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.

[RonE]

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.

Well, sure. IMHO, that's why theists really depend on getting the very young indoctrinated, or catching folks who are in a weakened state. And, why they lose so many skeptical adults. Anyone still believe in Santa? Or the Easter Bunny? There is just as much evidence for those and we probably all bought into those in our early years. god is just Santa for the kids who cannot see that the candy isn't real.

My response to the OP. I am a naturalist, & of course an atheist. I rely on the scientific method for determining what is true. One of the important corner stones of the SM is that a hypothesis must be falsifiable, which supports ThePainfulTruth's earlier comments. Just as dianaiad cannot prove that god answers her prayers, we cannot prove that he/it doesn't, prayers are not falsifiable so they are mute to the question of her god existing.

[dianaiad]

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.

As for me...well, I asked God, in prayer, and received what I believe to be an answer.

It's my answer. It's subjective. I don't expect you to believe what my answer is, much less that I actually got one.

If you want one, you pray and get your own. Or not.

............................and THAT is how I know that one set of moral values is 'better' than another; I look at 'em, study 'em out, and pray about 'em.

Science works similarly...that is, we look at things and study (research) them. The difference is the 'prayer' part. The scientific method requires experimentation which establishes repeatability...I can SHOW you that water boils at a specific temperature at a specific altitude. I can show you the evidence for evolution and the geological time frames of creation. These things are empirical.

How God deals with you and me personally?

Not so much.

But I have what I believe to be sufficient reason to believe that He exists.

[RonE]

... the geological time frames of creation

I am curious about your "geological time frames" in reference to creation. Is that a new earth or old earth view? Just curious.

[dianaiad]

... the geological time frames of creation

I am curious about your "geological time frames" in reference to creation. Is that a new earth or old earth view? Just curious.

I know that there is quite a list of groups under my name and icon, there, so if you read them, the pertinent one would be easily missed:

"Christian supporters of evolution."

Definitely 'old earth.'

My attitude towards my religious faith is "God did it."

My attitude towards what we learn, scientifically, is 'wow. So THAT'S how He did it! What else can we find out?" '

Works fine for me.

I know, I know. I am SUCH a disappointment to the atheists and other non-believers who see yet another theist that they can argue with about creationism, evolution and all that stuff.

Hurts my heart, it does.

Or perhaps that's just indigestion......

[RonE]

... the geological time frames of creation

I am curious about your "geological time frames" in reference to creation. Is that a new earth or old earth view? Just curious.

I know that there is quite a list of groups under my name and icon, there, so if you read them, the pertinent one would be easily missed:

"Christian supporters of evolution."

Definitely 'old earth.'

My attitude towards my religious faith is "God did it."

My attitude towards what we learn, scientifically, is 'wow. So THAT'S how He did it! What else can we find out?" '

Works fine for me.

I know, I know. I am SUCH a disappointment to the atheists and other non-believers who see yet another theist that they can argue with about creationism, evolution and all that stuff.

Hurts my heart, it does.

Or perhaps that's just indigestion......

Must have been your lunch. I was just trying to understand your comment.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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

If you only believe, and don't claim certain knowledge that God doesn't exist, then you aren't a strong atheist.

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.

? BTW, do you know what Planck space-time is? If so, do you know what lies through those gaps?

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.

I've already agreed that theists are irrelevant. Atheist as a group have a real hang up with them, and just can't talk about the subject without going for the easy target and disproving them, which I readily admit to.

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.

Or if there is a creator God for whom there is no evidence, and we therefore have 100% doubt--same for a no-God spontaneous creation scenario. They're both rationally impossible, but the only two options nonetheless. “How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.�-- Niels Bohr

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.

I don't believe you read my previous post. Either that or you, like so many theists, choose to ignore it. Maybe you are a hard atheist after all.

[ThePainefulTruth]

... the geological time frames of creation

I am curious about your "geological time frames" in reference to creation. Is that a new earth or old earth view? Just curious.

I know that there is quite a list of groups under my name and icon, there, so if you read them, the pertinent one would be easily missed:

"Christian supporters of evolution."

Definitely 'old earth.'

My attitude towards my religious faith is "God did it."

My attitude towards what we learn, scientifically, is 'wow. So THAT'S how He did it! What else can we find out?" '

Works fine for me.

I know, I know. I am SUCH a disappointment to the atheists and other non-believers who see yet another theist that they can argue with about creationism, evolution and all that stuff.

Hey, you're sounding like a deist in progress.

Hurts my heart, it does.

