Is it better to be happy or right?

[college kid]

I firmly believe in no God. I will stand by that until I am given evidence that contradicts it. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence to counter the exitance of God, though I have not seen proof of his non-existance. I believe what I do (or do not in this case) because the line of thinking which got me here has been proved correct so many times before, which leads me to believe that it holds here, even if I cannot prove it. The fact that this thinking has led me to prove and disprove other things is a major contributor to my continuing this line of thinking and hence my belief in no God.

As I said, you are both correct in the idea that I stand by my athiesism as much as others stand by their thiesm, but using the analogy I used earlier, just because I can't prove that black holes aren't filled with jelly doughnuts doesn't mean that the idea is philosophical or that all sides and beliefs in the matter are inherently equal. It also doesn't mean that accepting that both may be correct and just being in the middle until further evidence is given is the solution. As in poker and many things in life, you aren't given all the answers and you just have to make your decisions with what information you have. I stand by the idea that my beliefs are created in more sound judgement and thinking than others and the fact that I can't prove it does not deter me at all from that.

I hope I have not sounded mean or insulting. If I did, that was not my intenetion. I am just strong in my beliefs, particularly in this case.

[Bodhi]

No, I didn't feel insulted. I enjoy a civilized argument from time to time! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
I firmly believe in no God. I will stand by that until I am given evidence that contradicts it. On the other hand, I have seen much evidence to counter the exitance of God, though I have not seen proof of his non-existance.

[/ QUOTE ]

What could ever serve as evidence for or against the existence of God? I don't think we can move from empirical judgements or generalizations to a priori conclusions. In western philosophy the impossibility of proving the existence of God was accepted centuries ago; logically ("logically" in the formal sense) the same should hold for arguments for the non-existence of God.

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
What could ever serve as evidence for or against the existence of God? I don't think we can move from empirical judgements or generalizations to a priori conclusions. In western philosophy the impossibility of proving the existence of God was accepted centuries ago; logically ("logically" in the formal sense) the same should hold for arguments for the non-existence of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. The many false truths and presentations by the church over the years and the contradictions presented by religious literature, combined with the changing face of what truth is being defined by what best suits the people preaching it presents a decent argument against God, and towards man creating religion to try and keep control. While the above is of course not concrete, there is no similar argument for God, just blind faith.

[Bodhi]

That man created religion and God to satisfy socio-psychological needs is undeniable. The question "Does God exist?" however, is existential and has nothing to do with that. That man could have God and religion completely wrong, when at the same time there really is a God, is an excluded alternative.

Here's another way to look at it. The empirical consequences of a "No-God" theory and its negation are equivalent. Either way we end up with the same crazy world full of fundamentalists slaughtering each other and all the rest, so there is no pragmatic or theoretical reason to prefer one theory over the other. (unless, of course, you feel that the principle of parsimony is sufficient for an answer here) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. The many false truths and presentations by the church over the years and the contradictions presented by religious literature, combined with the changing face of what truth is being defined by what best suits the people preaching it presents a decent argument against God, and towards man creating religion to try and keep control. While the above is of course not concrete, there is no similar argument for God, just blind faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a decent argument against God. It is a good argument against the people to whom you are referring and to what they are teaching. Because some poker players are maniacs, doesn’t prove probability doesn’t exist.

[college kid]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a decent argument against God. It is a good argument against the people to whom you are referring and to what they are teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying, although I'll argue with you about it all day long.


[ QUOTE ]
Because some poker players are maniacs, doesn’t prove probability doesn’t exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are absolutely right. In fact, they prove probability DOES exist by their and its very nature. My bankroll can attest to that.