My view and reasons for them. Atheist and Christians welcome here. (short)

[robvalue]

Am I right in thinking that this guy is placing himself in a middle ground, not being an atheist or a theist?

That's fine, if you use certain definitions for words. But that doesn't stop him being necessarily a theist or an atheist by our (common) definitions. So he would be carrying over a sizable chunk of people he's referring to as atheists (or theists) into his middle-ground camp, without acknowledging this. It's a tactic I've seen many times before (possibly due to misunderstandings, possibly not, but once this has been pointed out, that excuse disappears). It's a way of trying to feel superior to both sides. He's assuming all atheists take a stronger position than they necessarily do.

He sounds way more like a theist than an atheist to me as it happens, but as usual, the word "God" has no coherent meaning so the point is moot.

[Quick]

Am I right in thinking that this guy is placing himself in a middle ground, not being an atheist or a theist?

That's fine, if you use certain definitions for words. But that doesn't stop him being necessarily a theist or an atheist by our (common) definitions. So he would be carrying over a sizable chunk of people he's referring to as atheists (or theists) into his middle-ground camp, without acknowledging this. It's a tactic I've seen many times before (possibly due to misunderstandings, possibly not, but once this has been pointed out, that excuse disappears). It's a way of trying to feel superior to both sides. He's assuming all atheists take a stronger position than they necessarily do.

He sounds way more like a theist than an atheist to me as it happens, but as usual, the word "God" has no coherent meaning so the point is moot.

My beliefs don't have to do with thinking I am superior... at all. I simply believe what makes sense to me. I don't get why you are essentially punishing me for having a view that kinda sorta (but not really IMO) ties a belief and lack of belief in God. I think as others have said, my belief isn't something that is unique to anyone else necessarily and if I did think that, I would probably be better at having a view that others do not have.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not because you have doubts, lol..but because I;ve heard your non-reasons.  One of them was that your silly beliefs give you purpose in life.  That strongly implies that it does matter whether or not those silly beliefs are accurate...and particularly so if you think you'd lose your sense of purpose in life if you stopped believing in silliness by non reasons.

That would be true if I was immune to bias and I had a good understanding of reality, but I don't and neither do you. People are not robots and they don't actually think all that rationally. Because of this, what people believe and the reasons for them go a hell of a lot deeper than what someone can rationalize. It's a pretty self evident thing, it's just that I admit it is happening when a lot of people do not.

Of course it;s happening..but it;s not really germane to what I;m commenting on.  You explained to us that your beliefs give you a sense of purpose..and that because of this it;s not really that important to you whether or not they are accurate.  You also explained..however, that if you could not maintain those beliefs..the sense of purpose in your life would vanish.  

In that context, it doesn;t really matter whether you come to believe that the contents of your faith are accurate (or abandon that notion) for rational or completely batshit reasons. Only that the change in your appraisal of those things has a profound effect. An effect that just might alter your perception of things "outside of god"...even.

Can you see how these two claims are diametrically opposed, and how they present a situation incongruent with many other comments you've made in regards to your appraisal of your own faith and faith in gods in general, as well?

[Simon Moon]

Not because you have doubts, lol..but because I;ve heard your non-reasons.  One of them was that your silly beliefs give you purpose in life.  That strongly implies that it does matter whether or not those silly beliefs are accurate...and particularly so if you think you'd lose your sense of purpose in life if you stopped believing in silliness by non reasons.

That would be true if I was immune to bias and I had a good understanding of reality, but I don't and neither do you. People are not robots and they don't actually think all that rationally. Because of this, what people believe and the reasons for them go a hell of a lot deeper than what someone can rationalize. It's a pretty self evident thing, it's just that I admit it is happening when a lot of people do not.

Of course humans are not immune to bias.

But there are tools specifically designed to help eliminate bias. The problem is, you refuse to use them when it comes to your pet belief.

The very fact that you choose your belief because it makes you feel good, as opposed to because it is supported by evidence, is a blatant demonstration that you do no care about what is actually true. Don't you want to know if your beliefs are true, or at least likely true?

And the fact that you think that we are all equally susceptible to our biases, is just plain wrong. Like I said, there are tools that will help eliminate biases.

[brewer]

Am I right in thinking that this guy is placing himself in a middle ground, not being an atheist or a theist?

That's fine, if you use certain definitions for words. But that doesn't stop him being necessarily a theist or an atheist by our (common) definitions. So he would be carrying over a sizable chunk of people he's referring to as atheists (or theists) into his middle-ground camp, without acknowledging this. It's a tactic I've seen many times before (possibly due to misunderstandings, possibly not, but once this has been pointed out, that excuse disappears). It's a way of trying to feel superior to both sides. He's assuming all atheists take a stronger position than they necessarily do.

He sounds way more like a theist than an atheist to me as it happens, but as usual, the word "God" has no coherent meaning so the point is moot.

