The reasonable belief in God
Offline First let us distinguish the separate definitions of reason. There is a scientific reason (often called empirical knowledge), there is ethical reasoning (what makes you happy? What is the greatest good for the greatest number?), and there is logical and mathematical reasoning (absolute or tautological knowledge). The former two use the tools of the latter in order to function coherently and provide the best answers that we, as humans can come up with.
So, here is the question: why would it be reasonable for you to believe in a God? Obviously there is no empirical reason to do so, and this is what Atheists first point to when they discuss religion. God is not observed with our senses, he does not speak to you (or at least most of you), there is no evidence for him, and therefore no scientific reason to believe in him. Therefore there is no reason (either scientific, ethical, or logical) to believe that God took a direct hand in the things which science can explain. There is no reason (of any kind), with the evidence that we have now, to believe such ridiculous notions as "God made the world in six days," or that the earth is six thousand years old. There is no reason to believe in the absolute truth of the Bible.
Now, skipping the second form of reason for now, there is also no true tautological reason for the existence of God. Many philosophers have tried to prove God through "pure reason," and I will not go into a long discussion of their attempts or arguments here--because I simply don't buy them. There simply is no way that I know of to prove the existence of God.
However, when we discuss the ethical reason for believing in God, we are faced with a much different question. We are not asking whether there is empirical evidence for the existence of God. We are not asking whether or not it can be proved absolutely--but we are asking the bold question of whether or not it is best for our lives and our personal happiness. Now I am not talking about any of the bullshit spouted about that "believing in God will make you a better person" or that "taking Christ as your lord and savior will help you to lead a better life." This is utter nonsense. It is not religion which gives you a better life, but your ability to critically analyze what is right and wrong. Religion is not the proper guide to either science, math, or your personal ethics, and in fact it has been used frequently to misguide large groups of people into doing very horrific things. To put it bluntly, priests are the worst guarders of morality. At best they can enforce it, at worst they horribly corrupt it.
However, when you ask the question: "what happens after I die" the evidence in this world suddenly becomes worthless. We know that our bodies rot away into dust, but this does not bring us any comfort. In fact, it is this fact, and this fact alone, which can potentially make us fear death--fear it with such an inward pain that it can ruin our life. But wait! If our life is to be ruined by this fear of death, if we are to be afraid of what happens in the shade beyond--is that not reason to believe in a God? Is that not then reason to believe in an afterlife? There may be no evidence for a God, but there is evidence of death--is death not reason enough to put your belief in something, so that you might live this life without fear?
When you honestly ask yourself this question, I think you will find that it is the fundamental one. It was Voltaire who wrote that "if God did not exist then it would be necessary to invent him." The reason why we would want to invent him would be so that we can live this life to its fullest--to use reason to analyze the world around us and ardently find answers to our deepest questions, while still believing that when we die, we could continue to live on. To know that there was no reason to fear death, and to instead just enjoy life.
~Deist
- Login to post comments
I meant 'motive' as in 'cause,' which was the use of 'reason' you used interchangeably with 'reason' as in 'logical justification.' That's equivocation.
Alright.
I explained how it is unreasonable and under what circumstance it is unreasonable to fear death.
These would be rational fears. Read my post again and you'll find I wrote exactly why your particular fear of death is irrational and not at all similar to these fears.
This is exactly the point I made. It's not rational to fear death. Later in this response you'll see how you've made an ass out of yourself by stating this.
I can manage not to dear death because I cannot be alive while I am dead. It is the cessation of life. All that I am is living, when I am dead I cannot perceive that I have died for I am no longer alive. I don't understand what is so difficult for you to understand here.
You should also know that most of the Atheists here are monist, and do not believe in an eternal soul. The supernatural is incoherent and necessarily does not exist as it contradicts the material universe we inhabit.
The concept is not difficult to grasp.
Yes, a person can be counselled in order to overcome a phobia, but it is not merely as simple as showing the person it's irrational. The person with the phobia can be well aware of how irrational the phobia is. The psychiatric condition is more complicated than you make it out to be.
I just explained death rationally. It is the cessation of life functions. You exist only because your particular brain is alive. When it is no longer alive you are dead. It really is that simple.
