[Guest]

Any person can comment on this post, but it's geared towards Christians (Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, etc.) Anyone can post the first subject of conversation. Just discuss issues about the religion (Heaven, evangelism,etc.)

[Framm 18]

Back the poker scenario. The best choice WAS to fold. I would go so far to say he SHOULD have folded. He made a stupid bet and happened to get lucky, that's all. If you were in the same situation I would advise folding instead of betting and losing money.

That is where I disagree the SMART choice was to fold, and I agree he should have folded, but ultimately the BEST choice was to make that bet, since it resulted in the best outcome.

As for the Bob example, so if you could walk away with a penny or have a chance to win a $1,000,000, the best option is to take the penny? Granted I can see where a penny is better than nothing, but does it really make up for the amount of time that was wasted making up your mind, or any of the other variables that happen to be present in that case.

[peace*out]

That is where I disagree the SMART choice was to fold, and I agree he should have folded, but ultimately the BEST choice was to make that bet, since it resulted in the best outcome.

As for the Bob example, so if you could walk away with a penny or have a chance to win a $1,000,000, the best option is to take the penny? Granted I can see where a penny is better than nothing, but does it really make up for the amount of time that was wasted making up your mind, or any of the other variables that happen to be present in that case.

what is best supposed to mean? the thing is, best can chance if the outcome changes. Or am i wrong?

i think Unreality means that a certain amount of $$ that is high enough for it to make a difference if you lose it. a million is worth as much as a billion if you loose it all.

[Guest]

unreality said it all really.

From the outset we have a bit of a problem, how are you going to argue (that is give a rational argument) against reason?!

I never said to abandon reason.

And I never said you did. I asked a question. Because if you disagree that reason is the best way to assess truth claims, to determine the real from the fake, the best course of action from the less so. Then you are saying that something else is. At least in some situations.

I was just trying to say that to say reason is the best way to come to a decision is unreasonable in its own right.

There are times when you do have to do something unreasonable in order to change the flow of actions or to tilt the outcome into your favour.

No, all you are really demonstrating something known full well through reasoning, and particularly in that specialised area of reasoning; probability mathematics.

With my card example, when we note that there is a 51 in 52 probability of a given card coming up, but salso that there is a 1 in 52 chance that it will.

So in one situation the 'best' thing to do is guess/bet that the card will come up - because in that one situation is will. BUT it is completely irrational, without any evidence/data to support the notion, to think or assume that THIS situation is that situation.

Seriously; what do you have besides reason? Reason should tell you the odds (and to guess the card will not show.) One could just guess that it will anyway, such as the gambler who just "feels" that they are due for a win, or on a "winning streak" or something. But no matter which way they cut it, in a fair random pick the odds remain 51 to 52 against it. And it is only through reasoning that we can determine that with any confidence.

In my example, the reasonable thing to do would be to fold and see what the next hand would be, but that obviously was not the best choice.

You are conflating the best method, with the best outcome.

What SHOULD you do it that situation BEFORE the outcome is known? Given all the known parameters, what is the best course? What is MOST LIKELY To come out of each chosen action?

OF COURSE it might be (unless the available data allows for the odds to be calculated at 100%) that things might turn out otherwise, just as the lottery ticket you brought might be the winning one, but it probably isn't. And you would be a sucker to think otherwise.

Once again: That WAS the best choice, in the time and place, given the available data, even if it did not ultimately work. Sometimes the result does come out on the less likely side (otherwise there wouldn't be any odds, just one 100% chance. )

In your scenario it only BECAME the best choice after new data was made available (the results of the hand played.) So yes; if you can time travel what you say would have been the best choice, it STILL would have been one of reason though.

As I have questioned earlier, how can you say that reason is always the best way to come to a decision when everyone has different reasoning abilities and finds different things reasonable.

Because reason isn't a matter of opinion, nor is it relative ("this is rational for me, it is not for you" )

If two people examine the same dataset, but come to conflicting conclusions; then AT LEAST one of them reasoned poorly in some way

I would say that committing murder because someone made you mad or you thought you could get money from the life insurance is an unreasonable action, but people come to that conclusion all the time.

So, some people do unreasonable things. Your point?!

Are you claiming that such murders are ALWAYS unreasonable, but at least sometimes the BEST thing to do?!

Currently in Maine, there is a law that they are trying to enact that would ban biological based bathrooms/lockers/sports teams in all schools. here Can someone please explain how that is a reasonable action? In my opinion, it screams lawsuit in waiting to me.

Irrelevance.