Yep, I smelled this days ago. Some kind of semi detached mystique that makes him special.

[Quick]

That would be true if I was immune to bias and I had a good understanding of reality, but I don't and neither do you. People are not robots and they don't actually think all that rationally. Because of this, what people believe and the reasons for them go a hell of a lot deeper than what someone can rationalize. It's a pretty self evident thing, it's just that I admit it is happening when a lot of people do not.

Of course it;s happening..but it;s not really germane to what I;m commenting on.  You explained to us that your beliefs give you a sense of purpose..and that because of this it;s not really that important to you whether or not they are accurate.  You also explained..however, that if you could not maintain those beliefs..the sense of purpose in your life would vanish.  

In that context, it doesn;t really matter whether you come to believe that the contents of your faith are accurate (or abandon that notion) for rational or completely batshit reasons.  Only that the change in your appraisal of those things has a profound effect.  An effect that just might alter your perception of things "outside of god"...even.

Can you see how these two claims are diametrically opposed, and how they present a situation incongruent with many other comments you've made in regards to your appraisal of your own faith and faith in gods in general, as well?

If it so happened that my beliefs were wrong and disproven (they never will be), I am not sure how I would react to that. However, you make it seem as though I am already believing something that has been proven false, which isn't the case. Everything else you are talking about is purely hypothetical and not worth discussing. Did it ever occur to you that sacrificing a minor thing for a much greater gain is a net positive? Do you claim to only believe what is true? That would be the claim you would have to make in order to say what you are saying here.

That would be true if I was immune to bias and I had a good understanding of reality, but I don't and neither do you. People are not robots and they don't actually think all that rationally. Because of this, what people believe and the reasons for them go a hell of a lot deeper than what someone can rationalize. It's a pretty self evident thing, it's just that I admit it is happening when a lot of people do not.

Of course humans are not immune to bias.

But there are tools specifically designed to help eliminate bias. The problem is, you refuse to use them when it comes to your pet belief.

The very fact that you choose your belief because it makes you feel good, as opposed to because it is supported by evidence, is a blatant demonstration that you do no care about what is actually true. Don't you want to know if your beliefs are true, or at least likely true?

And the fact that you think that we are all equally susceptible to our biases, is just plain wrong. Like I said, there are tools that will help eliminate biases.

I think you need to restate what my beliefs are if you are going to say I am not using the tools that we have to reassess what my beliefs are. I said at some point on this forum that our tools are only as good as the weakest link in our biases which are a byproduct of our flawed perception. I didn't use those exact words, but that's basically what I said. And you could argue "but we know so much about reality now" and to that I would say "how do you know that?" There is no way to know how much of reality we have actually figured out. So then that leaves us at the point where I can only believe what I know to be true for myself.

Am I right in thinking that this guy is placing himself in a middle ground, not being an atheist or a theist?

That's fine, if you use certain definitions for words. But that doesn't stop him being necessarily a theist or an atheist by our (common) definitions. So he would be carrying over a sizable chunk of people he's referring to as atheists (or theists) into his middle-ground camp, without acknowledging this. It's a tactic I've seen many times before (possibly due to misunderstandings, possibly not, but once this has been pointed out, that excuse disappears). It's a way of trying to feel superior to both sides. He's assuming all atheists take a stronger position than they necessarily do.

He sounds way more like a theist than an atheist to me as it happens, but as usual, the word "God" has no coherent meaning so the point is moot.

Yep, I smelled this days ago. Some kind of semi detached mystique that makes him special.

You realize that I don't actually put the much importance on my belief in God right? Like I said in my intro thread, I am just here for Mafia. I just thought that while I am here I might give my perspective on my beliefs while I am here. I'm not like here on some kind of mission to show how superior I am or some shit. Like what's the rational thought behind me doing this anyways? How are people logically concluding that I think I am superior to other people? It does not make sense.

[Simon Moon]

I think you need to restate what my beliefs are if you are going to say I am not using the tools that we have to reassess what my beliefs are. I said at some point on this forum that our tools are only as good as the weakest link in our biases which are a byproduct of our flawed perception. I didn't use those exact words, but that's basically what I said. And you could argue "but we know so much about reality now" and to that I would say "how do you know that?"

We know we know a lot about reality, because what we know WORKS.

Just look around a bit. All the technology, your extended lifespan (compared to just 100 years ago), people cured of diseases that were a death sentence in recent history, cell phones, space flight, etc, etc, etc, all due to the our limited knowledge. And our knowledge is increasing at an enormous rate.

All this, is due to the methods I am advocating for telling fact from fiction. The same methods you have at your own disposal.

There is no way to know how much of reality we have actually figured out. So then that leaves us at the point where I can only believe what I know to be true for myself.

