Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ampersand]

I know I can never tell a religious person that god does not exist and be believed. I never attempt to, and I never make that claim.

What I can say, and what I do claim is that their reasons for believing in such things are demonstrably flawed.

So what do you do when someone doesn't have reasons for believing?

A person who believes in something has a reason to believe it, stated or unstated. If you can think of something that anyone anywhere believes in without a reason to believe it, even a bad reason, please show me.

[Vester]

Ohhh you meant bad reasons as well? Well then I've got nothing.

[RAM]

What I can say, and what I do claim is that their reasons for believing in such things are demonstrably flawed.

You think justified belief required objective reason, I do not. It's just your view of "justified belief" differs from mine--. And I believe subjective beliefs have nothing to do with the truth so I do not demand more than subjective reason for a belief.

"The voices said I had to" "I *NEED*!!! some more <insert focus of addiction>" "they owed me" "mongrels like that don't deserve to live!"
Some poorly verified justifications are dangerous and most societies choose to severely punish people who act upon them. Religion is a dangerous delusion that is common and has very good PR...

If the justifications applied to religion were applied to more practical matters they would quickly be dismissed due to their unreliability. Logic and reason are much more successful and can be applied to spiritual and theological queries. There really isn't any value to the application of blind faith.

Belief is used as a substitute for the truth, claiming that truth has no relevance to belief seems exceeding short-sighted to me...

In my estimation the atheist model is much more likely to be more accurate of reality than the theist model.

I agree.
But you see, "In my estimation the theist model is much more likely to be more accurate of reality than the atheist model."... You estimate based on what? No proof of God? Hmm... statistics for God existing with every new claim for miracle?

Various arguments to support the absence of relevant gods have been raised in this thread. In order for miracles to a justification for belief they would need to be relevant.
 The large number of people with no access to relevant miracles demonstrates that religion is either exclusive or does not rely upon miracles. If religion is exclusive then a god is specifically engineering a situation in which the correct choice is the assumption is that there are no gods, at which point one accepting it would require a god that demands foolishness, which is not something I would currently value...
 The lack of examples of publically accessible miracles suggests that they are difficult to verify and lack independent scrutiny, so they are most likely considered miracles only due to individuals arbitrarily describing them as miracles due to pre-existing bias. Claims of miracles gain notoriety, there are many perceived values to having witnessed a miracle, forgeries are inevitable...

Your mindset might be one that rejects supernatural, but on the other hand, there are people who aren't as skeptic.

Rejecting the supernatural has nothing to do with it, it is simply pursuing a reliable scenario instead of an unreliable one. If assuming the supernatural results in a more reliable depiction of reality then it is appropriate. So long as possession of a rabbit's foot shows no sign of increasing prosperity then I will consider it foolish to go to the time and expense to acquire one...

Now when a Jehova's witness or jessuit or hare Crishnah tries to discuss with me the errors of my perception of reality, I return the favour...

They state your perception of reality has errors, you state they are stupid

ahem

"I don't neccesarely believe x myself, but as I cannot possibly state something I estimate likely is true or even likely to be true, so I accept whatever anyone else believes about x."

Are you saying that the truth is unattainable so there is no value in trying?
That argument ends with the discovery that "I think therefore I am" is hopelessly flawed and in fact there is no undoubtable proof that space, time, or yourself exist at all. You will end up making some assumptions, and some assumptions are more reliable than others, ignoring this is folly...

Statment "I know God is unlikely to exist" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "God is unlikely to exist", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as God being true is binary, but that is just estimate. If it's not knowledge, but I think it's more likely to be this way, it's my belief. If I don't have knowledge, I shouldn't go selling it as one.

The statement "I know this coin will land tails up" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "coin will land tails up", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as upright face of coin is binary, but that is just estimate. But the coin is magnetic and there is a massive magnet under the table. If I don't have knowledge, I shouldn't claim it as such, but that doesn't mean that I won't ALWAYS be right...

One CAN make arguments about the existence of gods based upon observations of good assumptions and can deduce that the existence of patrons, divine beings, creators, or universal wills are more or less likely, although exact figures are going to be hard to come by...

[Neruz]

Belief is used as a substitute for the truth, claiming that truth has no relevance to belief seems exceeding short-sighted to me...