I am not comforted by the fact that I will die but nor do I look forward to it. It is an inevitability, however, that neither you nor I can escape and I do not dwell on it. It has no consequence on my life exactly because I cannot be alive while I am dead. I simply do not worry about death. So, no, I don't dread the cessation of my existence.
And this is when you make an ass out of yourself. You stated earlier that '... such fear ruins life.' If that's so, then it's as irrational as a phobia. Yet you state here that such a fear would make you '... too cautious to really enjoy life' and you're a theist. You believe in a god, an immortal soul and an afterlife because the fear of death would be so overwhelming that you couldn't really enjoy life. That is exactly the phobia I described and the mechanisms by which you deal with that phobia. I don't suffer from that phobia and I don't employ those mechanisms. Do you see now exactly how infantile it is to provide fear of death as the 'reasonable belief in god'. There is no such thing as a 'reasonable belief' in god.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The argument by the numbers:
1. Death is scary.
2. A person may draw comfort from believing in gods or an afterlife.
3. None of which has been demonstrated to exist.
4. But it makes them happy, so they may as well delude themselves.
Rationale provides a motive (or 'cause,' one use of the word 'reason' ) but not a logical justification (another meaning for the word 'reason' ) for belief. The consequent appealed from is fear of death, and response advocated is self-delusion (which something can only be if you've removed all other criteria and are defending a belief solely for its consolatory properties).
Oddguy, I hear the invisible pink unicorn uses its electromagnetic super conducting quantum computer horn as an instrument upon your death to record the configuration of your brain so that it can afterward sneakup on a sleeping unbeliever and perform a secret surgical reconstruction of the unbelievers autonomous mental state that turns it into you. After which you exist again and the unbeliever is thrown into silent oblivion. The ethical imperative for believing in the pink unicorn is that I am content in the knowledge that I will continue to exist forever beyond my death and I don't feel inclined to kill unbelievers while I'm alive, after all, I need them don't I, and they will lose out at death anyway, while I won't know or care because my invisible pink unicorn will take care of that for me.
On the other hand, there is this scientific theory which appears to be gaining support and evidence and it says that right here in this space there is another frequency that energy quanta can resonate at in which everything that has ever been and ever will be continues to exist, like a parallel universe where elvis is alive literally, (because like the cat he can be alive and dead simultaneously). The imperative to believe in this strange idea is empirically based, it is the nature of the properties of the fabric of the very reality in which I have life. But wait there's more.... it's comforting too, because I can believe that the quanta which make up my being tuned into a different frequency are eternal in infinite states of being, heck, in some infinity of those universes I am already dead, and look here I am regardless of that in this one, alive and well and increasing the sum of my human experiences. That can only be a good thing, clearly no matter how long I live or how much wealth and glory I accumulate in this life I can never have more or less than any other being anywhere in any universe. no-one and nothing gets to have more than a now to be in.
The difference between the pink unicorn and the many worlds hypothesis is that one of them I made up out of thin air. The other one is being extrapolated logically from empirical reason by ever increasing numbers of very rational processes.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
what you appear to not understand is that my argument is not grounded in whether or not God is real or not. Such a thing is beside the point. The argument simply makes the claim that believing in a Deist God leads to a better life without any negative conquences. I clearly said this by separating the reasons for believing in God from empiricism.
arguments seek conclusions, not truth. The conclusion this argument reaches is that belief in God makes you more happy.
please see my response to why this argument does not fit unless you are a sociopath unconcerned about the either the pain or vengence others will bestow upon you for killing babies. most of us have evolved to have something called empathy, which is what holds group ethics together.
very well. There is more I could say, but this tangent is really beside teh point, so I will drop it.
Why thank you very much. And I don't see any harm in yours. i simply enjoy debating people who are as openminded as yourself.
how could the "supernatural" contradict the material? They are completely different. Things that are completely different cannot contradict. Its like saying that Green can contradict loud. It is obsurd.
perhaps, but this does not deny the fact that most "phobias" can be counseled by pointing out the person's wrongful reasoning--whereas no one is wrong that they are going to die.
you no longer exist. You have lost all concious. Again, I like being concious, and fear loosing such a gift.
indeed, I agree completely. Not dwelling on it is a good reason to believe in God.
