The Anguish of Nonbelievers

This is for those who know the truth. They have reasoned it out. God doesn't exist in face of a formidable population who believe God may or does.

You're still human, and you have feelings. You feel sympathy if a young girl is raped and murdered. You know her parents will never see their baby again. This must sadden you, so you share the anguish, sometimes even more than with a believer who can rationalize an afterlife. But that's life, it is sometimes sad. That doesn't change the truth you know, and they don't.

Now maybe they can try to ignore these ignorants. However you must come across them. These people have to be regularly dealt with. Religion has been brainwashed into the workplace, schools, media, government, family, friends, loved ones, and even the month of December (which some of you participate in). It has been a persistent theme throughout history and across various cultures. So much time and energy has been wasted on a lie. This is not reasonable, rational, nor productive. How does it feel to know you in live in a world where a lie is so strong that a majority of people have fallen for it? Don't you know someone you care for enough to reach out and speak the truth to them?

If you care for others, it may lead to teaching this truth against a man who lived 2000 years ago. Interestingly enough, this man is known as someone who also spoke the truth. This may drive some crazy. As often as you can convince someone, you see others that have betrayed your position. Some of these people are actually intelligent. You've judged some of them to be equal or even smarter then yourself. They know what you know. Shouldn't they know better? To figure this out. Ask yourself, why is it you can't convince intelligent, rational people that they believe in a lie?

Now some of you nonbelievers aren't smart enough to outreason an intelligent believer. Do you leave it up to more intelligent nonbelievers? Do you blindly believe the nonbeliever, or must you be able to reason along the same lines? Do you commit heresy, and put your belief in a genius if you're not sure they're speaking the truth.

Some of these nonbelievers give up. Some go into denial or become ignorant themselves. They are unable and unwilling to discuss it any longer. Some actually become irrational, spewing statements like "well if God does exist, I'd rather burn than believe".

Others become semi-nonbelievers (or semi-believers?). Yes, it's unlikely God exists. The suffer a new anguish. Many of these people face the distress of wasting so much of their only life trying to discover an often elusive answer. This time could be better spent. However, the price to pay if God exists is now so great if they continue holding their 'unlikely, but not impossible' stance. It would unreasonable to not investigate it further. This investigation may be fruitless or it may cause them to believe in the lie that they once stood against.

It is a tragedy or an anguish to be able to speak the truth and have people hear you speak falsely. This is true no matter what position you hold. I thought DS was being bias when I didn't see The Anguish of Nonbelievers. I figured everyone has some, so this is a new perspective to help complete the Angush threads.

[spaminator101]

How can you say that religion was brainwahed into schools when it was the basis of early schools in america. Until the 1960s it remained this way.

[Jacob_Gilliam]

The problem is that non-believers rarely question thier ideological system, so there is very little anguish involved. Many non-believers spend no time whatsoever thinking about whether God exists, so your concerns don't bother them. Believers, because they spend much time considering what God wants from them, often think that non-believers also spend a lot of time thinking about such things. But it usually isn't true.

[ QUOTE ]
How can you say that religion was brainwahed into schools when it was the basis of early schools in america. Until the 1960s it remained this way.

[/ QUOTE ] Are you saying religion doesn't influence schools today? I'd say there are people who believe that Creationism is a bunch of BS that religious zealots are pushing into some school systems. I bet some people think of it as brainwashing. You may disagree, but do you see it's possible that others do in fact have this perspective?

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that non-believers rarely question thier ideological system, so there is very little anguish involved. Many non-believers spend no time whatsoever thinking about whether God exists, so your concerns don't bother them. Believers, because they spend much time considering what God wants from them, often think that non-believers also spend a lot of time thinking about such things. But it usually isn't true.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. As I stated:
[ QUOTE ]
Some of these nonbelievers give up. Some go into denial or become ignorant themselves. They are unable and unwilling to discuss it any longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jacob_Gilliam]

But the non-believers don't give up. They don't feel compelled to discuss it because they see the discussion as pointless. They are not denying a God in the face of compelling information, but rather due to the lack of evidence feel that discussing such things is a mute point, for most people will not change thier belief system. For all the instances of people saying that they've been saved, the vast majority of people will continue on with the the same belief system they've had since childhood, regardless of what said belief system is.

I quoted three sentences. Ignorance & unwillingness would apply to these people. I'd suspect inability also.

Basically they're no smarter or rational than those who some would say have been brainwashed by religion.

[spaminator101]

Yes but there is less influence than there was earlier in our nations history.

[David Sklansky]

Good post. Here's where I stand on some of these points.

