A reason to believe?

[Paul the Human]

If God exists he exists whether you believe he does or not right? So then belief in his existence is the acknowledgement of his existence, and not something I just made up.

In order for it to be an acknowledgment of 'his existence', he would be required to exist. So that doesn't quite answer the question, really. If he does exist, he does so whether I believe in him or not, but that does not work the other way. Believing in him does not make him real. See what I'm saying here?

My believing in him happens to enable me to be more than I've ever been before. And I've elected not to believe for a fair few years once, and initially believed as an adult... no childish perceptions here.

If believing is a good experience for you, then by all means... believe anything you like. I am still not convinced that belief in god is anything more than self-delusion, but I support your right to delude yourself as you see fit!

How'd I do... how'd I do?? (stupid emoticon removed)

You done good, fr0d0! Jay! Tell him what he's won!

[fr0d0]

Yeah I know. You want to know a reason to believe God actually exists outside of theological conosideration.

I want your reason to believe that he exists at all.

Which is what I said. My words.

You've said silly things like he doesn't actually exist he 'just is' which doesn't make any sense at all because he can't do or be anything if he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist he isn't anything. If he doesn't exist he isn't real.

Please quote me. I said it isn't important. That God just is, rather than is existant per se. That I believe in God, not that I have to know his existence. ....Very different.

Here's the thread if you want to check that: http://atheistforums.org/thread-2391-page-1.html

You can't have any reasons to believe that God exists if you can't have evidence for it because that's the same thing.

Only in your mind Evie. Like I've said : 1. you demand to know 2. you can't know = Evie is stuck.

---

If God exists he exists whether you believe he does or not right? So then belief in his existence is the acknowledgement of his existence, and not something I just made up.

In order for it to be an acknowledgment of 'his existence', he would be required to exist. So that doesn't quite answer the question, really. If he does exist, he does so whether I believe in him or not, but that does not work the other way. Believing in him does not make him real. See what I'm saying here?

Yes, well.. believing in him doesn't make him real ...so that isn't a reason to believe in him. It obviously meant bugger all to me as I chose to not believe once too.

My believing in him happens to enable me to be more than I've ever been before. And I've elected not to believe for a fair few years once, and initially believed as an adult... no childish perceptions here.

If believing is a good experience for you, then by all means... believe anything you like. I am still not convinced that belief in god is anything more than self-delusion, but I support your right to delude yourself as you see fit!

Y thankyou

In your position I don't think I was so generous.. so kudos to you

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

(stupid emoticon removed)

You made the tiger emote sad. That was mean.

Expect a visitation from some kickass godesses of PAIN soon!

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that the sun will rise the next morning when I wake up.

You think that's without evidence? You're mad! lol.

If you have a reason to believe at all, you have evidence. It's the same thing. Evidence= an indication of the truth of.

Experience of the sun coming up, and science, is more than enough evidence that the sun comes up.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

You're still talking about evidence here. That's evidence for you. This is just a semantic issue matey. (Btw, in case you don't know already, when I said that you were "mad", I was joking. I mean no hostility and only wish to be friendly really ).

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that if I make a mistake in my relationship it will still be possible to reconcile with the person I love.

The fact you think you have reason to believe it, is once again your evidence, it's what evidence means - an indication.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that having hope through bad times is no more false hope than having hope through good times.

Well false hope is hope that isn't based on reality.

And anyway, see what I said above.

I have to wonder, EvF, why does it bother you so much, and why be so vehement in lashing out at fr0do? Take a chill pill, dude, it's only a debate. Right?

It doesn't bother me. It interests me. I'm already chilled out and that's why I can easily afford to keep persisting with fr0d0. In fact, I enjoy it. I've always been a persistent person really - well, especially since I was like 13. It's how I am.

I have not said anything nasty to fr0d0 and if I did I'm sure he'd know I was only joking because I actually consider him a friend. We chat on MSN sometimes too lol.

Oh, and Paul, I don't think that was a fancy way of saying God is outside the realm of evidence. He is just outside the realm of scientific evidence.

Well said there matey. fr0d0 needs to stop telling me that I'm asking for any specific evidence. I'm not and I never have. I am not asking for scientific evidence, provable evidence, empirical evidence, etc, etc - I'm just asking for evidence. And when he says he has a reason to believe that his belief in God is at all reality based - that means exactly the same thing as "I have evidence", so he is contradicting himself when he then says he has no evidence. As I keep saying (I wonder when he will accept this semantic contradiction he keeps making?).

EvF

[Minimalist]

And it is silly because...?

(Wow, we're both on a roll!)

1+1 = 2. That is a fact. There is no approximation.