I have a hard time buying this, but if it is true I can certainly understand why you are Atheist and not Deist.
I am sorry if I slighly mispoke, or was not clear, in my verbal argument, but the line should be
F-->~G
If you fear death, then you do not believe in God.
this is far more accurate, since those who believe in God obviously do not fear death, since they believe in heaven.
If there is a God then he is rational and honest, and he is hiding, and the best explanation for that is that life is a test to see if you're rational and honest enough to go to heaven. Only honest and rational people llike atheists get to go to heaven.
Most likely all the theists end up someplace else.
I think it is more likely that honest rational atheists get to go to heaven then anyone who is lying to themselves.
Atheist solders are no more fearful of death than Christian solders. Atheists in hospice are no more fearful of death then Christians in hospice.
Christians are taught their entire lives that some people go to hell when they die and that there is a possibility that they will go to hell if their faith fails them.
I was dead for at least 14.5 billion years before I was born, and it was no prolem at all - why should I think that its a problem after I die.
God revealed to me in a dream that only atheists go to heaven and everyone else will burn alive forever in a lake of fire, but I think that it was only a dream - but maybe not.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
*Rolls eyes*
You have no choice. Whether there is an afterlife or not, you're going to die. You have no choice over there being an afterlife or not either, so you have no control over whether you give up your consciousness or not. There is no reason to believe the afterlife exists. I won't point this out again!
MATERIAL UNIVERSE. I'm aware that supernatural and material are not in the same category. The supernatural cannot be a part of the universe because it is (the universe) material and the supernatural is immaterial. The two are not mutually compatible. Supernatural is incoherent, so is immaterial. Read the essays on this site and find out why. I won't point this out again!
Right. So you agree that you're going to die. Good. I wrote that it's not enough to merely point out the 'wrongful reasoning'. Phobias aren't cured by just telling the phobic that their fear is irrational. Imagine someone getting over arachnophobia by hearing just this sentence, 'Fear of spiders is irrational because most spiders are harmless to humans.' I don't think that will succeed, but it is true.
It's not a gift. It is a fact of being a live human. Just because you like it doesn't mean it's a 'gift'.
This doesn't even make sense.
I don't care if you have a hard time buying it. It has nothing to do with my Atheism. Even were I a deist, I wouldn't fear death. Neither has anything to do with the other. I'm just being rational about it. The reality is you cannot be alive if you are dead and vice versa, thus it is irrational to fear what you cannot experience while you are alive.
It is a very simple concept to grasp. It's frustrating that you are unable to 'buy' that I just don't fear death. That doesn't mean I embrace it or look forward to it, just that I don't fear it. It will happen, but as long as I'm alive, it can't. It's not something I can experience because I'd be dead!
The alternative has been pointed out.
I won't respond anymore after this if you bring up this same stuff. I refuse to repeat myself another time.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I have come to that conclusion independently a few times as well. A few common arguments say that God may exist if we consider that he (lowercase because he probably wants to be just a guy) probably just wants to be left alone. Why do prayers go unanswered? 'Cause fuck 'em, that's why! Why would a just, loving God allow people to kill each other for stupid reasons? Maybe he just wasn't paying attention. It's a fun thought to play with, and more reasonable than the major religions, but I don't actually believe it any more than I believe the FSM theory.
I will borrow this part as the beginning of my response to what was written a few posts up. It's a good start. I just want to add that we're not really talking about Christians here. We're talking about RationalDeist's own personal view of what God and Heaven must be. What this changes is that s/he may not believe in a Hell and may believe that the choice is between Heaven and oblivion.
The way I see it, what we have to fear in death is that we won't accomplish all that we intend to in life. Indeed, if I thought I would die tomorrow, I would be upset for that one reason, which is a pretty good sized umbrella for all of the various things I want to do in life. That's why I'm more sad at the funeral of an ambitious teenager than that of a retired elder. I don't see any reason why one should fear the very act of dying. It may be painful (traumatic, as mentioned before), or it may not, depending on the manor of death. That is really irrelevant, as a dying person undergoes the same amount of pain from the same cause of death regardless of what he believes will become of him when it's over.
The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
- Thomas H. Huxley
When I do good, I feel good; when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion.
- Abraham Lincoln
won't point out what again? Let me summarize your argument.