"This must sadden you, so you share the anguish, sometimes even more than with a believer who can rationalize an afterlife."

Exceptionally true. And by itself a strong refutation to those who think that most nonbelievers feel the way they do because it helps them pshychologically.

"So much time and energy has been wasted on a lie. This is not reasonable, rational, nor productive."

That irks me big time. BluffTHIS comments that he is more interested in the afterlife than in curing cancer would bother me even if I thought there WAS an afterlife. It is insane if there isn't.

"Some of these people are actually intelligent. You've judged some of them to be equal or even smarter then yourself. They know what you know. Shouldn't they know better? To figure this out. Ask yourself, why is it you can't convince intelligent, rational people that they believe in a lie?"

I am now quite sure that intelligent believers have a syndrome similar to stroke victims who think they are not paralyzed. However I also believe that people who are highly intelligent or highly trained in logic and statistical inference, are often able to overcome this syndrome.

"Now some of you nonbelievers aren't smart enough to outreason an intelligent believer."

Guess what. No unintelligent person should be a serious non believer! If he is, it is for the wrong reasons. Because God wouldn't allow tsunamis or because God wouldn't hate gays, etc. etc. The better arguments against a personal God are scientifically and mathematically not easy to understand. A low IQ person is very unlikely to have followed the reasoning. It is not at all clear to me that the world would be a better place if people didn't believe in a personal God. It would only be a better place if very smart people didn't.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not at all clear to me that the world would be a better place if people didn't believe in a personal God. It would only be a better place if very smart people didn't.

[/ QUOTE ] Why is it that the world gets a benefit if the less intelligent among us believe in something that isn't true? And if it's true that the world benefits from less intelligent persons believing in god. Is it possible to separate the placebotic effects from religon?

Your last statement is one that I would agree with only if it wasn't possible to deterime the benefits of a flase religion and then suplant them in a non religious context.

[Jeff V]

Nice post.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
It would only be a better place if very smart people didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you try to sound so smug on purpose? Or just to get a rise out of people?

[David Sklansky]

Both. But I meant it. Religion is wrong but useful. It needs to be refuted only in the minds of people who will help the world in ways that they are less apt to do if their mind are cluttered up with nonsense. Not nurses, not most doctors, yes molecular biologists. And yes, Two Plus Twoers.

[Jeff V]

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, Two Plus Twoers.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Good one. I'm forming a new theory about you David.

[Jeff V]

David-
Are you familiar with the concept of irreducible complexity? Things like flagellum, blood clotting, or a mousetrap are some examples. Michael J. Behe wrote an interesting book arguing against Darwinism on the molecular level and he has multiple PHD's!!

[kbfc]

Have you ever read "Geneology of Morals"?

[ QUOTE ]
Have you ever read "Geneology of Morals"?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I've never heard of it. Looked it up on Amazon. I know nothing about Nietzsche except that he's famous for something. Why do you ask?

[kbfc]

Because it's basically the answer to your post.

[ QUOTE ]
I am now quite sure that intelligent believers have a syndrome similar to stroke victims who think they are not paralyzed. However I also believe that people who are highly intelligent or highly trained in logic and statistical inference, are often able to overcome this syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never heard this argument, so I'll need to look into this. If anyone can enlighten me, I'd appreciate it.

[ QUOTE ]
Guess what. No unintelligent person should be a serious non believer! If he is, it is for the wrong reasons. Because God wouldn't allow tsunamis or because God wouldn't hate gays, etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree. I'm not sure at what level of intelligence I'd consider someone to be a serious nonbeliever, but I'd say it's higher than many smart people suspect or fall under themselves.

[ QUOTE ]
It is not at all clear to me that the world would be a better place if people didn't believe in a personal God.

[/ QUOTE ]
How about their waste of time? That doesn't irk you?

[ QUOTE ]
It would only be a better place if very smart people didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess their time is more valuable, since they are capable of making substantial improvements to life if their misapplied energy was refocused?

[ QUOTE ]
Because it's basically the answer to your post.

[/ QUOTE ] Oh, since you say so, it is. Could you summarize the main points of his book or offer up one answer?

[kbfc]

Well, Nietzche is basically required reading if you want to discuss philosophy, especially with an historical leaning like your original post had. Of course, that never stopped anyone from jumping right in, so what can you do?

