeat it. Suffice it to say that the difference between that which is real and that which is make-believe, is that I can demonstrate to you that real stuff actually exists!

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.

You wouldn't have to listen to me! You could go to the London zoo and see my dragon with your own two eyes. THAT'S THE POINT!

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

I'm equally skeptical about things that don't fit my worldview as I am about those that fit my worldview.

I just tentativly believe claims for which there is reasonable justification for belief, and tentatively disbelieve claims for which there is reasonable justification for disbelief.

Operating word: Reasonable.

Is it reasonable to believe that Kansas is north of Oklahoma? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that the earth is flat and on the back of a turtle? No
Is it reasonable to believe that drinking drano will damage your stomach? Yes
Is it reasonable to believe that Moses parted the red sea? No

The whole point of having a brain, is the ability to discern between easonable and unreasonable ideas, opinions and actions, so that if something is unreasonable, you can stop doing it!

Why don't you stop being a Christian if you realize it's unreasonable?

Haha I can't tell you that.

What do you mean? You don't know what the answer to that is, or youd o but you don't want to tell me?