There are a lot of people who hold religion to be "holding beliefs without evidence".

This is known as fideism. Martin Lither argued for people to believe - despite - reason. I don't think it's true to paste all theists as the same just as its not right to paint all atheists as the same.

Do any of you theists believe without evidence?

---

Sorry if this is too theist-centric....

I won't give you kudos, because you already masturbated yourself

How is it even possible to believe with evidence? It's not belief anymore then is it. :/

Evidence has a fairly fluid definition depending on the subject. As for me, I looked at the logical conclusions of each 'worldview' and made a choice. I feel that belief supports the rational pursuit of knowledge and respects the qualitative aspects of life that we most value. In contrast to this, I feel that atheism entails acceptance of an absurd universe and leads to fatalism. Choosing between the two is not a rational choice, since either could be possible. But which would you rather have as the governing principle of your life?

As I said earlier - I don't use belief in the everyday sense it is used here.

I am using it in the Anglo-American Philosophical manner "holding something to be true"

The meaning if belief of "having a level of doubt" is taken away from the word in philosophy to leave the other meaning "hd to be true" as in: "I believe I am an atheist"

I know it's used differently here so Im sorry

---

Dude!

---

But Chad - do you think there are 'world views' out there?

I think there are just people with opinions on the world and the way it is. These, I feel these sets of are as varied as the people themselves.

Just wondering your thoughts!

---

*"held to be true"

When you believe without sufficient evidence, you get results that are inconsistent and unreliable. Note how many different religions there are, and how many different denominations and interpretations of various "holy books" and texts. When you can verify things through evidence, you bring the various interpretations and hypotheses closer and closer together. Religion cannot do that, since the "evidence" is usually personal and subjective and nearly always unverifiable.

(April 27, 2013 at 6:31 pm)Dawud Wrote: But Chad - do you think there are 'world views' out there?

I think people do have an overall 'stance', a filter that colors everything they view and organizes their understanding, i.e. your own true North. While these are indeed composed of many various smaller beliefs, they can be defined by categories like belief and atheism.

I think that "different religions" disproves belief in God as much as differing opinions amongst scientists (many theists too) disprove their theories.

To say - Religious people do not believe in shades of grey or religious people believe without evidence is just a straw man argument based on a prejudice where by you want to enforce an identity unique to you: " I am an atheist and I take evidence - not like those irrational religious people".

Really people referred to as religious are no more or less rational that atheists.... Some religious people are atheist!

---

And empirical!

(April 27, 2013 at 6:29 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Evidence has a fairly fluid definition depending on the subject. As for me, I looked at the logical conclusions of each 'worldview' and made a choice. I feel that belief supports the rational pursuit of knowledge and respects the qualitative aspects of life that we most value. In contrast to this, I feel that atheism entails acceptance of an absurd universe and leads to fatalism. Choosing between the two is not a rational choice, since either could be possible. But which would you rather have as the governing principle of your life?

As your last sentence demonstrates, you have chosen a worldview which satisfies what you wish to be true and which avoids accepting things you wish were not true. That is your driving principle. You want the universe to be run by an omnipotent superbeing because you can't accept the idea of the world being a giant, dumb, and impersonal process, not because it leads others to fatalism, but because it would lead you to fatalism. You are terrified of oblivion, so you gravitate towards a system which promises to help you avoid it.

I accept the world as it is, not how I wish it was. Is that fatalistic? Whatever. I'm happy and fulfilled. The fact that there is no afterlife only inspires me to not waste this one.

Evidence is necessary. I will note that "physical" evidence is not necessary, especially with things that... umm... aren't physical.