The Party says 1+1 = 5. Prove the Party wrong.

"Jesus is god because a silly old book said so" is not even an approximation of a fact.

It's just religious horseshit.

See the difference?

(Probably not.)

"Jesus is the prodigal Son of God" would be more accurate. And no, it's not a fact or an approximation of a fact, I know. It's a belief, which is my point.

And beliefs are fucking worthless without evidence to back them up.


What party do you belong to?

[fr0d0]

Well said there matey. fr0d0 needs to stop telling me that I'm asking for any specific evidence. I'm not and I never have. I am not asking for scientific evidence, provable evidence, empirical evidence, etc, etc - I'm just asking for evidence. And when he says he has a reason to believe that his belief in God is at all reality based - that means exactly the same thing as "I have evidence", so he is contradicting himself when he then says he has no evidence. As I keep saying (I wonder when he will accept this semantic contradiction he keeps making?).

I'm literal with my use of the term 'evidence' Evie... because if I'm not you know you'll jump down my throat and yell "told you so" like you usually do.

The bible contains evidence of God, so does direct experience related in human communication. I chose to trust and accept that information which leads to me having faith.

[Paul the Human]

Y thankyou

In your position I don't think I was so generous.. so kudos to you (emoticon removed, because I hate them)

Thanks. I am a strong supporter of individual liberty and that includes religion. I do not condemn anyone on a personal level until they do something to deserve my scorn. And it takes a lot usually.

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

I suppose someone could consider that a reason to believe, but if they did... they probably don't really believe... which would interfere with the whole 'placebo effect' they were going for by choosing to delude themselves. *laughs*

It doesn't cut it as a reason for me, because I know that a happy life is quite easily attainable without a god's help. Not even a pretend one.

(stupid emoticon removed)

You made the tiger emote sad. That was mean.

Expect a visitation from some kickass godesses of PAIN soon!

The goddesses are far too nice to condemn me for disliking emoticons. See... I am not telling them they can't use them... only that I won't. Ha!

---

Oh... and to clarify: I only dislike the big animated ones. Regular 'smilies' aren't too bad in moderation.

[fr0d0]

Thanks. I am a strong supporter of individual liberty and that includes religion. I do not condemn anyone on a personal level until they do something to deserve my scorn. And it takes a lot usually.

respec (hope you're ok with colloquial slang then)

If all it were a delusion, but it did actually increase measurably one's happiness quotient... this would be a valid reason to believe, no?

I suppose someone could consider that a reason to believe, but if they did... they probably don't really believe... which would interfere with the whole 'placebo effect' they were going for by choosing to delude themselves. *laughs*

I was imagining a successful and involuntary delusion. One that still required faith as in this... erm... alternate reality over here. It would seem to be a placebo to us if we were aware of his being delusional. To him it would be effective belief.

I wonder if anyone believes yet also considers there to be no effect in it. I surely don't know anyone like that. If there were no effect they'd give it up I'm sure.

It doesn't cut it as a reason for me, because I know that a happy life is quite easily attainable without a god's help. Not even a pretend one.

How do you know though? Are you, in fact, deluding yourself? Is yours a reverse placebo... one intended to make you satisfied with a shit life??

[tavarish]

You can see the sun, it's demonstrably real. However, the fact that you believe it to survive another rotation of the Earth has no merit on whether it will actually do so.

No, it's not. The only thing proving it is real, to me subjectively, is that I can experience it's warmth, I can see the light it gives, and I can benefit from it's existance.

Didn't I JUST say it is demonstrable? Meaning you can demonstrate its existence?

I'm fairly confident through faith in my experience with the sun that it will not, in fact, explode or go out overnight. My belief has no bearing on whether or not it does or does not, that's correct, but I don't have to sit around worrying like a paranoid schizo because, hey, I believe in the sun and it's nature pretty confidently.

1. You proved my point that belief does not equal truth.
2. The sun doesn't warrant belief, your experiences are subjective evidence to lead you to your conclusion. You didn't just wake up one day with this belief. It came over time and through experience.

I believe without evidence, but through experience, that when I come home I will not find it burned down to the ground when I get there.

I hold everything as an active belief, so you're comment is moot. In other words, my beliefs are all actively held and I always hold them somewhere within me, whether or not I'm focusing on them at one time or another.

You misunderstand completely. Your trust lies with maintaining the status quo, specifically if the house stays the way it is. It is taken as granted that the house will remain in its current state and given the highly unlikely event that it would burn down, you treat it as a non-issue. Simply put, you do NOT believe your house will burn down when you're not home. This is not an active belief or positive assertion.