I'm not going to write a summary of the book, but I'll link you to this brief summary (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5v.htm#good). It does a decent job of summarizing, although I think it deemphasizes the historical nature of the work, in favor of the ethical stuff. "Geneology of Morals" is not the only Nietzche that addresses this topic. I cite it because it is the most comprehensive. I'm sure you've heard the "God is dead" quote countless times out of context. Here is the full quote, from "The Gay Science":

"God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. —And we—we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

This is the anguish of the nonbelievers that you're looking for.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, Nietzche is basically required reading if you want to discuss philosophy, especially with an historical leaning like your original post had. Of course, that never stopped anyone from jumping right in, so what can you do?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a bit strong. The philosophy degree I never finished only included Nietzche in one of the more obscure optional units.

chez

[valenzuela]

Can a 17 year old boy like me lack belief for the right reasons??

[kbfc]

Really?!?! I can understand a full course being optional, but I can't imagine the lower division 'survey' courses don't address him at all. Does the program just stop at Kant? If Neitzche doesn't get covered, I suppose there's no chance in hell for guys like Wittgenstein and Russel.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Really?!?! I can understand a full course being optional, but I can't imagine the lower division 'survey' courses don't address him at all. Does the program just stop at Kant? If Neitzche doesn't get covered, I suppose there's no chance in hell for guys like Wittgenstein and Russel.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a lot of Russell and a bit of Wittgenstein in the general course but not a mention of Nietzsche.

Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein was one optional course.
Nineteenth-Century German Philosophy which includes Nietzsche was another optional course.

chez

[bluesbassman]

"So much time and energy has been wasted on a lie. This is not reasonable, rational, nor productive. How does it feel to know you in live in a world where a lie is so strong that a majority of people have fallen for it?"

Believers can answer this question as well, since most believe in a religion that teaches all other religions are incorrect. Thus, followers of a particular religion must also believe the majority of people have fallen for a lie.

[RJT]

Let me premise my post by stating that I haven’t read much about atheism and any logic (or lack of) relative to it.

Let me interrupt myself again and say that I would appreciate an answer that does not turn the issue to what believers might or might not believe or think. (This seems to happen often.) I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Siegfriedandroy’s perspective about atheism is fairly close to my own. His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could. (Of course, we can have agreed upon good/bad for a number of reasons.) If this is incorrect, (that instead atheists do indeed believe in absolute good/bad) then what is the source of these absolutes? What are the absolutes? Does the atheist have a formal logical proof (or even scientific theories) for these absolutes? (The only answer I have found that comes close is David S.'s apologetic for lap dances.)

Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement? It seems to me it is. If it is true then that pretty well answers my basic interest.

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.

Again, please, no deflecting the answer with the irrationality of believers and any nonsense that might motivate them.

Your logic:

Atheists don't believe in a god --> They don't care about earth or anything
Theists believe in a god --> They care about stuff

These jumps do not follow logically. If I don't believe there's a god controlling day-to-day events on earth, couldn't I be MORE not less interested in understanding the world, how it works, and how to preserve it, rather than rely on a God and his will to just let things take their course. Conversely if you believe in a heaven and afterlife, couldn't you care LESS and not more about other topics beyond securing salvation?

You have it backasswards.

[RJT]

RJT:

Let me interrupt myself again and say that I would appreciate an answer that does not turn the issue to what believers might or might not believe or think. (This seems to happen often.) I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Kidluckee:

Your logic:

Atheists don't believe in a god --> They don't care about earth or anything
Theists believe in a god --> They care about stuff

These jumps do not follow logically. If I don't believe there's a god controlling day-to-day events on earth, couldn't I be MORE not less interested in understanding the world, how it works, and how to preserve it, rather than rely on a God and his will to just let things take their course. Conversely if you believe in a heaven and afterlife, couldn't you care LESS and not more about other topics beyond securing salvation?

You have it backasswards.

RJT:

Again, please, no deflecting the answer with the irrationality of believers and any nonsense that might motivate them.


RJT, now:

I did not in any way, shape, or form say that since atheists don’t believe in a god that they don’t care about anything. I ASKED if they do or they don’t. If they do I am curious what the primary motivation is.

But, to answer your question about what believers should care about – I agree that a true believer should not be so concerned about the here and now per se. What should motivate a believer beyond that and for future generations is simply the love for his neighbor (and I guess love of God, since a believer believes He created this world) .

[ QUOTE ]
I did not in any way, shape, or form say that since atheists don’t believe in a god that they don’t care about anything. I ASKED if they do or they don’t. If they do I am curious what the primary motivation is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I play poker? because there's a god?

Why do I enjoy math? because there's a god?

Why do I enjoy running? because there's a god?

Why do I care about the environment? because there's a god?

Why do I care about the progress of science? because there's a god?

Why do I love my wife? because there's a god?

Why do I love my dog? because there's a god?