Can you please give one example (to make your case) of a situation (without us [as the actor or external observers] also knowing the subsequent situation - the result) in which not using reason, using something else perahps, is the best option to take AT THAT TIME (not in hindsight)?

[Guest]

That is where I disagree the SMART choice was to fold, and I agree he should have folded, but ultimately the BEST choice was to make that bet, since it resulted in the best outcome.

Then you are playing inane little games of semantics.

In the situation of the player, as he was holding that hand. What was the BEST means through which to choose what he should do then?

I say Reason - he should examine the data he has available (the odds etc.) and assess that to make his choice.

What say you? Emotion? Imagination? Payer? Magic Eight Ball? Fortune Cookie? Horoscope?

If you know of a means by which one can ALSO take into account what the outcome WILL be, then I would like to hear it.

As for the Bob example, so if you could walk away with a penny or have a chance to win a $1,000,000, the best option is to take the penny? Granted I can see where a penny is better than nothing, but does it really make up for the amount of time that was wasted making up your mind, or any of the other variables that happen to be present in that case.

So you are asking us to REASON out the odds, coupled with the actual and potential benefits and losses?!

His was a hypothetical, a thought experiment. Therefore the answer to all your addition is "All other things being equal."

You started this with "using Reason is the best way to go about going through life and making decisions"

Best WAY to make decisions, NOT the best outcome. Not what WILL NECESSARILY LEAD to the best results.

Giving ONE example (or a few) where one's reasoning does not lead to the best result means nothing.

Is there a better way to your knowledge? A way that gives better ODDS or success?

[Guest]

Due to technical difficulties I've not been keeping up to date with this but I wish I had, Use the Force has had some very interesting things to say so apologies for going back so far...

While all of my siblings are atheists and possibly my father too, none of them is the militant atheist type except me. Like you, I find philosophy very exciting and interesting and am very intrigued by the phenomenon of religion--that there are such intelligent educated people out there who believe such silly things due to the fact that they have been indoctrinated to accept those things since birth. One of the most fascinating examples to me is my friend who is the valedictorian of my class... I find it very amazing that he can be so smart and yet still think that we are all descendants of Adam and Eve and Noah who survived on his ark. He's very good at math and science, getting the best scores on every biology exam and yet he doesn't believe what he learned in the class! He doesn't think that humans share a common ancestor with other animals. He does think that species can evolve, but he doesn't think that they can evolve into new species. He knows all about "divergent evolution" and I'm sure that if there was a question on it on today's AP Biology exam (which he took today... I took it last year) that he got it right. Yet, he doesn't agree that it is correct because of his religious beliefs! It's people like him that make me so interested in religion...It's very mind-boggling that such intelligent and rational people can stop being rational all together when their religious beliefs are in jeopardy. I think it's the evangelism that got to his young brain.

Thanks to ADParker for mentioning Neil deGrasse Tyson since I'd never heard of him, and he's such a clear and entertaining speaker. Looking him up I found this talk which I just had to link to since it suggests that your friend is in good company, as the greatest minds in history have been similarly hamstrung. It shows just how much more powerful religion has been in the past. The example of Newton is particularly remarkable as he seems to have stopped just short of the point where he would altogether abandon God's influence in the movements of the planets. It seems he felt the need to preserve one last little element of the incomprehensible.

For the first question I bet that I personally would be able to teach CTSs quite well...I could go on a long rant about the many ideas I would try out as a teacher

I'd be interested to hear about that. It's really off-topic though but is more related (OK how to solve logic problems isn't exactly the same thing, but IMO that and mathematics are very much connected faculties), and I'm personally very interested in teaching ideas so if you want to do that rant, please go ahead

[Guest]

I also can't resist making a few comments on the discussion between Use the Force and ADParker over the possibility of our universe being created (albeit not by a god in the traditional sense).

I think the real problem with Use the Force using "supernatural" to denote an undetectable world beyond our universe is that while this superficially seems to fit, one key element of the supernatural, generally asserted by those who believe it is a useful concept, is that you can interact with it (but not understand it). Obviously this is not the case if our universe is a closed system with some unknown computer simulation or other system outside of it. This, I think, is at the root of why "supernatural" is a word without value. One might usefully define "our universe", or "nature" as being that with which we can interact*. The possibility of interaction gives scope for observation and understanding, so there is no room for the "supernatural" in there unless we positively want to assert that certain classes of things could not ever be understood, and why (other than protecting cherished beliefs and preserving ignorance) would we want to do that? If we relegate the supernatural (as Use the Force did) to the set of things with which we cannot interact, it becomes largely irrelevant to us, and another term (which implies no scope for interaction) would be more appropriate.