All death is certain.
Because death is certain, we should not worry about death.
Hunger is certain.
Because Hunger is certain, we should not worry about hunger.
Pain is certain.
Because pain is certain, we should not worry about pain.
You haven't "pointed out" anything. All you have said is "there is no reason, there is no reason, there is no reason!" Well there IS a reason, so until you point out why there ISN'T one, then I don't care what you "stop pointing out."
this is ridiculous. Are you saying that going through the argument that there is no statistical reason to be afraid of spiders is not used to help people calm their fears of spiders? They never use this fact, ever? If that is the case, then we need new phycologists.
Richard Dawkins called it one. Something like 'the statistical improbability that we exist, right now, in this time--is a tremendous gift, and we should live our life to its fullest.' It was on the documentary "The Root of all Evil?"
believing in an afterlife allows you to not dwell on the cold hard fact of death. That you will no longer be in the world, that you can no longer have the incredible opportunity of thought.
BUT I WANT TO BE ALIVE GODDAMNIT. I WANT to live, I WANT to learn, I WANT to love. I do not want to fade into non-existence, I do not want to become nothing. I want to hold onto my conciousness, with tight firm fists I want to keep my conciousness.
What is there that is simple to grasp? How is it so difficult to see this from my perspective? I want to live forever, I do not want to fade off into nothingness. I enjoy thought, I enjoy life, I enjoy happiness. I do not want it to ever end, and the thought of it ending is a very depressing one. This is why I believe in an afterlife.
I do understand what you are saying. You are saying that ONCE you are dead, none of it will matter. You will be dead, you will be thoughtless, you will be dust in the ground or on the wind, without a conciousness, without a soul. But I do not want to be this way. I want to live forever, or die trying.
Do you understand now? Do you understand why humans would want to live forever? Or are you just not going to respond, because you think that somehow this is an invalid desire, that there is no reason to hold life/conciousness so dealy?
I do not believe that lying to yourself makes you happier. You can not have real joy until you reach inner peace, and I do not think you can ever reach inner peace until you have integrity, and you can never have integrity until you honestly face the truth.
If you lie to yourself about the existence of God then you are always going to have nagging doubts. You can be blissfully ignorant about the truth, but once you know that the truth of one of your beliefs is in question, then you will never be at peace until you honestly resolve it.
I do not understand why believing in heaven could reduce someone's fear of death. They would be afraid that they were wrong about heaven. They would be remembering all the bad things that they ever did and wondering if they were disqualified. They would be afraid that someone went to heaven, but they did not make it. They would know deep down inside that they were being dishonest and that would cause all kinds of anxieties.
I believe the only way to get over fear is to face reality. That is the only way to get over any phobia.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
I would say "belief" is the correct word. It does not say "know," but it still belies the correct meaning.
You're in trouble when 'you can't prove it wrong' seems the most solid argument. It generally means you haven't got any positive claims about something.
Of course we know that God and heaven are delusions. There are an infinite number of extraordinary things that people can make up that are just BS because they are not based on any substantial evidence. As far as I know in the history of the world, none of that BS has ever been proved true. Is it possible that some ancient Roman without any substantial evidence believed that someday people would be blogging on computers - no real chance at all. There is no real chance at all that BS such as God or Heaven could be real because there is no substantial evidence that they are real.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
There are no positive claims that I know of about God.
OK, I was responding to your remark. I called your argument Pascal's Wager for belief in belief.
You haven't responded to my characterization of your premise.
I disagree. It's been mentioned before, but not everyone fears death, and plenty of people have conquered that fear without invoking the supernatural at all. An unknown ("What happens after I die?"
does not necessarily provoke fear, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
No problem. I think most of us here agree that theistic beliefs (particularly those of fundamentalist Muslims and Christians) are much more of a problem than deistic beliefs.
The unexamined life is not worth living - Socrates
What do you mean there are no positive claims about God. I just made a positive claim about God - I proved he does not exist, as follows:
I said, of course we know that God and heaven are delusions. There are an infinite number of extraordinary things that people can make up that are just BS because they are not based on any substantial evidence. As far as we know in the history of the world, none of that BS (extraordinary things not based on substantial evidence) has ever been shown to be true and tens of thousands of examples of such BS has been shown to be false. Is it possible that some ancient Roman without any substantial evidence believed that someday people would be blogging on computers - but no real chance at all. There is no real chance at all that BS such as God or Heaven could be real.