You mean 'Faith', not 'Belief'.

[Vester]

I've already said this, but you weren't around. For religious people, Belief is an expression of faith, so they are inextricable.

(RAM was around when I said that, I think, but not you)

[RAM]

I don't really see much point is separating faith, belief, and trust, there are minor differences in connotations and usage but they all seem to be basically the same thing...

[Neruz]

Belief is simply an opinion or conviction. Faith, however, is specifically Belief without Proof.

I believe that i have a concrete driveway. Why do i believe this? Because i've seen it. I have proof in the form of the driveway outside that i have a concrete driveway.


On the other hand, if i believe in the eponymous invisible pink unicorns of the invisible pink unicorn comparison, i do not have proof, so my belief is Faith.

[Pjoo]

The statement "I know this coin will land tails up" is illogical, cause there cannot be knowledge that "coin will land tails up", knowledge means it's true, but that cannot be true, as upright face of coin is binary, but that is just estimate. But the coin is magnetic and there is a massive magnet under the table. If I don't have knowledge, I shouldn't claim it as such, but that doesn't mean that I won't ALWAYS be right...

One CAN make arguments about the existence of gods based upon observations of good assumptions and can deduce that the existence of patrons, divine beings, creators, or universal wills are more or less likely, although exact figures are going to be hard to come by...

True. What's your point? And anyways, it's different, you didn't say coin is very likely to land up.
These assumptions you make and these observations you do, they make you feel creators are less likely, but they are subject to being observation errors, false assumptions, false beliefs, false values and bias. For example, you cannot give any kind of value of likely truth to you being more than brain in a jar and everything else being created by übercomputer, if there is no logical errors with the thing.

Some poorly verified justifications are dangerous and most societies choose to severely punish people who act upon them. Religion is a dangerous delusion that is common and has very good PR...

Of course. You cannot prove your belief is right on claims based on accepted methods of proving beliefs of society, thus you should be punished. Or well, justice thing is really up to debate also. I cannot expect others to share my beliefs, so I shouldn't limit their liberty based on it.
*spank spank*

If the justifications applied to religion were applied to more practical matters they would quickly be dismissed due to their unreliability. Logic and reason are much more successful and can be applied to spiritual and theological queries. There really isn't any value to the application of blind faith.

Belief is used as a substitute for the truth, claiming that truth has no relevance to belief seems exceeding short-sighted to me...

Again, claiming "God may exist" is reliable, being always true and such. Thinking it is more likely to exist is only matter of your world view. Truth has no relevance to belief, cause it is impossible to know the truth with certainity without deductive arguments.

    They state your perception of reality has errors, you state they are stupid

ahem

What?

Rejecting the supernatural has nothing to do with it, it is simply pursuing a reliable scenario instead of an unreliable one. If assuming the supernatural results in a more reliable depiction of reality then it is appropriate. So long as possession of a rabbit's foot shows no sign of increasing prosperity then I will consider it foolish to go to the time and expense to acquire one...

Good for you.

Various arguments to support the absence of relevant gods have been raised in this thread. In order for miracles to a justification for belief they would need to be relevant.
 The large number of people with no access to relevant miracles demonstrates that religion is either exclusive or does not rely upon miracles. If religion is exclusive then a god is specifically engineering a situation in which the correct choice is the assumption is that there are no gods, at which point one accepting it would require a god that demands foolishness, which is not something I would currently value...
 The lack of examples of publically accessible miracles suggests that they are difficult to verify and lack independent scrutiny, so they are most likely considered miracles only due to individuals arbitrarily describing them as miracles due to pre-existing bias. Claims of miracles gain notoriety, there are many perceived values to having witnessed a miracle, forgeries are inevitable...

Well, basically, all faith is result of someone withnessing "Thats-a-proof-for-God"-event, just some religious experience they cannot explain other way, or authority of such person who either withnessed such relevation or was convinced by someone who believed in that authority. Or just world view that requires faith to be likely.
I think I have right to believe my mother isn't stealing my money, even though Im ignorant enough to just assume that. I have faith in her.
I believe phycisists say about particle physics, I think it's likely they aren't just draining research funds, I think they are making real scientific progress, but I am too stupid to evaluate well any test results they make, and I really don't have chance of testing their theories. It's basically as likely to be "true to me" than anything many intelligent people say about thing that makes sense to me in a way that it can exist, but Im still believing in their authority claims of observing that something happened.