*To be complete, I'd probably define it a bit bigger than that (no sense in confining it to a Hubble volume), so as to include things which can interact with things we can interact with, and so on.

I'd like to make the case for a point of view which falls between the two discussed, and which I feel is strongly supported by Occam's Razor. Let us assume that there is a potential Theory of Everything within physics which may or may not ever be known to us. This in effect gives a mathematical model for the universe. It may be that this mathematical model relies upon a starting condition to kick off the Big Bang, in which case it would be incomplete and a larger mathematical model (which probably could not ever be known to us) would be necessary to give the whole picture. But I strongly suspect that this is not the case. The general picture surrounding the Big Bang may be like this in the eyes of many people:

But this is flawed since the structure of our universe is the structure of space-time itself, so no "before", and thus no prior causal factor can be implied in the sense of our timeline. Furthermore, the event of the Big Bang itself represents a curvature in space time such that it probably makes no sense to think of it as a point in time (in the normal way that we draw distinction between time and space). As such the whole idea of causality is invalid, not only outside our universe, but also at that point within it. As an admittedly rather naive depiction I'd put forward something like this, where time seems to mean something between the big bang and big crunch but not actually at those points.

That looks much more like a complete model which requires no external input, a self-contained bubble of spacetime. So, if there is a mathematical model which would define all the behaviour of our universe, would it answer the question of why our universe exists, or whether it is the only one that exists? I think the very idea of it gives us our answer, but first we have to consider what it means to exist.

For mundane purposes, I would say a thing exists if it is a subset of our universe. By that token, the pen on my table exists (I can see it, pick it up and interact with it, so that puts it in my universe), but Superman doesn't (except in the sense of being a fictional character). That may seem like a trivial definition of existence, certainly no use when discussing which universes exist, but I think it amounts to what we generally mean when we say a thing exists. It's useful to know because it tells us what things can potentially affect us or be affected by us. I don't need to worry about the effect my actions will have on Superman, because he doesn't exist in this sense. The question of whether Superman "exists" in another universe doesn't matter in this context.

That leaves us at a bit of a loss when discussing the existence of universes, so we need a wider sense of existence. Mathematicians use the word "exist" to denote something which is well-defined. For example, when considering the existence of the universal set, we are unconcerned with whether it would be a subset of our universe, and instead show it doesn't exist by rendering its definition self-contradictory. In that sense our universe (having a nice complete mathematical model) does exist, and (inescapably) so does every other potential universe, with infinite variations on laws of physics etc.

But is that all there is to it? Is existence equivalent to being mathematically well-defined? I would say yes.

Consider if this were not the case. Suppose that there was more to it, that some potential universes existed and others didn't, or maybe ours is the only one that exists. So existence is like having an extra property (I'll call it the X factor) in addition to being mathematically well-defined. We could take our universe on the one hand, a real thing which has the property of existence, and on the other hand, the mathematical model of our universe, one of many potential mathematical models, a mere concept. One has the X factor, the other doesn't. The trouble is, the mathematical model of our universe encapsulates all the behaviour of our universe, including our actions, thoughts, and perceptions. It includes the fact that we think it is real. So the X factor adds nothing significant, we would consider our universe just as real with or without it. As Laplace put it, "I had no need of that hypothesis". It's an extra property that does nothing. Hand me the razor!

Incidentally, it makes no odds IMO whether we're being simulated in a computer, since computer simulations merely evaluate the state of a system. Our "gods" would be observing us but not creating us.

[Guest]

Um no. That is not how it works, not for rational people anyway.

Do I really sound as irrational as you make it seem I sound?

For all intents and purposes (that is outside of hard philosophy) one can say that if there is no evidence/reason to support a truth claim, that the claim is false.

Not for the purpose of saying confidently what is true (especially seeing as one would be wrong... about the bookshelves in my bedroom).

Other universes? I don't know, you would have to provide a rigorous definition of "universe" first.

Completely unrelated though? No I doubt that. No multiverse hypothesis (of any of the four levels) suggest that. But as we know practically nothing about such things, who knows?

No wonder you think I'm crazy for saying that I think it's likely true that somewhere in existence there are magical dragons. I wasn't talking about any universe that is part of the possible "multiverse." I'm talking about universes that exist other than that multiverse and anything that is at all connected/related to our existence. I wish I could explain it better. I assure you that it's not nearly as irrational (or foolish) as you make it out to be for me to say that I would wager over 1:1 that it is true that somewhere in existence there are two dragons speaking English to each other.

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your comments at the moment. I would very much like to, but it will have to wait. Thanks for the discussion thus far.

[Guest]

Do I really sound as irrational as you make it seem I sound?

