NEWS FLASH: There is no such thing as a lack of belief.

[CRasch]

Yes, but the question of belief is what comes up most often on here. If you participate in that line of questioning, and you don't say "I don't know", then you've considered it and now your position is no longer passive. Passivity on the issue would imply ambivalence to the concept of "God", but when you take part in the discussion of whether or not "God" exists, and you say that you don't believe in "God", you've taken an active stance on belief and so you no longer "lack belief". Once you've done that, you are disbelieving in "God".

Well I don't know, but I have not seen any real evidence of a God, gods, or even the supernatural. It is more likely that (thanks to the human imagination) to come up with more things that do not exist in our corporal reality than things that do exist. So the probability of God existing is so small that I have a better chance of winning the jackpot of the lottery every time I play. Logically, rationally, empirically, morally why should we believe in God and the existence of God? I can understand it gives the concept of immortality in an afterlife but we have no evidence of an afterlife. Wouldn’t you call it blind faith? Why believe in something that has no evidence to stand on? This type of faith gives false information, information that harmful, dangerous, and sometime down right deadly. Shouldn’t we be putting that faith to better use into ourselves, each other and humanity? Even then Science has always come up with better answer than religion. If you take religion vs science in finding truth, improving human society and advancement of technology; science wins every time. Religion has not advanced us. Science has. Science uses empirical evidence. Religion uses faith. This is the core differences in the philosophies. Religion at its core is not self correcting. Science is. Science has extrapolated theories that even challenge the scientific method. Sure we have question that can’t be answered right now but that is the way science work in finding truth. It continues to research, test and share its results. This belief in God doesn’t help in the search for truth. How can you find truth when you expect to find God at the end and beginning of the string? Believing in God exist is a simile to believing the Tooth Fairy exists. It’s childish to believe in a delusion of a grand deity. I can see why the feel that the illusion of a grant deity gives people false comfort when dealing with the unknown. When you take an exalted delusion of a deity and make it the absolute truth, it goes against scientific method, rational thought, and empirical evidence. Religion use faith in an imaginary deity as evidence of reality.
Most religious people are predisposed to think faith in religion as truth since birth. We have a natural tendency, due to evolution and survival, to believe our parents without question the first years of our lives.

Almost every time religion has been brought up as the prime authoritative standard for government and society we see a depression in human rights & human culture.

Isn’t better to deal with reality as it is than to believe in illusions?

 

[baumgarten]

Isn’t better to deal with reality as it is than to believe in illusions?

Of course. The question is, What among all conceivable things is real? You and I can both admit that we don't really know.

It sounds preoposterous, but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.

 

[SnakeLord]

but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.

But until such time where there is evidence to support a claim of the existence of tooth fairies, it is simple foolishness to assert that they do exist.

I wont speak for everyone, but I find many theists are utterly wrong in their assumptions that an atheist is "anti-theist". My only quarrel with god claims, (as well as leprechaun claims etc), is that the claims are not supported with evidence. Yes, tooth fairies, leprechauns, gods and floating donuts might exist, but claiming they do exist while not understanding the need for evidence is where the issue lies.

 

[superluminal]

Of course. The question is, What among all conceivable things is real? You and I can both admit that we don't really know.

It sounds preoposterous, but it really is impossible to tell whether or not there is a tooth fairy. There might be one, somewhere. That's a true statement.

Isn't there a bit of pragmatism to be applied here? Physicists know that there is a probability that all of the molecules in a container of gas will momentarily all move to the left half of the container. The probabioity is so small that no physicist will spend time debating the benefits of, and uses for, this phenomenon. Sure it might happen in some part of the universe at some time or other, but there's no practical purpose in considering it.

There is the possibility that there are a set of phenomena that have completely escaped our notice that would indicate or otherwise support a universe-creator/omnipotent being/guiding intelligence in the universe. Given the current state of our understanding what is the likelyhood of a god? Why do humans insist on spending hours and lives discussing something with such a low probability factor?

This really is off-topic.

 

[baumgarten]

Isn't there a bit of pragmatism to be applied here? Physicists know that there is a probability that all of the molecules in a container of gas will momentarily all move to the left half of the container. The probabioity is so small that no physicist will spend time debating the benefits of, and uses for, this phenomenon. Sure it might happen in some part of the universe at some time or other, but there's no practical purpose in considering it.

