The logic behind believing or not believing

Intolerance of stupidity however is not. And faith is stupid. Which is why you are attempting to smear me with a label like fundamentalist and shout me down, instead of showing me to be wrong. Faith is indefensible.

There’s no such dilemma in modern physics.

That’s doubly nonsense. An idea being “obvious” doesn’t make it true; obvious ideas are often false. Nor is it an “obvious” idea in the first place; humanity went for most of its history without believing there was any such thing. “God” is a creation of the Abrahamic religions, not something that is a natural consequence of human religious thought.

As someone once said, “Happiness alone is enough only if you are a cow”. I’m not a cow.

And your “logic” only works until it causes you to walk blindly into disaster, like relying on faith to cure your sickness instead of medicine.

It’s not stupid to relay on faith to sooth the troubled soul, or to lead a person to a moral life. It’s not stupid to use faith to share the human experience with others.

What is stupid is deriding everyone who has faith like they are fundamentalists foaming at the mouth and smug in the superiority of their beliefs.

And I’m not doing any shouting here.

Yes it is, because the nature of faith means that you will almost certainly be wrong. Faith makes people less moral, it offers false comfort, and the only part of the human experience it can share is that of being wrong.

I see. Your fundamentalist atheism has made you right all the time. You are no longer to subject to making mistakes. I bow to you O Superior Being. I grovel before your imperial wisdom.

Or maybe you could just get over yourself.

I said no such thing; I didn’t say anything even close to that. I said that faith is by nature about being wrong, not that I’m right. I could be wrong about virtually everything I believe, and faith would still be incredibly stupid. Denying reality is by nature stupid, and that’s what faith is.

Nor is “fundamentalist atheism” anything other than a meaningless insult.

Where is your evidence that atheists are right more often than theists? The basis of your argument is nothing but perceived superiority to the faithful. Unless you can demonstrate that a lack of faith makes one a better person in some material way than you have nothing.

And I would say the evidence is that atheism doesn’t prevent you from hurling insults while being offended when you perceive that they are pointed back at you. Really, you shouldn’t try to represent atheism, it makes it look bad.

You keep distorting what I say. I said that faith is by nature almost always wrong. And history shows that is indeed true; claims made out of faith are virtually always wrong, much worse than even randomly making guesses. “Faith” is just a socially sanctioned way of saying that something is a fantasy that the “faithful” refuses to give up. It’s only going to be right by sheer coincidence.

If God isn’t really God, but is actually X, and X exists, then God exists. Pretty weak.

What’s naivism? I do think all ideas are true, in a sense. Just not all ideas are currently in an extant physical form.

Well yeah, a god isn’t really consistent with the world as we observe it, except possibly in the most abstract of ways which would make it pointless to worry about. I don’t mean obvious as in obviously true in the physical world, I mean it in the sense of, it’s a very easy extrapolation both philosophically and narratively. In that sense, it’s not something we should cling to as a current physical reality, but it is still a concept that could have metaphorical, psychological, philosophical and technological utility.

Where gods are going out of fashion, we have superheroes instead.

Which is to say, the people that came up with it were really onto something. They made the mistake of connecting it to laws and origin story and the natural world and so forth. It’s something that feels true. But it doesn’t exist in the form described. That doesn’t mean we can’t find a way to create it. And in fact we can see the beginnings of something like that in its very early stages.

Care to expand on that?

Generic god. Deity. Even tao or logos will do. But if we’re getting nitpicky, even polytheistic religions had all encompassing deities before the Abrahamic one. And even the Abrahamic one is only nominally monotheistic what with it’s angels and Holy Spirit and so forth.

And see above. Not factually true, but conceptually true. For example, yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Just not one that actually slides down your chimney.

I think “false” is generally a too unspecific term to describe ideas. The reasons we reject ideas are numerous and various and it is important to be clear about which we are referring to.

The “Yes Virgina” story is lovely, but if Virginia became an adult and still expected Santa to bring her and her children gifts then it starts to take on a more sinister aspect.