For example, there are 6001 known religions. They are all BS because there is no substantial evidence for any of them. At least 6000 of them have to be false because they contradict each other, and everyone in the world admits that 6000 of them are false, but we know all 6001 of them are false because that last one is just like the other 6000.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Imagining food does not alleviate hunger, and imagining painkillers does not alleviate pain. Perhaps you will say imagining an afterlife alleviates the fear of death. Then following such logic, I suppose imagining food alleviates the fear of hunger?
You suffer from hunger and pain while you are still alive, and there is a biological urge to alleviate them. Once you are dead, there is nothing to suffer, and nothing to alleviate. Your analogy is poor.
Living in the present moment allows you to not dwell on the cold hard fact of death. Seek to enjoy the brief moment that you are in the world; take advantage of the incredible opportunity of thought while you do have it.
YOU ARE ALIVE GODDAMMIT. You DO live. You are FREE to learn. You are FREE to love (or at least try). You can stand there bitching and moaning about how it's all going to end one day, or you can just live while the livin's good. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Too damn bad. The Reaper is on his way. The maggots are already making dinner reservations. There's a big bag of non-existence, and it's got your oxymoronic name written all over it. Welcome to reality. Don't like it? Sorry, it's the only flavor we've got.
If we all chipped in and got you an extended supply of prozac, would you drop this jackass belief?
There are no theists on operating tables.
I agree ....
" No. Belief in a better life than this one (or just another life than this one) trivializes the worth of the present life. If you acknowledge this life as the only one you have, each moment is far more precious than if you think there are more moments to come after expire. It is belief in an afterlife which logicizes martyrdom. "
/ that was my fav comment in this post so far .....
*I am fucking proud dead or alive, for the moment I am alive, so make it extra nice, does anyone remember before ? , that long sleep to awaken as now .... nope, .... so relax , enjoy ... pass it on ....
Atheism Books.
lulz
except that other one... what is that one called? Oh ya, its called God.
lulz again.
But srsly, how can you say wanting to live forever is not a rational desire? It so clearly is. I live now, and I enjoy it. I want to live tommorow, and enjoy it. I want to do so for ever and ever, and enjoy it. I want to live forever, or die trying.
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/11159?page=1
4th post down
You admit there's no evidence for gods or an afterlife, explicitly stating you know of know positive claims for it, yet you believe the idea should be clung to to the extent that it's consolatory. You don't want to call it a delusion, but I don't see a distinction.
[snipped stuff relating to site someone posted]
Whereas you want to prove the value of self-delusion.
You're equivocating 'reason' as in impetus with 'reason' as in justification.
The consolatory effects of your position can't be taken for granted, nor are they exclusive. That is, many believers continue to fear death, and there are other ways to accept the inevitability of death. Your position also assumes that an idea can be consolatory even if a person only holds it with the expectation that it's consolatory.
Oh, it totally is, except you appeal to a present consequence rather than a latter one: fear of death as opposed to fear of the afterlife. You regard the afterlife as the wooden rabbit one may as well chase even if it's never caught.
[snipped stuff that was repetitious]
There is no distinction, in the same way that Marijuanna deludes you into thinking that cancer has no pain. Delusions are not bad, as long as they do not affect our lives negatively (in this case, Marijuanna might be a bad example, because it can affect us negatively, but just bear with it).
As long as the delusion does not hide what is empirically true, it will not affect our ability to discern empiricism and logic.
RationalDeist,
I thought deists did not believe in heaven, that deists did not believe in a personal God, that when you died then that was the end. Heaven is usually a Christian/Muslem concept. What do you believe in besides God and heaven?
Orangustang,
Thanks for the positive response to my comment. Your right if there is a God then he probably does not know or care that we exist and he definitly is not benevelent.
Most people who die are very old. They often welcom death because they are so tired of the pain and other problems of old age. Many become delusional or non-responsive long before they even know that they are going to die.