Or perhaps that's just indigestion......

Or a little lower....

[wiploc]

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

If you only believe, and don't claim certain knowledge that God doesn't exist, then you aren't a strong atheist.

The most used system of nomenclature uses these labels:

- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Agnostics: anybody else.

The second most used (and rapidly gaining) system uses these:
- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Strong atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists: anybody else.

After that, of course, there are other systems, but whatever's in third place is such a distant third that it could be considered eccentric or personal, and it would need to be explained in detail every time it was introduced into a conversation.

I don't believe you read my previous post. Either that or you, like so many theists, choose to ignore it.

Was it the OP? If it was the OP I may have read it.

Maybe you are a hard atheist after all.

If we're just talking about the standard Christian god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and yet he coexists with evil) then I am a gnostic strong atheist: I know for a fact that he does not exist.

[dianaiad]

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

If you only believe, and don't claim certain knowledge that God doesn't exist, then you aren't a strong atheist.

The most used system of nomenclature uses these labels:

- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Agnostics: anybody else.

The second most used (and rapidly gaining) system uses these:
- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Strong atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists: anybody else.

I'm quite prepared to accept that these definitions are the most used by you.

However, in my rather long experience in internet religious debate forums, I find that the classifications are more along the following lines:

Theists: believe that one or more gods exist (this includes deists, who believe that one exists, but has little or nothing to do with us)

Agnostics: Believe that one may exist, and may even be probable.... but don't have enough evidence to describe the attributes of deity,

Atheists:

weak: find no reason or evidence to support a deity.
...........strong; claim that no evidence can exist to support a deity because there is no such thing as a deity.

Turns out that most atheists are of the 'weak' atheistic persuasion, that is, if the number of them who say that they would believe in a deity if someone gave them enough evidence to show that one exists means anything.

I believe that accounts for pretty much everybody, actually--even those belief systems that may be spiritual, but not specifically theistic, like Buddhism.

Such a hierarchy of classification would certainly be simpler for everybody...which, I think, is why most people actually use it.

Of course, there is also that weird group that calls itself 'ignostic.' These folks claim that the ides of God is so incomprehensible, so indescribable, that the very idea of trying to pin a description...or even define what 'God' means, that it's useless to attempt to do so.

Which would, it seems to me, prompt those who are ignostics to turn to other matters of discussion, having dismissed the idea of deity at all. They don't, though.

Personally, I'd put ignostics squarely in the 'weak atheist' category. Unless they are 'strong' atheists, since they claim that it is impossible for a describable deity to exist. Or perhaps they are agnostics, since ignosticism at least concedes the possibility of a deity...it's just that humans can't identify or describe one.

Oh, I give up.

I'm probably going to be yelled at for improperly presenting the ignostic case, anyway.

I'll just sit back and take my corrective lashes in relative silence.

[wiploc]

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

If you only believe, and don't claim certain knowledge that God doesn't exist, then you aren't a strong atheist.

The most used system of nomenclature uses these labels:

- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Agnostics: anybody else.

The second most used (and rapidly gaining) system uses these:
- Theists: those who believe that gods exist.
- Strong atheists: those who believe that gods do not exist.
- Weak atheists: anybody else.

I'm quite prepared to accept that these definitions are the most used by you.

I use the second one, which seems to be the overwhelming favorite of atheists that I run across. Theists tend to use the first one.

However, in my rather long experience in internet religious debate forums, I find that the classifications are more along the following lines:

Theists: believe that one or more gods exist (this includes deists, who believe that one exists, but has little or nothing to do with us)

Agnostics: Believe that one may exist, and may even be probable.... but don't have enough evidence to describe the attributes of deity,

Atheists:

weak: find no reason or evidence to support a deity.
...........strong; claim that no evidence can exist to support a deity because there is no such thing as a deity.

Turns out that most atheists are of the 'weak' atheistic persuasion, that is, if the number of them who say that they would believe in a deity if someone gave them enough evidence to show that one exists means anything.

Who wouldn't believe if given enough information?

I believe that accounts for pretty much everybody, actually--even those belief systems that may be spiritual, but not specifically theistic, like Buddhism.

Such a hierarchy of classification would certainly be simpler for everybody...which, I think, is why most people actually use it.

Not nearly as simple as my system.

And I've never heard of anyone other than you who uses your system.

Of course, there is also that weird group that calls itself 'ignostic.'

In my experience, ignostics mostly jump into productive discussions to point out that not everybody agrees on what "god" means---and therefore we shouldn't even be trying to discuss the subject.