Is it better to be happy or right?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it realy fair to dismiss an idea as big as the gospel, a history changing idea, becaue many of its messengers are monsters. Every good idea will be perverted into justifying some type of inexcusable behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're not dismissing the idea. You don't have to support the messengers.

You do not have to be a 'part' of a denomination, and 'give' to them to have the same, relative belief system.

What other 'company' would you possibly support that would have done this? If microsoft was committing atrocities in trying to take over the world the way religion has, would you still buy their software? If you don't have MS, then use whatever system your using in place. Even if you liked and agreed with some of the 'company's' philosophy, but not there way of 'sending' the message. By patronizing them, you are condoning their past actions.

[ QUOTE ]
That goes into my original question, if I believe that denial would leadme to a better life, why is there anyhting wrong with that?


[/ QUOTE ]

Denial in itself can be extremely harmful later on when reality really comes to the surface. How far are you willing to take denial? Ever seen someone like this breakdown after years of denial? It's not pretty.

[ QUOTE ]
If I was to join a church, and make use of their facilities on Sunday's and derive something from the messanger, I would have no problem giving what I thought was an appriate amount to make a life for the pastor and to maintain the facilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not forget it also helps with the lawyer fees.

b

[garyc8]

I agree with you Bodhi. To claim "there is no God" is a statement of faith. To be an atheist is to be a man of faith. I don't do faith very well, so I call myself agnostic. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[BusterStacks]

Take the red pill or the blue pill. Personally I would rather be right. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, which is unacceptable.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Take the red pill or the blue pill. Personally I would rather be right. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's still ignorance, which is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]


you never know.

that is why i would choose ignorance and it's not close.

[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]

[cbfair]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don’t believe in religion, all you have is this life. Why would you choose something that you gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?

[/ QUOTE ]

The key to this false dichotomy is the assumtion that meaning and hope are given to us from some outside force. Consider that perhaps life itself is devoid of meaning and we create meaning for ourselves as we experience things in life. If we begin with the assumption that the only meaning of life is that which we create, then we can create life as a meaningful endeavor; this leaves us free to fill our days with hope, joy, love or whatever most empowers us individually. Where we tend to get bogged down is when we forget that we made up that life is meaningful in and of itself, it is not!

FWIW, this approach is consistent with a belief in god or a belief in no god. If you believe that there is a god and it is our role to serve his will, you can say that life itself is without meaning and you derive meaning from serving the god you serve. Or you can say there is no god and life itself is without meaning and you derive whatever meaning most empowers you.

The question, "Why would you choose something that gives you less of a sense of meaning and hope?" assumes that its meaningful (and hopeless and bad) that life is meaningless. What I'm suggesting is that perhaps life itself is meaningless and it's meaningless that it's meaningless. So don't wallow, Choose To Live!

[Cerril]

Interestingly, I approach this from precisely the opposite direction.

Right now I'm happy, I have no beliefs in a God and no restrictions in my life or on my actions placed there by a deity. I'm pretty satisfied with that.

On the other hand if God were to exist in the form given by one of many major religions there would suddenly be concerns in my life other than my own happiness. My existence would now involve another force whose commands I would have to follow, or suffer punishment (or maybe miss out on some prize).

This thought is singularly unappealing, restricting my actions - ones which now seem quite beneficial to myself and those around me - for the sake of a third party.

Still, however, I would rather be right. I would not be willing to turn a blind eye to the proof of the existence of such a being, even if I can't imagine what such proof would be. So, I would sacrifice a measure of my happiness to be right.