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.

[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.

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.

Belief is not certain knowledge, but the language (thanks to those who putz with the dictionary) allows for fuzzy thinking. Is belief a claim to certainty? Does it dispense with doubt? Agnostics, btw, are those who do not claim to "know", not just anybody else. If we're going to think logically we need to use precise language. Revealed theists and corrupt politicians prefer to play with definitions.

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.

"Anybody else", sloppy language which leads to sloppy thinking. There are those who are certain and those who are unsure and doubt. How does the language differentiate them?

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.

Exactly! Which is what I'm having to do because the language has been so obfuscated. Again, how can the language differentiate between certainty and something less than certainty?

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.

My previous post to the one I said that. I didn't start this thread.

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.

I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God. Even Stephen Hawking has had to back down from his absolute atheism--albeit begrudgingly. Richard Dawkins as well, though he did it with a good deal more grace. They're all coming face-to-face with the total lack of any knowledge from the other side of the Big Bang.

[dianaiad]

Who wouldn't believe if given enough information?

Those who do not wish to do so.

And there are such folks out there. They are of the stated opinion that there is no possibility of ever being 'enough' information to get them to believe in a deity, because there is no deity. Period.

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.

Have you not?

I'm not surprised.

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.

Perhaps. Perhaps it's just that the name sounds cool.

Or perhaps they are serious in their claim that the concept of 'god' is, ultimately, indescribable.

[wiploc]

Who wouldn't believe if given enough information?

Those who do not wish to do so.

And there are such folks out there. They are of the stated opinion that there is no possibility of ever being 'enough' information to get them to believe in a deity, because there is no deity. Period.

It seems obvious that you cannot have any evidence for a contradiction. What would it take to prove a round circle or a married bachelor? No evidence could even tend in that direction.

So, if we were discussing a contradictory god, the the PoE (problem of evil) god, then I'd say there can't be any evidence in support of that.

But that leaves all the other gods open to proof.

Or perhaps they are serious in their claim that the concept of 'god' is, ultimately, indescribable.

Some particular concept of god might be, I suppose, maybe. But that doesn't mean that they all have to be indescribable.

[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.

Belief is not certain knowledge, but the language (thanks to those who putz with the dictionary) allows for fuzzy thinking.

Okay.

Is belief a claim to certainty?

No.

Does it dispense with doubt?

No.

Agnostics, btw, are those who do not claim to "know", not just anybody else.

If we gloss over the "claim" language, this accords with the second system I set out, the one I use myself.

If we're going to think logically we need to use precise language. ...

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.

"Anybody else", sloppy language which leads to sloppy thinking.

Not true. You want a set of definitions to be a normalized database: everybody fits into a category, and nobody fits into more than one category. "Anybody else," is exact. It makes it clear that the categories are exhaustive, they include everybody.

There are those who are certain and those who are unsure and doubt. How does the language differentiate them?

Gnostics are certain, and agnostics doubt. (Again, this is the second system. The first system is muddier on this point.)

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.

Exactly! Which is what I'm having to do because the language has been so obfuscated.

The second system, the one most popular among atheists, is not at all unclear.

Again, how can the language differentiate between certainty and something less than certainty?

Again, gnostics are certain and agnostics not.

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.

My previous post to the one I said that. I didn't start this thread.

Then, no.

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.

I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God.

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

[ThePainefulTruth]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

[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?

The question is whether the universe was created/designed, or came to be spontaneously.

Oh, that's the question? I'm sorry, I don't remember modifying my OP. I think what you mean to say is that the question inside your head is that. You're absolutely welcome to discuss that in detail in your own thread, and reprimend those who go into tangents. But here the question is not "Is there more evidence for a deist God than there is for the absence of one". Here the question is "What do you believe and why". I hope that's clear.

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.

I actually agree with you. I addressed the issue in the section of my response to you relating to "unfalsifiable questions", as you would know if you'd bothered reading it.

I agree that we cannot possibly know what lies outside our knowledge. Currently, how the universe came to be lies outside our knowledge. Hence speculation about what caused it (a God or a mechnaism not involving a God) is completely pointless.