I think your right that most young people fear death mainly because they will not get the chance to fulfill their dreams. I am older and I have accomplished just about everything that I was planning to do when I was young. If I were told that I was going to die then my only regret would be that I would not get to know my grandchildren.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
I honeslty have no idea what you are talking about.
well that's stupid. If you still feared death after believeing in God, then why do you believe in God? Somewhat ridiculous don't you think? I swear, some people are willing to believe anything!
Lets discount these stupid people for now and only hold to the people that follow the argument
well of course it can. We are all guided by determinism, and find it necessary to believe what we think will make us most happy. There really isn't any other choice, of course. Our evolution, maybe even our design, leaves us no other option.
Which is totally consistent with what I characterized your argument as: Pascal's Wager for belief in belief. 'May as well believe, if it feels good to do so.' You're taking for granted that it does feel good, which if a variable you're not justified in ignoring. I, for instance, take no solace in thinking there are gods or an afterlife. A lot of people fear judgement, so that's a mixed bag. Some people fully expect to go to a hell. Some people who don't believe in an afterlife look forward to oblivion itself.
You follow this by assuming the consolatory power of an idea held only in the expectation of its consolatory value -- taking a sugar pill you made yourself. Maybe you would find that satisfying, but it's not safe to assume a skeptic or rationalist would.
the difference being that Pascal thought he had to take part in Christianity, go to church, etc.
From wikipedia: "
Pascal recognizes that the wagerer is risking something, namely his life on earth, by devoting it to one cause or another, but here he uses probabilistic analysis to show that it would be a wise wager, at the even odds he assumes, even if one were to gain only three lives at the risk of losing one. Considering that everyone is forced to wager and the potential gain is actually infinite life, it would be acting "stupidly" not to wager that God exists."
Wikipedia could well be wrong, but this is a difference. I am not asking myself to wager anything.
well, considering that I have most definiately thought about being an athiest, I do not think that I am "taking it for granted."
However, there are many people who do agree with me.
its not safe to assume, but surgar tastes good, and if there are no consequences of taking the pill, good is good. There is no denying that fact. Something for nothing is a steal, and you should take the deal.
Now you're taking for granted everyone believes what they do only to feel good, or that the only cause to hold a belief is the pleasure of it. Like I said, even delusional people don't necessarily take pleasure in their delusions, and non-believers don't take pleasure in deluding themselves at all. Some people take pleasure in discovering facts rather than clinging to ideas.
No idea what that's supposed to mean.
Because the pleasure of self-delusion isn't assumed.
well, of course it is not good to have delusions when they are forced on us (i.e. it is not fun to be skitso).
I take plenty of pleasure in discovering facts. I also do not want to fear death. Deism allows these two things to be non-contradictory for me.
it means that we are not machines, but are guided by necessity.
When a thinker follows a line of implication, the course of his thought is conditioned by the necessity in his subject matter, but far from being humiliated when he realizes theis, he finds in it a ground of pride. For a rational being to act under the influence of seen necessity is to place himself at the farthest possible extreme from the behavior of the puppet. For a moral agent to choose that good which in the light of reflection approves itself as intrinsically greatest is to exercise the only freedom worth having. In such cases the line of determination runs through the agent’s ow n intelligence. To think at its best is to find oneself carried down the current of necessity. To choose most responsibly is to see alternative goods with full clearness and to find the greatest of them tipping the beam. This, in a way, is to be determined. But there is nothing mechanical about it. For it is what the rational man means by freedom. — Brand Blanshard, Reason and Analysis pg 493
I'm not going to restate my Pascal's Wager case again, as I think I've clarified it as far as it'll go. If you don't get it, or don't agree, oh well I'll-just-have-to-live-with-that.
Your argument rests on the value of a subjective feeling regarding an idea, so those people demonstrate the failure of your wager. If you want to argue in favor of self-delusion, fine, but it's not going to work for a lot of people.
Red herring. The focus of the analogy isn't what sugar is, but what sugar is not (medicine). The placebo effect operates on ignorance of that fact, not because sugar is just so darn yummy.
Don't revel, you haven't earned it.
RationalDeist -
There are consequences for your action that you are not considering. Since death is no longer a fearful snuffing the existence of someone. What better reason to think killing really isn't that bad, I mean its not like the people are killing are really gone. Hell maybe killing gives you that extra bit of pleasure, and now you don't have the regret of taking away any real thing from someone. What is 100 or so years of life to the eternity they will have with your god? The consequences are that this life the life we know exists becomes a meaningless, and expendable.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
There are several things.