Well then lets be clear:

Is God the source of morality and has he revealed it to humanity? If so, why isn’t it consistent among believers.

Is God still taking an active part in the Universe; i.e., are there phenomena occurring that are not consistent with the laws of physics?

Does God listen to the prayers of people and alter events accordingly?

Is there a way to determine between faith in a real God and faith in a false God? Or is faith in itself sufficient, regardless of what that faith is in?

When one is severely hurting, false comfort can be indistinguishable from real comfort. The illusion of peace can, in extreme need, substitute for real peace.

As great a mind as Martin Gardner followed “Credo Consolans,” “I believe because it makes me feel better.”

To you – and to me! – that’s odious. But I won’t scorn the spirit in need. Religion is the methadone of the masses: it isn’t even a real opiate!

I made up the word. But, then, if all ideas are true…then I made up a true word… Naivism is just the creed of “common sense” and “appearances matter” and “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” The problem is that this doesn’t really work. We’ve looked behind the curtain, and there’s stuff going on there that is violently against common sense. Quantum physics, relativity, evolution, etc.

For more or less the reasons that Der Trihs gives, I can’t agree. I will concede that religious faith can have some personal, individual utility. People may, on their own, hold to such faith because it comforts them. But in terms of making meaningful public decisions, no. Religion and state must be held apart; they are antimatter opposites when it comes to valid purposes.

Grin! Perhaps true, but we have the security of knowing that no one believes in superheroes, and we do not formulate public policy on their basis.

It terrifies me (and nauseates me no little!) that the potential-end-of-the-world decisions made during the Cold War were, in many cases, made by people who believe in an afterlife, in God, in heaven and hell. These moral baboons were willing to put an end to human civilization, because, to them, they get to eat pie in the sky when we (all!) die. I hold this to be just about the most immoral stance conceivable.

At very least, no one is likely to launch nuclear missiles, in the belief that Superman will intercept the warheads and deflect them into deep space.

The effort expended to conclude that the universe came from nothing is exactly equal to the effort to believe that god started from nothing.

Would it not be logical to simply conclude the chain of creation before adding ghostly links?

Now is *almost *always wrong. And where all these people making claims of faith? You don’t know much about the people you are demeaning. Not surprising based on the attitude you express. You have a blind faith that anyone who isn’t an atheist is just stupid and basing their life on your own selective concept of what faith is.

This would only be true if I deluded myself into thinking I had a chance of comprehending exactly what happened in the begaining. I accept the possibility of something non physical. I don’t want to get into religious beliefs here.

  A few months back their was a discussion here about matter and anti matter. They talked about if matter comes into contact with anti matter they cancel each other out and then nothing exists. I can't comprehend that. When I read that it reinforced my belief in some kind of higher power or creator of the universe. This might all be an accident, I don't pretend to know. I feel science is way premature in announcing that no higher power could exist, high IQ's don't neccessarily give someone a free pass to being right.

And how do you feel about what science actually says-that there seems to be no hard evidence to support the idea that the “higher power” that some people claim exist *does exist, and that some of the contradictory claims made by some about their “higher power” may even be considered evidence against.

I feel like claims made either way are bogus. I simply don’t believe we have advanced enough to make claims either way. For all practical purposes I don’t believe it can even be discussed in a meaningful way. I am perfectly fine with the concept of meditation and prayer as I believe it does us good emotionaly. Without a physical concept of some kind we are unable to get into that spiritual mode that I find to be very relaxing and healing. I accept on blind no logic faith that maybe we were designed this way for a reason.

I don’t think you understood my response: Science isn’t making any claim one way or the other-it is saying that no one has presented solid evidence for such a claim yet. The only reason you could dispute this is if you had solid evidence, or knew of solid evidence that could be cited, for the existence of a “higher power”. Whatcha got?

I can go along with that. But I do believe that their is circumstantial evidence.

Dammit, how could I have misssed this news!!
When did Science announce this??? Was it in the papers?

You got me!