Here's the thing: I don't know of a single atheist who proclaims that evidence exists against a deist God.

If there were atheists who proclaimed evidence of the inexistence of a deist God, I'd be right beside you condeming them of being as dogmatic as the religious. But since there aren't any, you may want to stop beating up that strawman. You're scattering straw all over the room, and it's going to be a pain in the butt to clean it all up.

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

Stop right there. You can disprove revealed strawman gods till your blue in the face,

Ah! Revealed Gods are a strawman? So you're saying that there aren't people in the world who believe in revealed gods?

Have you ever heard of Christianity?

Here, for your persual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity

but your still left with the two possibilities above: a laissez-faire God or no god.

Sure, as long as you ignore the majority of humanity who believes neither in a laissez-faire God or in no God, but rather in an omnipotent, omnipresent, manifest, intervening God, then sure, those are the only two possibilities. All it takes for your analysis to make sense is for about 95% of humanity to be ignored.

Look. Atheism is the response to theism. Not to deism.

I bet there are a couple of strong "adeists" out there, and your criticism of their dogmatic belief is wholly justified, but you want to be careful at aiming your criticism at those two or three lunatic adeists out there, and not at the millions of atheists who are absolutely justified in claiming there is strong evidence against talking donkeys and virgin births.

Your parallel completely undetectable universe is undetectable and therefore irrelevant.

My undetectable parallel universe is a perfectly valid analogy for an undetectable deist God. Both are undetectable, both are beyond evidentiary exploration, in both cases belief in them or disbelief in them is unjustified.

I agree with you, that the two or three people locked inside insane asylums who believe there is EVIDENCE for the absence of deist Gods or absence of parallel universe are wrong.

But what's that got to do with the millions of atheists who simply point out that the laws of gravity constitute evidence for the fact that horses can't fly?

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.

Again, I agree with you. All the arguments which demonstrate that theism is wrong, do not speak on whether Gods, intelligences, parallel universes, magical unicorns, etc exists beyond our detection or not.

I completely agree with you. As does every atheist in the world.

There may be a couple of "adeists" (people who believe there is evidence for the absolute non-existence of entities beyond our ability to detect) who disagree with you. Once we are able to locate where on the planet this couple of deranged lunatics exist, you can count on my full support in your criticism of them.

But please don't mischaracterize atheists and don't level criticism at them for beliefs they do not hold.

Thanks

[atheist buddy]

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.

Ok, I don't know what you're answer was, and don't mean to pry if you don't wish to share it.

Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that the answer you got was, I dunno, that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and is the son of God.

Let's call that "Truth statement 1".

"Truth statement 2" is this: Jesus was born of a witch impregnated by Satan, after his crucifiction he descended into hell, he is the son of Pat Robertson.

Here is "trust statement 3": The earth is a sphere.

Truth statement 4: The earth is a pizza shaped disk resting on the back of a giant turtle


Can you agree that truth statement 3 is correct and truth statement 4 is not correct? Can you agree that there is tangible data equally well accessible to anybody who cares to examine it, which clearly points to statement 3 being true and statement 4 being not true?


Imagine that you were talking to somebody who believed satement 2 is true, as strongly as you believe statement 1 is true. His subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer is just as strong as your mutually exclusive subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer.

That being the case, is there anything you can say to make the argument that your belief in statement 1 is in any way suuperior, more true, more worthy than his belief in statement 2?


Your justification for believing what you believe, is no better and no worse than anybody else's justification for believing ANYTHING.

Do you agree that your belief in statement 1, is actually no more valid than somebody's belief in statement 2?

[wiploc]

You made that up. If you want to be taken seriously, don't do that.

I made what up? I said, "I've already admitted that the Christain (or any "revealed") God doesn't reasonably exist. But you claim to know that there is no God, not even a deistic God." What part is wrong?

The part about me.

[bluethread]

Do you agree that your belief in statement 1, is actually no more valid than somebody's belief in statement 2?