First, the belief in a God almost guarantees that you believe that those who are murderers do not go to heaven. That right there destroys the entire argument.
Second, I already mentioned that we have this life, therefore it seems clear to me that we should live it to its fullest. This is the reason to believe in God, and if a human is born with any shred of empathy, then they will hold such a truth to be true for any other human--or at least respect their right to do with themselves what they wish.
I don't have a third right now (lack of time), but I don't consider these points to really have a purpose. As I said before, if belief in a God is negatively influencing you in this life, or seriously influencing your action in this life, then you should reform your beliefs--since empiricsm is a much more valuable tool in determining morals, knowledge, etc. than faith ever could be.
So I think we get it. You find personal reason to believe in god because you fear death and god belief helps assuage this fear.
Fine.
Some of us may point out that this leads us to conclude you have a character flaw because you value comfort over truth. But hey, its your life.
However, you haven't given us any good reason to believe in god. Instead, you assume many things such as we share your fear, that our value system is equal to yours, that 'living life to its fullest' entails valuing comfort over truth, that belief can be adopted for other reasons than truth seeking (I personally reject this outright unless you are capable of 1) lying to yourself and 2) believing your lie. This is absurd) , and that we think any fear that god belief may relieve one of actually outweighs the negative impact of religion on society.
In other words, your argument only works on you and others that value comfort over truth and believe that they can manipulate themselves into believing whatever comforts them the most.
Congratulations on your self-deception.
its good that people can finally understand the foundation for a belief in God.
I would like to note, again, that many beliefs are adopted for reasons other than truth seeking, and these beliefs are not irrational. A man in the trenches in WWI might convince himself that he will not be hit by an artillery round--this way he could go about and serve his country to the best of his ability. If serving his country was more important than continuously being unreasonably cautious (there really was no way to actually avoid being hit by artillery), then this "false belief" is very helpful to his happiness, since he gains happiness from serving his country.
So I ask you, what is the difference?
I would really like for you to define deist now. Almost guarantees? Can you explain exactly why murder is wrong according to your deity. What do you base that belief that murder is wrong. You have not destroyed my argument you just asserted that murder is something your god is against.
Sociopaths might not have empathy does that mean its OK for them to kill? You have not explained why you think your god is against murder. In fact if your god was against murder we wouldn't be killing millions upon millions of bacteria as we speak/type. In fact most of the creatures on the planet murder one another.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
I do not know what God's view on murder is, but I can look at the world and observe humanity and determine that murder is wrong. And since I do not care what I or anyone else thinks that God wants, then such a thing will not influence me to kill people because I "think they will go to heaven."
A sociopath would kill people regardless of whether or not he thought they were going to heaven. He doesn't care, he is a sociopath. Your argument is ridiculous, since it doesn't matter either way.
I find it odd that you seem to be forming your argument on the basis that you cannot call murder wrong. As an atheist, how do you determine murder is wrong, if not by observing the world around you and comming to that logical conclusion? You should already know the answer to your own question.
How is murder wrong with you are not actually destroying the existence of someone? Your belief system in a deity and heaven prevent murder from having any meaning. I am not directly referring to you, I am referring to the belief. I don't think you would go out of your way to kill people I cannot make that personal judgment based on our conversation. However your belief system does allow for that sort of thinking.
I am dropping this because your not getting it, because I am currently not expressing it coherently.
Why if we allow for one belief not based on evidence should we stop at it?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
The whole basis of my belief in God is so that I can live my life better. To take someone elses life away, for that reason, would go against everything I believe.
there are simply not very many things where it is good, in teh long term of our lives, to believe something without evidence. I challenge you to name a few more.
The reason for this is because science and reason can answer almost all of our questions, or at least has the potentiol to answer them.