Yes! - Ha, just kidding,

No, what I meant by "for rational people" is that it doesn't work that way, when one uses reasoning. It does work that way for apologists (whi start with a given conclusion) and others who fail to use proper reasoning.

Specifically this was directed at your last line: "because in reality they have no reason to think that they don't exist."

In fact having no reason whatsoever to think they do, IS reason to think that they don't. It is NOT evidence for that, but it is enough to dismiss it at one level, the level I call "not worth seriously considering."

Not for the purpose of saying confidently what is true (especially seeing as one would be wrong... about the bookshelves in my bedroom).

Actually YES in that situation, as they possess no hope of anything to support such a notion, and they don't manifest in their reality in any way. So for all intents and purposes they don't exist for them.

That SOUNDS a bot relativistic ("true for me") but this is a less precise layman's use of "knowledge." In that sense such things that have no impact whether real or not, might as well be accepted as not real. While still being the case that they might be, and that this dismissal is not an abolute one.

No wonder you think I'm crazy for saying that I think it's likely true that somewhere in existence there are magical dragons. I wasn't talking about any universe that is part of the possible "multiverse." I'm talking about universes that exist other than that multiverse and anything that is at all connected/related to our existence. I wish I could explain it better. I assure you that it's not nearly as irrational (or foolish) as you make it out to be for me to say that I would wager over 1:1 that it is true that somewhere in existence there are two dragons speaking English to each other.

I don't think you are crazy - I have been in discussions with true CRAZY.

Multiverse theory hypotheses actually extends to all kinds of possible extra or extensions of universes. And yes your dragons could exist there somewhere. In fact in some of the hypotheses (if true of course) the so and must!

I don't have time to reply to the rest of your comments at the moment. I would very much like to, but it will have to wait. Thanks for the discussion thus far.

No worries. I am a bit pressed for time myself these days.

[peace*out]

I dont know if this video's been posted, but i found a video.

the end is incredibly biased and calls people with faith "delutional," but the points this video makes are good.

this is also the second most commented video on youtube.

[gvg]

Edit: Grammar.

You weren't kidding about the end. Quite a strong atheist.

From my wonderful agnotic perspective, the only question I payed attention to was: Why should I care?

The answer? I don't. That's all.

If all of this is real, and Christian/Jewish/Islamic (etc.) mythology is all ture, wonderful. Hasn't effected me so far, so I don't care.

If god is the deistic version? Well, he/she/it is a smart person/thing. But it doesn't effect me. Why care?

And if all of you loving atheists are right? Great- science for the win.

If god is simply a force, or something so small it has no big part of my life... WHY should I care?

See what I mean? That's rational. People attack each other over myths, over disbelief in myths, etc. Relgion, if it is truly not important, will die out eventually (natural selection, eat it =)). Attacking it will siply make believers more loyal. Let it simmer down.

(Actually now that I think about it, I may be agnostic-atheist... ah, whatever).

So, yeah. That's what I got.

The ending is BS though. Having a belief doesn't make you delusional. There are many good reasons for religion (sense of community, good support system, good morals (that aren't religious), feeling of acceptance and love (a lifesaver for some people)). It helps people feel like they found themselves. When I was Christian (before I reached the age of reason =)), the feeling of love, the fact that something cares, even if I couldn't see it, the fact that someone was willing to die for me... it was a great feeling. I have since changed my views, but still, for people who have been beaten down by life, such a thing can be a life saver.

Kudos to the creator though. That video should be seen by more people. But if that's the second most commented video on Youtube, what's the first? (Do you know?)

Edited January 7, 2011 by gvg

[Guest]

I've seen parts of that video before and I have to admit that his attitude definitely annoyed me. I agree with gvg that being so argumentative and dismissive of the other side hurts more than it helps. He could make the same points in a much more rational manner and the whole thing would be a lot more effective in my opinion. As it is, he comes off as a big jerk.

Of course he's managed to get himself a lot of pageviews, so maybe he got what he wanted...

[Quag]

GVG i like your post and pretty much echo it.

Some of the questions asked could be answered without "rationalizing" as he said. I actually skipped forward about 2/3rds way through to see the end as i frankly found it childish and repetitive. He has obviously made up his mind and any arguement from the other side has to be invalid because they have a different opinion from him. All arguements can be dismissed with the same catchphrase Rationalization. Mostly i found the video silly.

