Is it reasonable to believe in God?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #130]

Is atheism a hope and a wish?

Nontheists don't really agree on what atheism is. Questions re atheism will have a variety of answers as a consequence.

It's squarely in the domain of philosophy and theology.

I think the confusion has to do with using "Atheism" to define more than just the one position.
I would urge all readers to consider referring to 'atheists' as 'nontheists' and eventually the fog will clear.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #123]

Ideas and thoughts're products of a sentient, physical brain.

Perhaps no more'n this sentence being the product of a computer.

It merely recorded your thoughts in digital form.

Is a computer alive? A dead physical brain produces no thoughts or ideas.

Better an indicator that thoughts and ideas are the product of the brain.

A working brain ["alive"] is useful in working with ideas and thoughts but is it really the thing which produces those ideas and thoughts?

I'd be surprised to find out it ain't.

It is an interesting topic, given that we know the brain is unable to show the user the fundamental reality of what we think of as 'reality'.

Even if 'the user' is the brain itself [as emergent theory implies] , the user is still unable to show itself or see for itself the fundamental reality and so all we have are impressions, which come through as ideas/thoughts.

I never much cared for the term "fundamental reality".

Reality needs no such modifiers.

[JoeyKnothead]

Ideas and thoughts're products of a sentient, physical brain.

Products of, sure. But not contained by. Ideas can be produced, expressed, or stored by brains or other physical matter, but they have a life of their own beyond such corporeal forms.

Take atheism for example, which is equally of the spirit realm.

I've never met an atheist spirit. Nor have I ever met a spirit.

"Spirit" is where we hide our ignorance.

Are you telling me there isn't an atheism in itself? Some separate, non-physical thing that exists only as pure idea? Something that motivates and is the end of all atheist argument and research? A surplus beyond any of the physical matter that's ever been used to produce, express, or store it? Some perfect, universal theory of atheism (and everything else) whether its been conceived by a physical brain or not?

Here's the perfect, universal theory of atheism...

A: non
Theist: believer in a god or gods

Fair enough if so. I suppose this debate does go to the very origins of philosophy and science (see Raphael's School of Athens for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens).

(But hey, at least Aristotle, that great scientist, recognized the importance of this non-material substance, and called its study First Philosophy / Theology. )

We have no way of knowing what Aristotle thinks about such things, in light of humanity's vastly increased knowledge, since his untimely demise.

Is atheism a hope and a wish? It's squarely in the domain of philosophy and theology.

See the universal theory of atheism above.

I reckon though, it's my wish, my hope, to have theists stop imposing their beliefs on folks through threats of eternal damnation, the courts, and such other dastardly means. But since other theists've expressed the same sentiment...

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to theophile in post #130]

Is atheism a hope and a wish?

Nontheists don't really agree on what atheism is. Questions re atheism will have a variety of answers as a consequence.

It's squarely in the domain of philosophy and theology.

I think the confusion has to do with using "Atheism" to define more than just the one position.
I would urge all readers to consider referring to 'atheists' as 'nontheists' and eventually the fog will clear.

Good idea, I'll try to start using nontheist best I can.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #132]

I never much cared for the term "fundamental reality".

On the other hand, scientists do, and probably coined the phrase out of respect for its existence.

Reality needs no such modifiers.

If that were the case, they wouldn't exist for scientist to discover.

Discovery is finding things that exist.

Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #133]

I reckon though, it's my wish, my hope, to have theists stop imposing their beliefs on folks through threats of eternal damnation, the courts, and such other dastardly means.

Some theists already do this.
We can agree that the threats et al are the shadow of social morality and social beliefs have a lot to do with that, especially noticeable within The Realms of Democracy.

If we want democracy then we have to accept that voters have beliefs and those beliefs are reflected through the laws that politicians create.

I am in doubt that removing the religious flavoring will result in anything socially better.

Impositions naturally create protest, whether they derive from theistic or nontheistic beliefs.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #132]

I never much cared for the term "fundamental reality".

On the other hand, scientists do, and probably coined the phrase out of respect for its existence.

I'll let them fuss about it then. I see no need for the term.

Reality needs no such modifiers.

If that were the case, they wouldn't exist for scientist to discover.

I just see it as a binary option - something either exists in reality, or it doesn't. That's about as "fundamental" as reality gets.

Discovery is finding things that exist.

Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

It's actually a term of endearment, my calling you a dirty dog for using that

I do try my best to understand and learn, but for me reality is a yes/no type of deal.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #137]

I just see it as a binary option - something either exists in reality, or it doesn't. That's about as "fundamental" as reality gets.

Your seeing of it is incomplete then, according to the science...

I do try my best to understand and learn, but for me reality is a yes/no type of deal.

I hear you. I can assume that you give that much grace to everyone else, my friend...for not everyone sees it the way you do and you can be content with that. We call can.

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in God?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that God exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

Or, is it reasonable to believe life exists on other planets? But there exists a HUGE disparity between me reasonably believing, verses being reasonably convinced. Same goes for 'god.' 'Reasonable' seems to be a very low standard, when faced with the question of supposing a "life-changing god'.

So, your answer to my question is 'Yes'?

[JoeyKnothead]

I just see it as a binary option - something either exists in reality, or it doesn't. That's about as "fundamental" as reality gets.

Your seeing of it is incomplete then, according to the science...

I'll stick with logic on this'n.

I do try my best to understand and learn, but for me reality is a yes/no type of deal.

I hear you. I can assume that you give that much grace to everyone else, my friend...for not everyone sees it the way you do and you can be content with that. We all can.

I, an adamant "god/s don't exist" nontheist must respect my perceptions may cloud my thinking. If god/s exist, my beliefs don't change that reality.

Consider your Cosmic Mind hypothesis. If I'm just an apparitional thought of that mind, that's reality. No matter how much I think I'm in a physical reality, I ain't. Reality doesn't fret our beliefs. There's no need to call it a "fundamental" reality when in reality, it's reality.

So I'm not sure how folks can say there's some other type of reality, some "fundamental reality", unless they seek to sneak in some kind of nonreality. This is where I fret, in relation to the OP, such a term may be used. It just reeks of a need to redefine the concept of what is, or ain't, reality itself.