A reason to believe?

[Edwardo Piet]

That being a strict requirement, I, and everyone else, have no choice but to believe without empirical evidence. Why harp on about it?

A strict requirement for what? It's retarded to believe in something without evidence and you treat God as an exception so you can bang on about hope and positivity and the 'benefits' you get from it. As I said: The reasons you have given are not reason to believe that the God belief is true. You're just throwing nonsense about now. I've already repeatedly read you saying that evidence isn't possible/it's a necessary requirement to believe without it. But my point is, possible or impossible, and whether you want to believe without it or not - how the fuck is it rational to believe without evidence? If there's no evidence, why believe? Strict requirement you may believe, but it's a retarded one. Enjoy your placebo.

I didn't say empirical evidence, I said evidence.

Believing without evidence and banging on about how Christianity brings you hope and positivity is no reason to rationally believe, it's just a placebo. False hope.

EvF

[Violet]

Believing without evidence and banging on about how Christianity brings you hope and positivity is no reason to rationally believe, it's just a placebo. False hope.

EvF

"reason |ˈrēzən|
noun
1 a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event"

^ fr0d0 has reasons for his belief... therefore his belief is

"rational |ˈra sh ənl; ˈra sh nəl|
adjective
1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic"

[fr0d0]

That being a strict requirement, I, and everyone else, have no choice but to believe without empirical evidence. Why harp on about it?

A strict requirement for what?

Belief, faith.

It's retarded to believe in something without evidence and you treat God as an exception

It's fallacial to rule out exceptions.

The reasons you have given are not reason to believe that the God belief is true.

By 'true' YOU mean true to you/ known. Like I've explained, this is never possible in the rules of this game. You don't get to re-write the rules.

how the fuck is it rational to believe without evidence?

Religious belief without evidence is required. It is a logical requirement of the system of thought. You don't get to break the rule just because you want to.

You're a strictly "if I can't have hard evidence I won't consider it" kinda guy. This makes you a hypocrite, because you can't apply the same logic across your entire experience as it simply doesn't work. I don't think this is deliberate on your part, I think you're trying to justify your worldview, which is indefensible.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm talking about reasons to believe that his belief is actually true. As I've already said, I don't dispute that for him personally it might give him hope/positivity. But when is he actually going to defend his reason(s) to believe that his belief in God is actually true?

He says he believes without evidence and evidence=a reason to believe the truth of, an indication of the truth of, etc. He even pride himself on it saying it's a "requirement" to believe without evidence. But believing in the existence of something without evidence when such a thing is so improbable and demands such evidence (just as the FSM would) = a false belief=a delusion (just as belief in the FSM would equate to a false belief and a delusion).

Belief, faith.

So to believe on faith is a requirement for belief/faith? Circular much?

Why would you want to believe in something without a reason to believe that that belief is true?

It's fallacial to rule out exceptions.

To make exceptions because of preferences rather than logic is cherry-picking though. You like to believe in God, but a false hope, a placebo at best, is not the same as having reasons to believe that belief in God is actually true? In other words, evidence. That's what evidence means. I never ever said empirical evidence - that's always your misrepresentation of my position.

By 'true' YOU mean true to you/ known.

No. I mean what I say. By "a reason to believe it's actually true" I mean just that. And evidence means just that, it means an indication of the truth of. I never said empirical evidence, that's your wording.

Like I've explained, this is never possible in the rules of this game.

Game? What do you mean? Well it certainly feels like a game when you keep messing around and dodging and misrepresenting my position and over and over saying "there can't be evidence." All I'm saying is, fine, but if there can't be evidence then your belief is a placebo at best because of the definition of the word evidence. Evidence means an indication of the truth of (as I said above, I never asked for empirical evidence, that's your continuing misrepresentation of my position and my questions to you).

You don't get to re-write the rules.

I'm not changing your rules of faith, I'm just trying to make sense of your words here for fucks sake. I'm trying to point out that you can't both say that "there can be no evidence" and claim to believe you have rational reasons to believe your belief in God is true, because that's a contradiction. Without evidence it's a placebo at best because for the belief to have any indication of the truth of, it would need evidence, because that's what evidence is. I never asked for specifically empirical evidence, that's your wording.

Religious belief without evidence is required.

Then by definition it's a placebo at best because there can't be any rational reason to believe in the truth of the said belief without evidence, because that's what evidence is, that's what it means.

It is a logical requirement of the system of thought.

You can logically, rationally, find reasons to believe that give you hope and a good life... but you can't both have that and logical rational reasons to believe your belief is actually true and God actually exists/real/'is' (the fact you've argued before that he doesn't exist he just 'is' is laughable because he can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist... by definition. This is how these words work you know?) - you can't have that and not have evidence because that's what evidence is. A reason to believe in the truth of, an indication of the truth of. So how can you have that without evidence if that's what evidence is?!?!

You don't get to break the rule just because you want to.

I'm not breaking a rule here, I'm just trying to use the English language. You, on the other hand, 'can't' break the rules of the English language because then we can't understand each other. Read above.

You're a strictly "if I can't have hard evidence I won't consider it" kinda guy.

See? You misrepresented my position again. I didn't say "hard evidence" I said "evidence", any evidence, i.e., any indication of the truth of your belief, any reason to believe your belief is true. You bang on about hope and positivity, but that alone is just a placebo at best. If you actually have reasons to believe your belief is fine, but you can't have that and also not have evidence because that's a contradiction - that's all that evidence is, indication of the truth, reasons to believe - do you get it yet?!?!