For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?

This really is off-topic.

That's all right, there are two threads.

 

[scorpius]

.."I simply do not know whether God exists or not". Whats wrong with that? Why go fanatic about the whole "lack of belief" ideology?

maybe b/c lack of belief aint ideology?
and theists like you would like to make atheists "lack of belief" ie their "atheism" into some kind of religion for some dum reason.
look up the DEFINITION of religion and stop whining when atheists gets pissed of at you.
only reason atheists hate religion(in my case at least) is of all the EVIL done in the Name of GOD,
you dont see anyone killing torturing others,flying airplanes into buildings in the name of ATHEISM do you?
anyways Ill go one step further and I tell you that I dont believe...I KNOW your Xian God doesnt exist,(theres millions of threds on this gods disprove already so no need to repeat it)and as for the rest of them www.godchecker.com they are just as imaginary unless youd like to tell them to come down from the sky or wherever they are and SHOW us some of these gods.

 

[Godless]

Godless is a loon. Defending his concept of lack of belief with total fanaticism.

Actually the only loon here is the one who claims idiotic shit without any evidense to back it up, that prety much covers just about every theist. Including you licmynut!

 

[superluminal]

For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?

Well, could someone come up with an idea that would facilitate group cohesion without the superbeing fantasy part? The one who's motto has been "Convert or Die"?

Anyone? Anyone...?

Anyway, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. CSLL has me convinced. Believe it, or not.

 

[baumgarten]

Actually the only loon here is the one who claims idiotic shit without any evidense to back it up, that prety much covers just about every theist. Including you licmynut!

Far be it from me to defend teh skill, but that kind of blanket statement is exactly the same kind of blanket statement that religious fanatics make about other religions.

 

[Godless]

Far be it from me to defend teh skill, but that kind of blanket statement is exactly the same kind of blanket statement that religious fanatics make about other religions.

True huh! Till the day a theist can conjure up any evidence for their deity, I shall stand on that statement! Do you believe in Zeus? or any other god? I just believe in one less, do to the lack of "evidence"

So those who make claims that can't be backed up with evidence, are prety much in the idiotic circle! Atheism makes no claims, we just await the "evidence" of such claims made by theists!

 

[baumgarten]

Well, could someone come up with an idea that would facilitate group cohesion without the superbeing fantasy part? The one who's motto has been "Convert or Die"?

Anyone? Anyone...?

The superbeing fantasy part is, I think, a natural result of man's propensity to see causality where there apparently is none. The "convert or die" part is the real problem.

Anyway, there is no such thing as a lack of belief. CSLL has me convinced. Believe it, or not.

Anyone with a brain knows His word is Truth. (Of course, if you don't have a brain, then you don't have a mind with which to believe...)

 

[CRasch]

For science, there really is no practical purpose in considering the existence of God. But socially, there are clear benefits, the most obvious of which would be the facilitation of group cohesion. Even if you're convinced that religion causes violence between sects, that's still better than having your own particular sect degenerate into chaos, no?

Not if that cohesion prevents something better to come along. Ever heard of revolution?

 

[baumgarten]

True huh! Till the day a theist can conjure up any evidence for their deity, I shall stand on that statement! Do you believe in Zeus? or any other god? I just believe in one less, do to the lack of "evidence"

Believe? Good sir, in the true path to enlightenment, mere proposition precedes inquiry and conclusion; and only then comes belief.

So those who make claims that can't be backed up with evidence, are prety much in the idiotic circle! Atheism makes no claims, we just await the "evidence" of such claims made by theists!

One "idiotic" belief does not a whole idiot make. Plenty of crackpots have professed atheism; plenty of intelligent people have believed in God. But if you stop questioning either, how can you really know for sure whose proposition is closer to the truth?

 

[baumgarten]

Not if that cohesion prevents something better to come along. Ever heard of revolution?

Revolution has been the exception, not the norm. Can you imagine if such turmoil was the usual state of affairs for a community? How could it function?

 

[Godless]

Revolution has been the exception, not the norm. Can you imagine if such turmoil was the usual state of affairs for a community? How could it function?

As it always has, the strongest wins!

 

[baumgarten]

Always.