[Guest]

I disagree with gvg's answer to the question, "Why should I care?"

gvg said that he doesn't care. Let me ask you, if all of the Christians you knew believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would you care? The similarity is that they are both just as true. You should care because they're wrong. That's what it means to be delusional. Delusional: a false belief or opinion (dictionary.com). Sure, you can like Christianity for all of the "good morals," sense of community it provides, etc, but how can you simply "not care" in response to millions of millions of people sincerely believing in things that are plainly not true? I could never be so apathetic. Your friends, family... your childrens' friends. Why would you choose to live in a world where a large majority of the people believe in absurd myths when you could choose to care and seek a world with fewer ignorant, delusional people?

----------------------------------

Also, I want to thank peace*seek for reopening this thread. I reread a couple of my posts with ADParker and realized that in the past half year my views did indeed change. I didn't know they had and wasn't really debating them, but now that I reread what I wrote regarding my past beliefs in the possibility that the universe was created, I realize that I have changed. I no longer hold such beliefs. I am now agnostic.

[peace*out]

You weren't kidding about the end. Quite a strong atheist.

true. i did find it quite, as Quag said, childish. I do think that some of the points brought up were good, and i do think it was a video worth watching, but it comes on very strongly, and, again, i dont like the end.

From my wonderful agnotic perspective, the only question I payed attention to was: Why should I care?

The answer? I don't. That's all.

...

See what I mean? That's rational. People attack each other over myths, over disbelief in myths, etc. Relgion, if it is truly not important, will die out eventually (natural selection, eat it =)). Attacking it will siply make believers more loyal. Let it simmer down.

(Actually now that I think about it, I may be agnostic-atheist... ah, whatever).

So, yeah. That's what I got.

I mainly put it up for discussion. feel free not to care.

and your right about the rationabilityness (im sorry - i know thats not a word) of it. Maybe it will simmer down. maybe it wont. I do think people, in general, like believing in something.

The ending is BS though. Having a belief doesn't make you delusional. There are many good reasons for religion (sense of community, good support system, good morals (that aren't religious), feeling of acceptance and love (a lifesaver for some people)). It helps people feel like they found themselves. When I was Christian (before I reached the age of reason =)), the feeling of love, the fact that something cares, even if I couldn't see it, the fact that someone was willing to die for me... it was a great feeling. I have since changed my views, but still, for people who have been beaten down by life, such a thing can be a life saver.

Kudos to the creator though. That video should be seen by more people. But if that's the second most commented video on Youtube, what's the first? (Do you know?)

agree...there are good things about religion, which is why i still go to church when im home (i really do). I go for the community. Its a small church, and i know everyone there.

#1 video? *winces*

the music video "Baby" by Justin Bieber/Beiber/Beaver/I dont know how to spell his last name

I also have to mention what UtF said on the "why should i care" question.

Before BD, I had my doubts, but through this site, I became, first athiest, then agnostic after thinking about it more. UtF is not the only one, and i assume we aren't the only two.

[Quag]

UTF, you claim to be agnostic but seem to be convinced religion, or at least christianity is wrong and those who believe it are delusional. This sounds more athiestic or deistic than agnostic. I think the point GVG was tying to make was that gods existence or non existence has no direct bearing on ones life. The belief or disbilief in god could have an effect i suppose. After all i am writing this post so it had to at least prompt me to write. However if god exists or not doesnt change my life at all.

Example: Did god create the universe or was it the big bang (or a combination) dont know, dont care, what counts is that the universe and I exist. How it came about is perhaps an interesting philisophical/religious/scientific discussion but doesnt really change anything.

[gvg]

Quag: Exactly what I meant =)

Peace: Ah yes, Beiber. 300 mil. views. Bleh. I dunno how that happened. Maybe we should worry about the world's taste for music huh? =)

[Guest]

I think it is highly illogical to think there is no God or higer being. This gives humans hope and that is what keeps us all from committing suicide. Of course there is the argument of the lack of truth. From every culture there is a documentation or story of some sort of a major flood and several artifacts that have been recovered over the ages. We have feelings. If we were created by some "Big Bang" then why would the world supply us with feelings in many ways they affect our need for survival. This is my proof(if you need any) that there is a God.

[Quag]

ahh the dead thread comes back to life again

angry llama, one doesnt need god to have hope, perhaps you do, but there are millions of agnostics/athiests who have hope without god, there are also other cultures (hindu best example) that do not have a god but gods. As to floods that is kinda silly as every major civilization has grown up near rivers that flood. find a civilization that grew up away from that and they dont have any flood stories. you wont find many though as you need a large amount of water provided from a major river to create a MAJOR civilization.