Are you saying that the truth is unattainable so there is no value in trying?
That argument ends with the discovery that "I think therefore I am" is hopelessly flawed and in fact there is no undoubtable proof that space, time, or yourself exist at all. You will end up making some assumptions, and some assumptions are more reliable than others, ignoring this is folly...

Im saying, trying to make up what this universe is about is important, and I should think what is likely and what is not, figure it out so it makes sense to me, but I cannot say I can ever have knowledge of certain things. So I can believe god is unlikely to exist, I cannot state it as fact, as it it based on my belief system, which consist of my ideologies, life stance, religion or lack of it, philosophies, basically my world view as whole, and I cannot say any of those are better than others, because most philosophies you pick to be likely for example, are based on what you believe represents the reality.

[Neruz]

I think we've still got some serious communication issues.

I don't think anyone is trying to say "God doesn't exist. End of story." What we're trying to say is "There is no evidence for God existing. Thus for all practical purposes it can be stated that he does not exist, as things which have little or no evidence to support them have a sufficiently low chance that it can generally be safely ignored."

I cannot say with absolute 100% certainty that when i drop this apple it will fall to the ground. I can say that for all practical purposes, it is a truth that the apple will fall to the ground when i drop it. This is not a scientific truth, as such a thing does not exist; it is a practical truth, which means that the chance of it being false is sufficiently small (infinitesimal is best, but sub-1% when dealing with small numbers is usually good enougH) that such a chance can be safely disregarded.

[RAM]

I am pretty sure that I remember saying that it isn't possible for any organised religion to be true. I don't remember the argument I used though...

[Neruz]

It's impossible for anything to be scientifically true unless you are Omnipotent. It's quite possible for things to be practically true however.

[Pjoo]

It's impossible for anything to be scientifically true unless you are Omnipotent. It's quite possible for things to be practically true however.

Basically, according to philosophy of science, scientific truth means that when expiriment is made, observable outcome can be deducted from the theory, and if the outcome is different, theory is wrong. It is true when it is worded right.

And again, im not saying science gives or states it gives 100% certain truths. It gives deductible arguments, like, assuming following are true
1) theory of gravity tells us the ball will fall down
2) theory of gravity is true
-> Ball will fall down

And because they are both fallible and because no matter who performs a scientific experiment, all observers will agree on the outcome, "ball falls down", it can be said to be likely truth, it is objective. It can be proven wrong if it isn't the truth. Unless it is the truth for all the practical purposes, then again, what's the difference? Occam's Razor cuts out the crap, simplest reason is more practical if it can explain all the phenomena.

I don't think anyone is trying to say "God doesn't exist. End of story."

"God is fantasy, get over it." quite felt to me like that, sorry, certainly communication issue then.
And also with the stating that it is knowledge that "god is unlike to exist", that was the other I wanted to clarify. It is knowledge to say that there isn't any objective empirical evidence for God, God can't be tested, if it could, it wouldn't be God.

[RAM]

So you are saying that a god that was verifiable wouldn't be a god? So if a golden cow god appeared and started running around as a golden cow, granting wishes, preaching the way of the golden cow, doling out irrefutable truths, and generally being a golden cow god that its physical presence and observable actions would prove that it wasn't a god?

[Pjoo]

So you are saying that a god that was verifiable wouldn't be a god? So if a golden cow god appeared and started running around as a golden cow, granting wishes, preaching the way of the golden cow, doling out irrefutable truths, and generally being a golden cow god that its physical presence and observable actions would prove that it wasn't a god?

If it could be tested. Could you test that if you ask God for a car, he always give it to you? Or what is it based on if God gives you a car or not? If any times that doesn't happen, you have to "fix" God then

EDIT: It's a bit hard to explain really. But God can do whatever he wants, right, so God can just choose to break the empirical God.

[Leafsnail]

Which very conveniently leads to "Whichever way the experiment goes, it's proof of God's existance".