Do you believe in God?

[G.T.Ace]

Yeah, basically the same here. I just finally want church and state seperate properly.

 

[Danoff]

It's fundamental to how knowledge works. If you can fashion a test to prove it wrong, you conduct the test and either prove it wrong (it is false) or fail to prove it wrong (it is not false). The more tests conducted to prove something wrong that fail, the closer we get to knowledge. If you cannot fashion a test to prove it wrong, it can never be proven wrong and can never become knowledge through failing the tests to prove it wrong.

I suspect you'd get less pushback if you said it cannot be known, and therefore is not and never will be part of known reality. I think what's tripping people up is the notion that something could exist that could not be known.

Can the imperceptible chair in my room be known? No. Will it ever be part of my experience of reality? No. Can it exist? Why not?

 

[zzz_pt]

I suspect you'd get less pushback if you said it cannot be known, and therefore is not and never will be part of known reality. I think what's tripping people up is the notion that something could exist that could not be known.

Can the imperceptible chair in my room be known? No. Will it ever be part of my experience of reality? No. Can it exist? Why not?

That is the root of the problem. In this context, religious people will play the "faith" card. If we, in scientific era, admitt this way of thinking, anything can be possible / exist. We need to focus on what is possible to know and understand to evolve as a species. That's why god doesn't enter in labs, scientific papers, etc. Would be worthless, useless and wouldn't give us anything new.

Not a critique, but a follow up.

 

[Danoff]

That is the root of the problem. In this context, religious people will play the "faith" card. If we, in scientific era, admitt this way of thinking, anything can be possible / exist.

Ultimately, anything can be possible/exist. All I truly know about reality is that I exist, and even then only with a careful definition of "I". Non-falsifiable things can never be known, by definition, and you can even go so far as to say that things that cannot be known have no place in a discussion of reality, and are entirely academic. Extending a discussion of reality to that which cannot be known is to extend it to an infinite number of possible permutations, and defeats the entire point of discussing knowledge and reality.

And yet, you can't say they don't exist. The imperceptible chair might exist.

 

[Famine]

The imperceptible chair

... or teapot ...

might exist.

 

[zzz_pt]

Ultimately, anything can be possible/exist. All I truly know about reality is that I exist, and even then only with a careful definition of "I". Non-falsifiable things can never be known, by definition, and you can even go so far as to say that things that cannot be known have no place in a discussion of reality, and are entirely academic. Extending a discussion of reality to that which cannot be known is to extend it to an infinite number of possible permutations, and defeats the entire point of discussing knowledge and reality.

And yet, you can't say they don't exist. The imperceptible chair might exist.

I agreed.

It might, but I won't lose time with it, since it doesn't cross or interferes with the reality that I'm in / percept.


edit: meanwhile, "god" can't decide to intervene in this woman's life. Being it "Yaweh" or "Allah"...

 

[Danoff]

... or teapot ...

Exactly.

...and it deserves no weight, and no consideration, and has no place in a discussion of knowledge and reality.

but it could exist.

 

[sammy neuman]

@Famine: "You are an Atheist..." Well, you asked...

 

[Imari]

...and it deserves no weight, and no consideration, and has no place in a discussion of knowledge and reality.

Which people generally shorthand to "doesn't exist", because it behaves identically to an imperceptible chair that doesn't exist.

Can an imperceptible chair be said to exist if you can't distinguish it from an imperceptible chair that doesn't exist?
Can something actually exist if it is imperceptible by any means?

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Famine: "You are an Atheist..." Well, you asked...

I'm atheist, also an atheist, I'm not sure I'd call myself an Atheist though.

 

[GBO Possum]

I'm from the camp that asks "which god?". Of all the thousands of gods mankind has dreamed up, none pass the snuff test for me.

To all those gods which have ever been credited with having created this universe, I ask another question.

"How come you have never been able to communicate with mankind en masse and unambiguously?"​

Even we mortal humans whose works are insignificant on a galactic scale, manage to simultaneously communicate with hundreds of millions of people. Think World Cup Football as an example.

To have a creator of universes be limited by the geography of this planet just doesn't make sense.

If this creator of universes has been unable to visit the highlands of New Guinea AND the Middle East AND South America (etc), then what chance would this god have of communicating with the intelligent life forms on exoplanets?

It is deeply suspicious to me that all gods share certain characteristics. They all only talk to a very small number of people, and do so secretively and/or in dreams. Their "written words" are contradictory and ambiguous. They allow people to edit and manipulate their words, and never come back to either endorse or make corrections to these manipulations.

 

[zzz_pt]

I find this brilliant.

His music is unique.​

 

[BobK]

I'm from the camp that asks "which god?". Of all the thousands of gods mankind has dreamed up, none pass the snuff test for me.

To all those gods which have ever been credited with having created this universe, I ask another question.

"How come you have never been able to communicate with mankind en masse and unambiguously?"​

I would really really like to see a reasonable answer from the theists here that doesn't amount to "God moves in mysterious ways".