We have feelings. If we were created by some "Big Bang" then why would the world supply us with feelings in many ways they affect our need for survival

I have no understanding of what you are trying to mean by this. You seem to imply that the big bang had a plan???? i.e. it was god and use that to prove that it isnt. I know my sentence makes no sense but please clarify yours as that is the most i can make out of what you wrote.

I am sorry this is not PROOF is is your REASONS for believing in god. There is a huuuugggggeeeee difference.

oh yeah and welcome to brainden, come play some of the games solves some riddles and just post on any old topic, more points of view the better

[unreality]

I think it is highly illogical to think there is no God or higer being. This gives humans hope and that is what keeps us all from committing suicide.

If you discovered that God didn't exist and realized this, would you commit suicide? No. I believe in no such deities but I'm not suicidal. Tell your theory to the 15% of the world who are nonreligious and (most of them) happy. I'd wager probably happier (on a deeper level) than those who still cling to falsehoods and fairy tales (not to belittle whatever religion you adhere to )

From every culture there is a documentation or story of some sort of a major flood and several artifacts that have been recovered over the ages.

Is it not possible that such stories were written because of the devastation and historical significance caused by floods in general? There didn't have to be a worldwide flood for a large-scale flood to sink a large region and cause a catastrophe for those tribes that lived in that region (for them, that region WAS the whole world).

It's not likely that there was a global flood, it's just not really feasible.

But let's have the benefit of the doubt and say a global flood is indeed possible, and happened. Then of course people would write about it happening. I still don't see how it proves or disproves or has much connection at all to a god?

We have feelings.

That we do. Electrochemistry. The brain is an amazing amazing thing I've been struggling to understand it for years. It's not easy and you can't just sum it up with some easy answers and a swipe of the hand, passing off anything mysterious as divine/godly, thereby removing the true mystery... and thus the drive for more knowledge and discovery about our universe.

Sometimes you have to accept what we know, what we don't know, and what is more in the realm of theoretical/philosophy of the mind. I could talk for a long time about feelings, the brain's neurochemistry, the arisal of consciousness from the material brain. There are a lot of people smarter than me on Brainden and they can talk about it too. The brain is crazy awesome... free will (the illusion of?), whether consciousness is the product or passive byproduct, etc... there are a lot of interesting things to talk about.

But as far as the survival thing goes, we are what we are biologically because of the evolutionary process. Our emotions are based in reality, mating, surviving...

[Guest]

I think it is highly illogical to think there is no God or higer being.

Hi there angry llama (well, that alias brings up interesting mental images! )

And I think that you are misusing the world "illogical." This is an all too common mistake of a fair few religious apologists. The tendency is to conflate Logic with Common Sense. They are not even close to synonymous.

This gives humans hope and that is what keeps us all from committing suicide.

See there you have it; this is an appeal to emotion and consequences, NOT logic.

On the contrary that is verging on a logical fallacy: a failure to apply logic correctly!

I guess I just don't think like you. I think it is illogical to believe in anything without good reason to do so, without some reason/logic/evidence to back up the proposition. And not to simply choose my beliefs because I do, or do not, like the idea of the consequences that seem to follow.

My usual example is that I may (and do) hate the very idea of "the holocaust", the deaths of 11,000,000 non-combatants at the hands of the Nazi regime. But how that makes me feel, the negative consequences of that being true, IN NO WAY affects the Truth-Value of that fact, at all.

And now that is out of the way; a secondary point: Your claim is not even true.

The belief in a god may give some people hope, it also gives people fear and apprehension. Not to mention it also informs people's actions; and there is a very real danger that those actions (including the taking up of other beliefs) could be poor and/or 'bad' if that belief is in error. And that brings me to my personal view on what I wish to believe:

NOT That which gives me (quite possibly false) hope, but that I seek, as best I can, to believe as many true things, and as few false things as I possibly can.

And belief in your god, or some "higher being", keeps us all from committing suicide?!

This is clearly untrue! Some theists (believers in such things) DO commit suicide, and many (most) atheists (non-believers) DO NOT.

ANd by the way: Even if it WAS true that "this gives humans hope and that is what keeps us all from committing suicide", this could easily be the case REGARDLESS of whether the belief was true or not!

Of course there is the argument of the lack of truth.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

From every culture there is a documentation or story of some sort of a major flood

That too is simply untrue.

Yes there are a fair few myths of flooding, of various degrees and natures. The typical Abrahamic region based apologetics of his claim go way WAY overboard trying to interpret anything and everything as "like the bible flood." And this is unsurprising as our species tends to form communities (in which the story telling traditions arise) near water ways, many of which are known to flood from time to time. It is a commonality of human habitats, NOT of some mystical interpretation of some half remembered magical truth of a single ancient flood event.