This makes you a hypocrite, because you can't apply the same logic across your entire experience as it simply doesn't work.

I always attempt to only believe in things when there is evidence actually. I'm against faith, I thought you already knew that. You call me a hypocrite and I'm not. I could call you dishonest though, for repeatedly reverting to acting as if I'm asking for "empirical evidence" or "hard evidence" or "provable evidence" or "corroborative evidence" when, not only did I never ask for anything of the stort, I just asked for evidence, but I also have repeatedly said to you over these forums, and[ to you on coversations on MSN that I am not asking for any specific type of evidence, I am just asking for any evidence[/i]. I have made that very very clear so if anything I could suspect your dishonesty in you always acting as if I'm asking for something much more specific than I actually am, that has always been your wording and not mine.

I don't think this is deliberate on your part,

I'm not sure it's deliberate on your part either. But at least what I said about you was accurate, and I can suspect dishonesty if you can suspect hypocrisy.

I think you're trying to justify your worldview, which is indefensible.

If you're going to claim my worldview is indefensible, give evidence to support that claim. And before you start - as I have said before over the forums to you, to you on MSN, and as I hope I've finally made it very clear in this post: I am not asking for "empirical" evidence, "hard evidence", "provable evidence", "corroborative evidence", etc, and I never have asked for that. That was always your wording and your misrepresentation of my position. All I'm asking for is evidence, i.e., indication of the truth of, a reason to believe. So when you claim to have reasons to believe/some indication but tell me that I'm being silly for asking for evidence - you're contradicting yourself because they're the same thing.

[fr0d0]

Hope and positivity are reasons to believe on their own.

There are two separate threads here: Knowledge of God and belief in God.

The question of God existing is, accordinig to my belief system, unknowable.... and I fully understand this. I have no interest in persuing, what in my rational space, is already known.

Personally I'd rather invest thought in potentially fruitful endeavours.

[Edwardo Piet]

Hope and positivity are reasons to believe on their own.

There are two separate threads here: Knowledge of God and belief in God.

But what I'm asking for is a reason to believe that the belief is actually true. I'm not asking for a reason to believe that it gives you hope/positivity. If it gives you hope/positivity, fine. But that alone, as I said, is a placebo/false hope at best.

The question of God existing is, accordinig to my belief system, unknowable.... and I fully understand this. I have no interest in persuing, what in my rational space, is already known.

You don't seem to care about his existence. In fact you've even said you don't. You said God just 'IS' which is a completely nonsensical statement because God can't be or do anything if he doesn't exist. Without existence belief in God is false and a placebo at best. You don't seem to care about his existence or in other words, 'being' at all - so how you can be that way and not claim to be merely living a placebo with (false) hope, and positivity, I don't know.


EvF

[fr0d0]

But what I'm asking for is a reason to believe that the belief is actually true. I'm not asking for a reason to believe that it gives you hope/positivity.

Yeah I know. You want to know a reason to believe God actually exists outside of theological conosideration. You want to know if he's real or not. That's what 'true' means to you.

Like I've just said, it's of less importance to me than anything I can think of right now. It's up there with impossible stuff I just find no merit in persuing. I already know I can dismiss it. You say the same. We have the same stance on the 'knowledge' of God.

[Paul the Human]

I get you, fr0d0. I know a lot of Christians (how could I not?) and used to be one myself (in childhood). I understand that you believe that god exists and that you feel justified in that belief. That's all fine and dandy. Evidence Vs. Faith (besides being a moderator of global proportions) is the core issue at the heart of almost all debates between atheists and theists. We all know this, right?

My original point was that belief in god is not possible unless one has faith that god exists. There is no reason to believe that does not require that belief to be true. I think we agree on that. I think I'm safe in saying that most of us atheist types (here comes a generalization) are incapable of religious faith and will not believe that god exists until we are given evidence to support the claim. "God just is" will not fly with us. We say, "show me." Of course, that can't be done.

It begins with questions. Who/what made us? Who/what made the universe? Etc.

Religion answers the question: God did.

Believers respond: Oh. Okay then. (and are satisfied)

Meanwhile, the rest (scientists, philosophers, archeologists, paleontologists, astronomists, etc.) begin looking for the answers to those questions. If they find that the answer is, indeed, god... then they will support the answer given by religion. But, so far, god has not proven to be the answer to those questions. Over thousands of years, they have searched and searched for the answers and have found a veritable mountain of evidence to suggest that the answers are wholly natural (not supernatural).

A mountain of evidence to support potential answers that would not require god to exist... Vs. ...Zero evidence to support the claim that he does.

There is only one logical conclusion. So, you may choose to believe that god exists, but that it an illogical thing to believe. You know that. That begs a further question. Why do you believe that, fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

No wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

(wrong)

Those questions ...of how, when where etc... are nothing to do with religion. Religion (in case you didn't notice) has shite answers to those questions when pushed. Why is that? <---you may arsk. Me---> bacause it's a different subject.

Knowledge > scientific > fact > tested evidence <---these are all in the realm of science alone. If you want to 'know stuff' ...then religion isn't the place you should be looking for answers. I'm sure we're in agreement there.

When you accuse the religious of blind acceptence of knowledge of science from religion.... your subject is a bunch of ignorant twats. IMHO.

[Paul the Human]

Are you saying that religion does not claim to hold the answers to those questions (Life, the Universe, and Everything)? Because, I always thought that is exactly what religion does. That is not the only thing it does, but it does offer answers to those questions... does it not?