It is deeply suspicious to me that all gods share certain characteristics. They all only talk to a very small number of people, and do so secretively and/or in dreams. Their "written words" are contradictory and ambiguous. They allow people to edit and manipulate their words, and never come back to either endorse or make corrections to these manipulations.

It has to work that way. Else priesthoods would find it much more difficult to gain any traction and acquire power over the faithful.

 

[GBO Possum]

I would really really like to see a reasonable answer from the theists here that doesn't amount to "God moves in mysterious ways".

Yes, that's the ultimate cop-out to avoid evidence-based discussion. It's the signal that it's time to politely leave the conversation and look elsewhere for some rational thinking.

 

[CodeRedR51]

 

[TenEightyOne]

I dunno, some of the stuff God's watched me do over the years, he's some kind of sick freak.

 

[Imari]

I dunno, some of the stuff God's watched me do over the years, he's some kind of sick freak.

God: Owner of the largest collection of pornography in the universe.

 

[G.T.Ace]

I dunno, some of the stuff God's watched me do over the years, he's some kind of sick freak.

Makes it more exciting!

 

[GBO Possum]

Something to Think About:

From nobeliefs.com

"Sometimes I think that if I were going to sue the Catholic Church, it would be for denying me the natural “wonder” that I might have had for the world for almost forty years. That’s the worst thing that religion does, it quells the natural curiosity of human beings towards their surroundings. It’s a drug that makes you feel good in the short run, but makes you pay highest price, it takes your curiosity and awe away."

--Julia Sweeney (Julia Sweeney’s blog, 20 Nov. 06)

 

[zzz_pt]

​

 

[zzz_pt]

No further comments.

(the entire series "Hell is for children" is very powerfull)​

 

[Lizard]

I am throwing this out there not because it is my view but because I am interested to hear the responses.

What would you say to someone believing in God purely because of Pascal's wager?

 

[TenEightyOne]

What would you say to someone believing in God purely because of Pascal's wager?

I believe that they cannot, they would do so only to offset the risk as there is nothing in there to describe or recommend God or religion, only a logical description of wager and benefit.

It also presumes that belief/theism actually gets you the Golden Ticket, and not the Long Ride Down.

Carrier says "Suppose there is a god who is watching us and choosing which souls of the deceased to bring to heaven, and this god really does want only the morally good to populate heaven. He will probably select from only those who made a significant and responsible effort to discover the truth. . .Therefore, only such people can be sufficiently moral and trustworthy to deserve a place in heaven — unless God wishes to fill heaven with the morally lazy, irresponsible, or untrustworthy."

(Source)

 

[Sick Lenny]

I am throwing this out there not because it is my view but because I am interested to hear the responses.

What would you say to someone believing in God purely because of Pascal's wager?

I would say "That's the kind of answer I would expect from a mathematician!"

Kidding aside, the wager rationale works great for the real (physical world) probability outcomes, but not the moral/metaphysical. You only get one life (unless you believe your soul is recycled), and living it as honest as you can has always been one of my beliefs, so "believing" something artificially just to maybe save my eternal but would not a happy life make (cognitive dissonance). I suspect suspect many others would be the same, we live like we believe (mostly), that is why we live the way we do. I would argue that his idea that not much is lost if there is no heaven. If you only look at it from the point of eternal damnation vs. a (relatively shorter) dishonest live, yes it seems like his is a good bet. But what about looking at it from the point of there is no afterlife and you have WASTED your one and only life sucking up to a hoax? I wager that (as a non believer) our most important work is here on Earth, and that our eternal selves are the next generation (whether ours or not). Our "salvation" is doing real work right here on Earth to move the human race one more step to true enlightenment (whatever that may be). I consider losing that the greater loss.

That being my personal philosophy rationale against it, the undisputable flaw, as TenEightyOne quoted above, is that the premise defies the idea behind getting to the good afterlife anyway. God (in whatever flavor it has existed) has wanted those who are honest and selfless, true believers (among other things). A person who just went through the motions to cover their eternal butt would, by most religions' requirements, NOT get in. So it is, in (metaphysical) reality, a lose-lose situation.

 

[Exorcet]

I am throwing this out there not because it is my view but because I am interested to hear the responses.

What would you say to someone believing in God purely because of Pascal's wager?

Probability of being right is 1/number of choices.

Number of choices for unfalsifiable claims: infinity

Probability of picking the right one: zero

Probability of any one choice being correct: zero

So basically it boils down to your beliefs doing nothing to help your chances.

To go into more detail, the wager is phrased to make it sound like you have nothing to lose:

Choice 1 - God, prize: the best everything

Choice 2 - not God, prize: nothing

God is not proven and is only a possibility in a very loose sense because God can't be proven. As such all things that can't be proven are equal in weight.

Choice 3 - God that sends atheists to heaven and believers to hell

Choice 4 - God that only sends people on the equator to heaven

Choice 5 - God that only sends people off the equator to heaven

Choice 6 ...