And in all seriousness; trying to suggest any such thing just makes one look a fool.

and several artifacts that have been recovered over the ages.

Again, no clue what you are talking about.

Artifacts of what, and of what possible significance?

We have feelings.

Yes we do. The amazing result of complex neural activity.

If we were created by some "Big Bang" then why would the world supply us with feelings in many ways they affect our need for survival.

That makes no sense whatsoever. A complete and confused Non Sequitur. Rendering your question moot.

There was a 'Big Bang' event, an estimated 13,730,000,000 years ago. You want to arbitrarily tack on some mystical god-being to that, without a shred of evidence? Feel free, but realise just how arbitrary and irrational (free of any reasoning) that is.

"The world" didn't supply us with anything. That very question is nonsensical. The evidence is that nervous systems evolved rudimentary brains (condensed controlling cluster of that nervous systems) which increased in size and complexity through our ancestral fish, reptiles and mammals. Advancing further to those of primates, great apes and finally Homo spapiens. (This is whay parts of or brains are known as the Reptile brain (brain stem), mammalian and primate brain.)

Again; you want to explain-away your uncertainty and ignorance of how exactly those arose, by "Making up" (or blindly accepting what others made up, for the same reason) a god, which is itself nothing more than a mystery itself (explaining a mystery with a mystery) then you are of course free to do so. But please don't pretend that you are applying reason, let alone logic, in doing so. Because you are not. You are just accepting fairy tales in order to give yourself the FALSE COMFORT that you understand that which you clearly do not understand.

And this is traditionally what religion has always done; made up stories in order to cover over ones doubts and fears through the pretence of understanding. Making up stories to provide comfort (EXACTLY as we tell fanciful stories to children to settle their fears) and give the ILLUSION of understanding and control.

This is my proof(if you need any) that there is a God.

That is not even close to proof. Not even evidence or reason for that matter.

At best it is an admission that you only believe because it makes you feel better.

Which brings to my mind this quote:

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact than a drunken man is happier than a sober one"

-George Bernard Shaw.

Edited February 9, 2011 by ADParker

[wolfgang]

To believe in God,is like having an army,to defend yourself against the invaders.

Our enimies are increasing in number day by day!!

They have NO mercy,,,they know NO compassion,,,they will destroy our body...if there is NO god inside it...

just like cancer cells,who multiply very fast and kill the body...specially the one with NO immunity.

Immune your spirit,immune your self,immune your body....be ready all the time,cause you don`t know when will your enemy begin to take his first attack !!,,,at that time,it will be too late to unbelievers...

Believe me...I am 57 years old...I have alot of experience in this life...I was (some day)also unbeliever...till I saw him talking to me...face to face...he convinced me..he took me back to him...I am now full of love to my GOD...

I love Jesus !!

[unreality]

To believe in God,is like having an army,to defend yourself against the invaders.

Our enimies are increasing in number day by day!!

So much talk of war, for such a peaceful religion

They have NO mercy,,,they know NO compassion,,,they will destroy our body...if there is NO god inside it...

just like cancer cells,who multiply very fast and kill the body...specially the one with NO immunity.

Immune your spirit,immune your self,immune your body....be ready all the time,cause you don`t know when will your enemy begin to take his first attack !!,,,at that time,it will be too late to unbelievers...

Mwahaahahaha my evil plan is at least revealed

Believe me...I am 57 years old...I have alot of experience in this life...I was (some day)also unbeliever...till I saw him talking to me...face to face...he convinced me..he took me back to him...I am now full of love to my GOD...

I love Jesus !!

Good for you! I know that ignorance is bliss and maybe you take a blind leap of faith and feel reassured by it. You are putting your faith in something that likely doesn't exist but luckily for you, you won't find out that you are wrong until you are dead and then it's too late because you'll have lost the chance to truly appreciate your life and what you have.

But nevertheless I won't even attempt to burst your bubble... I hope that whatever worldview you choose to believe in gives you peace However, don't go trying to push your hallucinations on us. You have to accept that your experiences/senses are all subjective. Someone else on the other side of the world has had a revelation equal in magnitude (or greater) than yours that the Hindu god Krishnu is the all mighty.

edit: if any of the above sounded harsh, I'm sorry & I really didn't mean it that way. I accept my inability, with my miniscule human brain, to comprehend the true depth and breadth of the Universe. I simply cannot know the full truth. It seems however that you are not so humble in your gnosticism

Edited February 10, 2011 by unreality

[gvg]

Wait? WHo are the enemies> The devil?