There's no reason why an atheist can't be interested or care about something just because he's an atheist. I reckon they have the same motivations as anyone else for the most part. Your question is leading in that it presumes that theists have their belief in God as their primary motivation for everything they do or care about, which is simply absurd.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists/agnostics who think about it do not believe in absolute good/bad (they often also don't think god would change that situation). Others may accept Kantian type arguments that offer absolute morality without any god.

I'd make a mess of explaining Kant so I'll leave it to others.

chez

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am seriously interested in what atheists think.

Siegfriedandroy’s perspective about atheism is fairly close to my own. His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[ QUOTE ]
I also cannot see how an atheist could. (Of course, we can have agreed upon good/bad for a number of reasons.) If this is incorrect, (that instead atheists do indeed believe in absolute good/bad) then what is the source of these absolutes? What are the absolutes? Does the atheist have a formal logical proof (or even scientific theories) for these absolutes? (The only answer I have found that comes close is David S.'s apologetic for lap dances.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I can't speak for other atheists, but I try to uphold absolute moral standards rather than obey moral rules (Although some rules may be logically derived from the standards).

The "source" of those standards (for me) is complicated to completely explain, but the the short answer is that they are logically required according to man's nature to live, as the ancient Greeks would say, the good life. In general, I adhere to an ethical theory known as ethical egoism (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/ethical_ego.html) .

[ QUOTE ]
Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is not true. You again make the elementary mistake of equating atheism to nihilism. The only thing incompatible with atheism is theism. You cannot infer a particular set of positive philosophical beliefs from atheism, other than lack of belief in "god." In fact, I personally have much more in common ethically with some theists than I do many atheists.

[hurlyburly]

[ QUOTE ]
Siegfried Androy makes the point regarding atheism that there is no rational reason to care (or not to care)about..pick a topic. Is this a true statement? It seems to me it is. If it is true then that pretty well answers my basic interest.

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not well-educated, but deep down I've never been able to believe in a higher power. I've tried to, and oftentimes wish that I was capable of it, but at my core I'm just unable to.

I take an opposite view of Sieg's, though. Being atheistic in my worldview is my motivation. I'm watching the existence of life, seeing it in it's entirety and at it's full value. It's entirely rational to me to take the position that our conflicts on this earth, the challenges offered in this, our only existence, prompt us to choose survival. The challenges have evolved over the last 50000 (500000, 1 million?) years, but our instincts remain true.

If you look at the grand scheme, almost all people who have ever existed have just "been there". Most of us (definitely myself, so far) are nothing more than required window dressing in the grand display of history. Those who take it upon themselves to perform above that level and reach greatness aren't always rewarded in their lifetimes for their achievements. They do it because they can, for the challenge.

The people who would be Qin Shi Huangdi or Alexander the Great became Isaac Newton and Michelangelo who in turn evolved into Einstein and Edison. The larger the world's population, the greater the amount of exceptional human ability available. It's each generations duty to expand, in some form or fashion, on what it's been provided.

The atheist doesn't have to see the world as a circus of failure and compounding mistakes, I certainly don't. The greatness of mankind is its own reward and doesn't require a creator to hand down laws or provide absolute morality to avoid collapsing in on itself and disappearing.

Sorry for the long post.

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]

Now, simply out of curiosity, if true (no reason to care or not to care) then why are so many scientist, to pick a group, interested and “worried” about, for example, Green (ozone and such) issues. What is the major motivation for such interest in the longevity of the human race? Seems like so much energy is spent on such things that could perhaps be spent on more immediate concerns.



[/ QUOTE ]


I think the central issue in this question is the word "care". Caring is an entirely internal thing, for a believer or a non-believer. Therefore, asking why someone cares about something is ultimately always an impossible question, it's like asking "why do you think the way you think?"

The related point which I think you may have been trying to get at is "Why should an atheist join a movement of any kind, being that there is no objective way to say that movement is morally correct?"

My answer to that is that there are internal reasons for me to join such a movement, as I believe in the relative good of some goal, and as a part of a movement I can achieve more than I could alone. In other words, I believe in acting on my own subjective morals. Furthermore, I have no problem with anyone else of different beliefs wanting to live out their subjective morals, so long as they don't inflict harm on others in doing so.

[kbfc]

A lack of absolute good/evil does NOT follow from atheism. Both are seperate and distinct conclusions that follow from basic reason. Furthermore, absolute good/evil does NOT follow logically from theism. Even given the existence of God, there is no way to define good/evil in an absolute sense that is not capricious or is informationally useful.