There is no such thing as 'your own truth'. There is only truth. Either the thing that you are applying the god label to, manifests in reality, or it doesn't. Your personal opinion about it means nothing.

Would you rather get on a plane that the designer tells you was designed and built using 'his own truth', or a plane that was designed and built using methods that have been shown to work, no matter what individuals think about their 'own truth'.

[Quick]

I think you need to restate what my beliefs are if you are going to say I am not using the tools that we have to reassess what my beliefs are. I said at some point on this forum that our tools are only as good as the weakest link in our biases which are a byproduct of our flawed perception. I didn't use those exact words, but that's basically what I said. And you could argue "but we know so much about reality now" and to that I would say "how do you know that?"

We know we know a lot about reality, because what we know WORKS.

I don't think this is adequate evidence that we know a lot about reality. Whether things work or not is relative.

There is no way to know how much of reality we have actually figured out. So then that leaves us at the point where I can only believe what I know to be true for myself.

There is no such thing as 'your own truth'. There is only truth. Either the thing that you are applying the god label to, manifests in reality, or it doesn't. Your personal opinion about it means nothing.

Would you rather get on a plane that the designer tells you was designed and built using 'his own truth', or a plane that was designed and built using methods that have been shown to work, no matter what individuals think about their 'own truth'.

Like, you consider yourself a skeptic, right? I am a skeptic as well. My scepticism is in trusting others to have my own self interest in mind, which I cannot be sure of.

I am not claiming some bullshit about "find your own truth inside yourself" I am simply making a point that given I only have a sample size of 1 (me) that I can 100% trust, I have to rely on myself to know what it is that I think is true. If it so happens that I am wrong, then I am wrong and I can try and adapt from there. But as it stands I have my reasons for believing what I do. You disagree with those reasons, which is perfectly acceptable. We each have our own beliefs. Let's not call it more than it actually is.

[The Grand Nudger]

If it so happened that my beliefs were wrong and disproven (they never will be), I am not sure how I would react to that.

Then you're not sure that your purpose in life derives from those beliefs or would vanish in their absence......but let's take a moment to point out the absurdity of what you chose to include in parenthesis.

However, you make it seem as though I am already believing something that has been proven false, which isn't the case. Everything else you are talking about is purely hypothetical and not worth discussing.

Just from hearing your own rationalizations I already know that your beliefs are false as communicated..but that;s immaterial.  I'm just trying to help you more accurately describe them.  Either it would be a Big Deal™ if you lost your faith or it wouldn;t..but make up your mind and stick to whichever version of that story you prefer.  

Did it ever occur to you that sacrificing a minor thing for a much greater gain is a net positive?

Doesn;t have anything to do with gods or..so far as I can tell, anything we're discussing..but sure.

Do you claim to only believe what is true?

That's pretty much how I stumble my way through this turgid existence, yup.   I, personally, can;t compel myself to believe something that I think is false, can you?

That would be the claim you would have to make in order to say what you are saying here.

Not a problem..but you're awfully preoccupied with others when you try to communicate your own beliefs.  I could be full on loony tunes and believe a whole pile of rank bullshit..but that wouldn;t alter the status of your own beliefs, improve your ability to communicate them...or demonstrate that they were credible in any way.

Tell you what, just imagine that I;m insane..and manage to legitimately believe three impossible things before breakfast...and whatever else tickles your fancy. Then ask yourself how you managed to convey a belief set that even a nutter like me recognizes for nonsense.

[Quick]

If it so happened that my beliefs were wrong and disproven (they never will be), I am not sure how I would react to that.

Then you're not sure that your purpose in life derives from those beliefs or would vanish in their absence......but let's take a moment to point out the absudity of what you chose to include in parenthesis.

I still don't know if you know what my actual beliefs are.

However, you make it seem as though I am already believing something that has been proven false, which isn't the case. Everything else you are talking about is purely hypothetical and not worth discussing.

Just from hearing your own rationalizations I already know that your beliefs are false as communicated..but that;s immaterial.  I'm just trying to help you more accurately describe them. Either it would be a Big Deal™ if you lost your faith or it wouldn;t..but make up your mind and stick to whichever version of that story you prefer.

I'm agnostic.

Did it ever occur to you that sacrificing a minor thing for a much greater gain is a net positive?

Doesn;t have anything to do with gods or..so far as I can tell, anything we're discussing..but sure.

It does though. If I choose to believe something that may or may not be true and it gives me happiness in this short life, that is a trade I am willing to make.

Do you claim to only believe what is true?

That's pretty much how I stumble my way through this turgid existence, yup.  

I'll take this as sarcasm. Otherwise you would have to make the claim that you have never been wrong before.

That would be the claim you would have to make in order to say what you are saying here.

Not a problem..but you're awfully preoccupied with others when you try to communicate your own beliefs.

Not sure why you say this. Your the one who is involved with my beliefs, not the other way around.