I'll reiterate: If you hold this as an active belief, I wonder what else you hold actively. Do you actively believe that cows won't fall from the sky and kill you? Do you believe that you won't fall in a sea of live grenades? Same concept.

Further, I don't need evidence to say that my house is not going to be burned to the ground when I get home, I'm just confident it wont be. Why would I need evidence for that?

Because you're making a positive assertion. Claims need evidence.

Especially if I'm certain of other factors, like having unplugged or turned off all my electronics before leaving, having turned my stove off, likewise, or not having left anything flammable within the home. I can be certain, to a point, that my house will not be burned down.

THIS IS EVIDENCE. Your factors are your experience, which is evidence.

Except that holding the belief motivates certain logical actions on my part. In believing that the relationship will work, I will take courses of action and hold myself in a very confident manner throughout the relationship. When the relationship is threatened, I put up a fight for it, rather than laying down and taking abuse. When problems arise, I will try to solve them rather than leave them lying and growing. My actions and feelings are dictated by this belief.

Uh huh. And they have no merit, as a relationship is not dependent on you alone, unless you're apologizing to your hand or something. Just because you believe in something with all your being doesn't mean it is true or that it necessarily works the way you want it to.

If I'm constantly worrying, instead, that the person I love will leave me, the chances increase that that person will pick up on those feelings and actually leave. Why? Because they will sense my lack of confidence, and really, who wants to be in a relationship where one party feels that the whole thing is extremely fragile? Not many, because love is not a fragile thing.

All of this is completely irrelevant to the conversation, but thanks for the insight, Dr. Phil. I'll make a note of it next time I want to discuss the emotions of a 16 year old. Love isn't fragile. Deep.

What? No. I think anyone would agree that holding hope throughout your life is better than losing hope entirely when things get rough.

You didn't say a damn thing about being better. You said it was "no more false hope than having hope through good times". What does your belief in this have anything with it being demonstrably true?

Don't use your response towards me to take petty pot-shots at fr0do. Your qualm, at present, is with me and not him.

LOL @ being defensive. That's so cute.

Because I've had experiences with God that suggest to me he is above and beyond the realm of scientific evidence. Furthermore, he is, to an extent, within the realm of scientific evidence. I.e.- all of your scientific evidence is just as much a part of God as is me or you, or my subjective experience evidence.

So he is outside and inside the realm of scientific evidence. Present any evidence for any of the arguments you posted here. Please.

This is what I'm saying, dude. You ask for objective proof of everything, but some things can only be trusted on the subjective level, and do not super-impose onto the objective unless one takes the time to think. I should have been clearer in my attempt to combine the idea of experience and evidence.

I asked for evidence, and paul asked for any evidence AT ALL.

I'll tell you how evidence works. Subjective evidence is fine, but you have to know how to weed out the fact from fiction. I could have a divine revelation experience right now, but it wouldn't mean shit if I didn't have some sort of way to interpret if it was real or not. Moreover, for me to relay this information with no evidence is much harder, as the other person lacks the subjective experience and is going by my word alone.

This is not good enough for me or most on this forum. You can't say "God is subjective", then complain that no one's on board with you. If he's in everything, we should damn well be able to see him in every possible sense of the word.

If you touched it once, you don't have to touch it again to know it's going to burn you. But on some subconscious level, yes, you do in fact say to yourself "From experience, I know that tove will burn me if I touch it."

That's called making a decision based on evidence. Learn to do it more often.

Yes...Yes! Exactly!

Yay for contradictions!

[Paul the Human]

It doesn't cut it as a reason for me, because I know that a happy life is quite easily attainable without a god's help. Not even a pretend one.

How do you know though? Are you, in fact, deluding yourself? Is yours a reverse placebo... one intended to make you satisfied with a shit life??

That's just a silly thing to say. I'm going to go with the assumption that you were being facetious, while I answer the question anyway. Heheh

Happiness is entirely subjective. I am nod sad about anything happening in my life. I am very happy with my marriage and my job. I am never left wanting for entertainment or things that make me smile. I have five loving and happy pets that make my home warm and inviting. I suppose I wish I had more money.

All in all, I'd say I'm pretty sure I'm a happy camper. Is that all a delusion? No. I am happy with my very real circumstances. I may not always be satisfied, but that is another matter entirely. *eats his mac & cheese and curses the economy*

[fr0d0]

Crappily formulated... I'd grant you that

I nod in familiarity with what you say. A religious experience is another layer on that I'd say. This is the gift of faith... the fruit of it : Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self-control.

Of course that isn't to say a faithful person would be any happier than yourself. But why not foster the potential?