It's clear that trying to pick a safe bet is futile.

 

[Beav]

I can't/never will be able to imagine life without the belief in God. Also - this is just an observation, but I have yet to meet or see an atheist that is truly happy. I don't know, just something I noticed. It seems like atheists are always unhappy, on the brink of suicide, or homosexual. I'm sure there are unhappy Christians, but I can't see it as being the same. Just my opinion.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I can't/never will be able to imagine life without the belief in God. Also - this is just an observation, but I have yet to meet or see an atheist that is truly happy. I don't know, just something I noticed. It seems like atheists are always unhappy, on the brink of suicide, or homosexual. I'm sure there are unhappy Christians, but I can't see it as being the same. Just my opinion.

I have yet to meet a single person not on some amazing pain killers that is truly happy every day of the year. It's just not realistic. Life events happen and things become unpleasant, using this to justify that belief is better than disbelief is a bit of a cop out. I mean unhappy is unhappy. A Christian that cant pay the bills is just as unhappy as an Atheist that can't pay them. One prays to god the other doesn't, one gets a bit more unhappy (not all) when those prayers aren't answered the other doesn't and just gets more unhappy cause they can't make the money. I don't see the difference, sorry.

 

[Imari]

I am throwing this out there not because it is my view but because I am interested to hear the responses.

What would you say to someone believing in God purely because of Pascal's wager?

I would tell them to learn more about logic.

I can't/never will be able to imagine life without the belief in God. Also - this is just an observation, but I have yet to meet or see an atheist that is truly happy. I don't know, just something I noticed. It seems like atheists are always unhappy, on the brink of suicide, or homosexual. I'm sure there are unhappy Christians, but I can't see it as being the same. Just my opinion.

Do you believe that there are no happy atheists?

It's entirely within the realm of possibility that every atheist you met has been unhappy, especially if you live in an area without many atheists.

But I would consider myself an atheist, and although my life has moments when it's not so flash, pretty much every day I find opportunity to think about how I have it pretty sweet. I have a comfortable house with plenty of nice food to eat, I have a nice car to drive and another nice broken car to work on, I have lots of spare time to play video games and get drunk with friends, I'm reasonably fit, I'm not bad to look at, I'm fairly smart and I have a job that's engaging and pays me a good wage. I could use a girlfriend, preferably one who isn't a psycho hose beast this time, but that would really be the icing on the cake.

I don't see how believing in God would really add anything for me. I'm quite happy that I'll live my life being the best man that I can.

If there's a God and I meet him when I die, then a good God will recognise that I've lived a good life. I've tried to help others when I can, and generally follow the Golden Rule.
If God turns out to be enough of an asshole that he would send me to hell just for not believing in him even though I've lived a good life, I have no desire to waste that life on him.

 

[orimarc]

It seems like atheists are always unhappy, on the brink of suicide, or homosexual.

Well, I imagine the last one could be helped by the "GAY MARRIAGE IS A SIN!" proclamations from some Christian clerics and politicians (also Internet forum dwellers, but those can be against ANYTHING).

 

[Dan]

I can't/never will be able to imagine life without the belief in God. Also - this is just an observation, but I have yet to meet or see an atheist that is truly happy. I don't know, just something I noticed. It seems like atheists are always unhappy, on the brink of suicide, or homosexual. I'm sure there are unhappy Christians, but I can't see it as being the same. Just my opinion.

I have been living my life without god just fine for several years, just like many others on this page and website, your neighborhood, your town, your city, your county, your state, your country, your continent, your hemisphere, and more importantly, your planet. Yes, I am very, very unhappy with myself and my life and I am bisexual, but that's beside the point. As others have said, there are people from all world religions that are happy and unhappy. I am from none of those and I'm unhappy, but I have atheist friends who seem very content with their lives, at least on the outside.

That's another thing: You don't know how someone truly feels on the inside. A Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Mormon, Hindu, or member of whatever other world religion can appear happy on the outside, but hate themselves on the inside.

As for the part where you explicitly say you will never be able to comprehend life without a deity, I suggest you start to question things. Whether it's your surroundings, origins, beliefs, what someone is saying to you, just keep thinking. That is one of the most crucial things you can ever do in this day and age. You were born with the ability to think independently. Use it. It is one of your most valuable possessions; Never let anyone or anything take that from you.

. . . . . . . . . . .

This will probably get me into some hot water, but I think religion causes more problems than it hopes to solve. Religion gives people hope and comfort, but it's also responsible for people committing atrocities. I believe everyone should be allowed to believe in what they want to, but I really don't like it when someone tries to use their beliefs to justify war, hate speech/racism, or other unspeakable acts. There are so many conflicts and wars that have been fought over differing religious beliefs. We all bleed red and live on the same rock. I think we ought to realize that as humans, we are the same and should use the minds and spines we were given to benefit the lives of others, not destroy them in an attempt to make everyone think the same as you.