As for why the nihilist (who you really described) cares about anything, it's because it feels good. Why should I support a law against abusing dogs? Because I have a pyschological reaction (which isn't really based on any rationality) to it that is unpleasant enough for me to take action to avoid it. Likewise, I feel an urge to do certain things that might promote the longevity of the race. I don't claim that there is any particular rationale behind this things, but I feel that way nonetheless. It's an evolutionary advantage for people to feel this way, so it shouldn't be surprising.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His main thesis (paraphrasing) begins with the assumption that atheist do not believe in absolute good/bad. I also cannot see how an atheist could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many atheists/agnostics who think about it do not believe in absolute good/bad (they often also don't think god would change that situation). Others may accept Kantian type arguments that offer absolute morality without any god.

I'd make a mess of explaining Kant so I'll leave it to others.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Chez,


Don’t you ever sleep over there? ( I know it is still early over there. Besides drinking all that beer, you have to go to the bathroom every 2 seconds, who could sleep?)

That is what I was thinking - what you said.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez,


Don’t you ever sleep over there? ( I know it is still early over there. Besides drinking all that beer, you have to go to the bathroom every 2 seconds, who could sleep?)

That is what I was thinking - what you said.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Just got back from the bathroom when I read this /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Midnight here, my day is just beginning.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[RJT]

Why does it not surprise me that you are a vampire? Or are you a werewolf - nevermind, you aren't in London.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it not surprise me that you are a vampire? Or are you a werewolf - nevermind, you aren't in London.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in London

[RJT]

You had me nodding in agreement, then you went ahead and said this:

[ QUOTE ]
...It's each generations duty to expand, in some form or fashion, on what it's been provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t want that burden. If I were to pull a Kafka and wake up tomorrow atheist , the last thing I want to bring along is Catholic guilt.

[RJT]

oops, yeah Mack is in the country - sorry - well don't tell us which you are vampire or Wwolf - continue being that enigma that you are.

[hurlyburly]

Remember the window dressing part and take solace! It's not a burden that "feels" like an burden. It just happens that way. Even Catholics are in agreement that the Sun is the center of the solar system. Hope so, anyway.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
oops, yeah Mack is in the country - sorry - well don't tell us which you are vampire or Wwolf - continue being that enigma that you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a Sklansky logic beast, 2nd class.

[RJT]

I know what you are saying and I agree. It is the journey.

[RJT]

I don’t really think I am hijacking this thread - same topic - if I am, my apologies.

Well, it seems to me that not all atheists have the same “dogma”.

We have tried to show in this forum much of the folly of religions (especially, for some reason, Christianity).

We are only able to ALMOST prove religion is folly.

Why is it that we can’t prove there is no god.

We can’t we even come close to an atheistic dogma.

So, why is it again that all these genius scientists are so smug?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but that definition of "denominations" renders it effectively meaningless. I suspect most people do not believe in magic elves, so you can group all "non magic elf believers" into "denominations" according to what they do believe, which probably wouldn't be too useful. In fact, by that definition, each of us can be placed in an infinite number of "denominations" of non-belief in an infinite number of arbitrary claims.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That assumption is easily refuted by counterexample: I am an atheist, and yet I do in fact accept an objective (or 'absolute') morality, or code of ethics. (Whether that morality is "correct" is a separate question.) The only assumption you can make about an atheist is that, by definition, he or she lacks a belief in "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

So, you guys have different denominations, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but that definition of "denominations" renders it effectively meaningless. I suspect most people do not believe in magic elves, so you can group all "non magic elf believers" into "denominations" according to what they do believe, which probably wouldn't be too useful. In fact, by that definition, each of us can be placed in an infinite number of "denominations" of non-belief in an infinite number of arbitrary claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you really are into the Blues. Was meant to be funny is all.

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of these people are actually intelligent. You've judged some of them to be equal or even smarter then yourself. They know what you know. Shouldn't they know better? To figure this out. Ask yourself, why is it you can't convince intelligent, rational people that they believe in a lie?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because we're all working with incomplete information, and because our beliefs are based, ultimately, on some necessarily arbitrary assumptions. Debating the logic of religious belief, even in the most rigorous and thorough fashion, will amount to nothing if I and my opponent hold to different premises which can neither be proven nor disproven.


David Sklansky:
[ QUOTE ]
I am now quite sure that intelligent believers have a syndrome similar to stroke victims who think they are not paralyzed. However I also believe that people who are highly intelligent or highly trained in logic and statistical inference, are often able to overcome this syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gah. I mean no offense, but this really is arrogant . . . or do you believe you can prove the non-existence of God?