May I remind you that in Jewish/ Old Testament mythology (And I mean mythology =)), the devil is "The Accuser." He asks god all the toughy questions, which (If i am correct, can't say I've read the Bible) he is unable to answer, except with "I am the Lord." Great response. Should be an attorney =)

But seriously, many people, like myself, have asked the same questions.... and gotten better answers from other areas (*cough* SCIENCE *cough*). Now, I am not full blown atheist, since, there is a chance of

1. A god so small, so miniscule, he has no affect on anybody and need not be worried about

2. A god that sends everyone who is not "open" to him to hell, and never reveals him/her/itself to anybody else (which would mean that Gandhi and the millions of causualty's of the holocaust are in hell ). In that case, why should I follow such a guy? Slow to anger he ain't, and I see no kindness here. (Also, I'll see you there Unreality =))

So, call me agnotic atheist. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so.

Now, of course, this is only with god. Some other spiritual stuff I believe in (Nirvana, Karma.... hell, wouldn't be surprised if reincarnation is real too) that may be supported, at least in small pert, by science (Though not that much. But if you are interested, it's the holographic article I put up)

So, you believe in god. Great. Like Unreality said, I hope it brings you peace =)

Unlike hardcore atheists, I don't give a s***. Believe what you want =)

[Quag]

To believe in God,is like having an army,to defend yourself against the invaders.

Our enimies are increasing in number day by day!!

They have NO mercy,,,they know NO compassion,,,they will destroy our body...if there is NO god inside it...

just like cancer cells,who multiply very fast and kill the body...specially the one with NO immunity.

Immune your spirit,immune your self,immune your body....be ready all the time,cause you don`t know when will your enemy begin to take his first attack !!,,,at that time,it will be too late to unbelievers...

Believe me...I am 57 years old...I have alot of experience in this life...I was (some day)also unbeliever...till I saw him talking to me...face to face...he convinced me..he took me back to him...I am now full of love to my GOD...

I love Jesus !!

let me rephrase

To believe in REASON,is like having an army,to defend yourself against the invaders.

Our enimies are increasing in number day by day!!

They have NO mercy,,,they know NO compassion,,,they will destroy our body...if there is NO REASON inside it...

just like cancer cells,who multiply very fast and kill the body...specially the one with NO immunity.

Immune your MIND,immune your self,immune your body....be ready all the time,cause you don`t know when will your enemy begin to take his first attack !!,,,at that time,it will be too late to UNTHINKERS...

Believe me...I am 42 years old...I have alot of experience in this life...I was NEVER(some day)also UNTHINKER...till I saw REASON...face to face...IT convinced me..IT took me back to THINKING FOR MYSELF...I am now full of love to my FELLOW HUMAN BEING...

I love REASON I LOVE HUMANITY !!

I thought colour would make it look pretty

seriously not trying to insult you I'm sure you hold your beliefs strongly, but reason and thinking objectivly about it makes christianity and any/all other religions seem rather (extremely) unlikely. Way I see it, the bible can be thrown away. All we need is the GOLDEN RULE Don't even need god for that but if ya want to it have him go for it.

[Guest]

To believe in God,is like having an army,to defend yourself against the invaders.

Albeit an Imaginary army!

Our enimies are increasing in number day by day!!

They have NO mercy,,,they know NO compassion,,,they will destroy our body...if there is NO god inside it...

What ARE you talking about?!

You mean the people who have the gall to say that they don't believe your imaginary friend is real? Does that hurt your widdle feelings? And that's it isn't it: Your feelings are far more important to you than the truth, than reality.

just like cancer cells,who multiply very fast and kill the body...specially the one with NO immunity.

Immune your spirit,immune your self,immune your body....be ready all the time,cause you don`t know when will your enemy begin to take his first attack !!,,,at that time,it will be too late to unbelievers...

Protect yourself from that scary Reality stuff! Close your mind to all reason, and ever losing ANY of your cherished beliefs, no matter how fallacious that may be.

Believe me...I am 57 years old...I have alot of experience in this life...I was (some day)also unbeliever...till I saw him talking to me...face to face...he convinced me..he took me back to him...I am now full of love to my GOD...

I love Jesus !!

Um, okay. Is there any reason for ANYONE else to believe in this thing you experienced? How about any reason to think that your experience was anything more than a delusion?

But okay; I believe you when you say that you are 57 years old (what that has to do with anything, I have no clue.)

I believe you have experienced a lot in your life (haven't we all?)

I am even willing to believe that you actually believe that 'him' talked to you (even though it is well known that people often lie about such things.)

And that this convinced you.

What I don't believe, as I have seen ZERO reason to do so, is that this was anything but the workings of your own mind, emotions and imagination.