What is "actually more valid"? Valid based on what? Validity is not an absolute concept that hangs in mid air. Validity speaks of how something applies to a particular standard. What you appear to be doing is presuming the empirical scientific model as a given against which everything else is compared. That is itself absolutist. Dianaid has clearly stated that she does not accept scientific empiricism as sufficient to explain certain things and I concur. In fact, it has been shown empirically that we presume certain things to be valid based on comparing individual mental constructs. Those who do not share a common mental construct do not accept the validity of that particular mental construct. Ultimately empiricism breaks down to either a shared mental construct or a subjugation of ones own mental construct to the agreed construct of another. Color blindness is a good example. You can not establish green as an empirical fact to the yellow blind person. The yellow blind person just accepts that some blue things are actually green because others say so, ie on faith.

[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.

Ok, I don't know what you're answer was, and don't mean to pry if you don't wish to share it.

Let's say, purely for the sake of argument, that the answer you got was, I dunno, that Jesus was born of a virgin, raised from the dead, and is the son of God.

Let's call that "Truth statement 1".

"Truth statement 2" is this: Jesus was born of a witch impregnated by Satan, after his crucifiction he descended into hell, he is the son of Pat Robertson.

Here is "trust statement 3": The earth is a sphere.

Truth statement 4: The earth is a pizza shaped disk resting on the back of a giant turtle


Can you agree that truth statement 3 is correct and truth statement 4 is not correct? Can you agree that there is tangible data equally well accessible to anybody who cares to examine it, which clearly points to statement 3 being true and statement 4 being not true?


Imagine that you were talking to somebody who believed satement 2 is true, as strongly as you believe statement 1 is true. His subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer is just as strong as your mutually exclusive subjective conviction based on study, thought and prayer.

That being the case, is there anything you can say to make the argument that your belief in statement 1 is in any way suuperior, more true, more worthy than his belief in statement 2?


Your justification for believing what you believe, is no better and no worse than anybody else's justification for believing ANYTHING.

Do you agree that your belief in statement 1, is actually no more valid than somebody's belief in statement 2?

Please stop asking 'do you agree?" I find it manipulative in the rather irritating way that Socratic questioning generally is. Frankly, it annoys me greatly.

I'm a theist, a Christian and a Mormon. I am a 'true believer' in all of that, so, quite obviously, I. do. not. agree.

As well, I have made quite clear that there is difference between science and religion. I do not believe that one can use the methods of one to examine the ideas of the other. Scientific methods are for the things that science can actually examine...and not for the things it cannot, like philosophy and religion.

The methods theists use to deal with religious ideas cannot be used for the things science can be used for. The problems arise when people mix the two things up and attempt to use science for religious things, and religion for scientific things.

As for the different answers that people get when they pray...I'm rather astounded that you actually acknowledge that it's possible for people to get answers in this way, even if those answers seem to contradict one another.

After a few decades of thinking about exactly this, here is the conclusion I came to: my opinion, mind you, but as a working hypothesis it seems viable:

Truth is found in all belief systems. Even the most vile (as seen from outside) system will have some grain of truth in it. The 'golden rule,' for instance, is 'true' no matter what silliness may surround it. So are things like 'be loyal to your spouse," and "respect your parents" and "be honest in your dealings." As well, if there is a God, as I believe there is, then no matter what the belief system is that describes that deity, the answer to the question "are you there?" will be 'yes."

The problem lies in the tendency of people to take the confirmation of one truth and apply it to everything around it, as well.

...............like the guy who, finding an opal on the ground, decides that everything around it is also opals. That won't be true, but the opal he found remains an opal, whether the sand he found it in is opal dust or not.

So...do people who pray about their religious beliefs get what seem to be contradictory answers? Sure.

The operative word, though, is 'seems.' Maybe they aren't a bit contradictory.

Maybe the Catholic who asks "Are you there?" and gets a positive answer, and the Hindu who also asks 'Are you there?" are getting the same answer: yes, God Is. It's all the add ons that might be problematic.

Of course, the above is my opinion. I like it. I'll keep it.