There are many things people believe, for a long time, without evidence, for example, Tarot cards, astrology, psychics, pick any number of religions, the cults and sects of each religion, fortune telling, all of these without evidence all of these can make people less fearful of death or the future. These are all the same for your belief in god, it makes me feel good, therefore it's real. This type of belief does no good in the long run (in case your wondering check out history and see the harm it does in the long run) The belief in a god and a after life has made many devalue life on this planet. Don't believe me, 9/11 is a prime example, so are so many wars, conflicts and well genocides, as well as religious tolerated murders, racial segregrations and because of a belief of a god and in the afterlife. Why should we allow this to continue? If there is no evidence of this at all, there is no need for it. What we have to do is show our current and future generations to enjoy this life, to cherish it and that death is a natural part of life, that it does occur and will happen, in the mean time, enjoy this life.
Why not just stop fearing death? I don't fear death. Do have the potential to do that?
Maybe we should examine your belief a little deeper. How exactly do you survive the decomposition of your brain and body? Where do you exist after you leave your current flesh puppet?
Just for clarification, "I challenge you to name a few more". Are you refering to "not very many things where it is good" or my reasons for not murdering people?
edit: Added missing quotation and word
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
What makes you think this is something new? People have been deluding themselves into believing in god in order to 'solve' their questions and assuage their fears forever. Yawn.
Yes. this is why we had to invent a word for it. We call that word irrational.
ra·tion·al
(r
sh
-n
l) KEY
ADJECTIVE:
Since your premise commits at least one logical fallacy (Appeal to Consequences), you lose. thanks for playing.
A man in the trenches that has convinced himself he is in no danger is irrational, and hence a danger to himself and others whether or not he has deluded himself to the point of 'happiness'. your example(s) fail miserably.
there is none..you and your supposed soldier are both acting irrationally.
(edit bbs, grammar)
some of these, however, affect how you live this life--whereas a Deist God does not affect this. I keep on saying this, but some people keep ignoring me.
Again I stress--if belief in a God is affecting the choices you make in life, then you should stop beliving in that particular God.
I tried, and failed. I could not be happy without the comfort that religion provided me. Maybe my phycology is different becuase I actually grew up believing in a Christian God, and when the absolute belief in Christianity was broken, I could not withstand it.
It is because of this fact that I need God, because I know the comfort of believing in an afterlife, and I know the comparitive pain of not believing in an afterlife. Can you be happy while not believing in an afterlife? Sure. Can you live your life very well? Sure. But I would rather live my life without fear.
This is one of my favorite quotes, it is from the movie V for Vendetta.
"They took your parents from you, they took your brother from you; they put you in a cell and took everything they could take, except your life. And you believed that was all there was didn't you? The only thing you had left was your life, but it wasn't was it?! You found something else, and in that cell you found something that mattered more than your life, because when they threatened to kill you unless you gave them what they wanted... you told them you would rather die. You faced your death Evey, you were calm, still. Do you feel now what you felt then?"
This is a little random, but I couldn't help bringing it out. I want to feel calm, still. I know that there are things more important than life; such as freedom, such as happiness. But these things are difficult to fight for if you are affraid of death.
There is a certain point that your reason tells you that you have to stop fearing death. That fearing death is irrational.
the exact process is of course unkown. Obviously my body does not "survive" it, but rather my conciousness. My mode of thought, my memories, etc. would all survive.
These are all just my own ways of compensating for death of course. If you could provide a more reasonable way to look at it, then I would certainly be open to argument. However, I do not think that argument should take place on this thread, so I ask you to drop this topic.
"not very man things where it is good."
I provided a few examples, but most of them that I can think of involve death in some way or another. The reason for this is because, of course, once we are dead it does not matter what we believed, it did not affect our life (except for the positive)
irrational means "without reason", i.e. beliving in a contradiction
What I believe is not irrational. It does not contradict with anything, not even the evidence of the world.
it doesn't commit that fallacy. The ends are happiness, so the solution is such a belief. Again, if my beliefs are irrational, then all human actions which pursue happiness/lack of fear/lack of pain rather than "truth" are also "irrational." Pursuing happiness is not irrational, to actively pursue happiness is the most rational thing a human can do to fulfill his/her life!
Men in the trenches who were convinced they were in danger shit their pants and many went insane. They were plauged for the rest of their lives by the constant fear they felt from impending death. Preventing this by beliving that you would not die is therefore very rational. Deluding yourself in fact prevents insanity.
It's the substance of insanity. You may as well say dying prevents flu.