It is more reasonable..

[Erebus]

Therefore it is MUCH more reasonable to believe there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible than to believe in a personal god.

I'm torn on what to think of this to be honest, there are elements I agree with and elements I disagree with. I think that the maniac's existence is more reasonable than the deity's existence, but belief in the maniac can be far less reasonable than belief in the deity. Belief in some personal gods provides people with a benefit to their lives, without restricting their freedom or the freedom of others. Belief in the maniac in the bushes nearby would inevitably bring only negative consequences to an individual's life.
Basically, I would argue that the act of believing in a deity is generally far more reasonable even if the deity in question is ludicrous/non-existent. There are exceptions of course, one need only take a brief look at the Aghori to see that.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Good replys so far. If this made even one person THINK the thread is a success.

First come first serve -

Deities live within the human psyche IMO.

Well, as an autotheist I believe in the 'concept' of deity as a mental construct, only having existence within ones own mind, so in that sense we are on the same page. If you mean they exist as separate entities, I am afraid I see no evidence of that.

The argument is completely moot. Believing in a deity can not be argued rationally, as it is not a rational idea.

And that good sir, is the point of this thread. I have no problem with theists that admit their faith is in fact, faith, but when people falsely try to represent that faith as a reasonable belief I have to take issue. The key word here, is reason

Why do things require "motive" in order to exist? Do other things require "motive" to exist? Rocks, for instance?

Good catch. I wrote this a long time ago, and I would agree that I could have phrased that better. A better way to put it is a 'reason to exist', in a causal sense.

I believe that it is more reasonable to believe in a personal God, than it is to believe that there is a maniac in the bushes outside my house right now slathering over the acquisition of my liver through the most brutal means possible.

I have no doubt that you do, I would love to see a reasonable argument for that, though. Flatly asserting what you believe with no explanation is not very useful in a dialogue such as this.

he following assumptions are simply banal (and bordering on stupid):

1. Religious believers have no evidence whatsoever for their beliefs.
2. Evidence of a forensic nature is required to have a warranted belief.
3. Any position that entails or involves mysteries of any sort are to be ruled out.
4. Atheism is not such a position as described in 3.

1: No reasonable evidence, no. Blind faith never equates to reason, I would further assert that blind faith is the antithesis of reason. If you care to make a case for how religious belief can exist without invoking blind faith, I would be excited to hear it.
2: Nonsense. Give me an example.
3:Not so. Having strong evidence that something is so is not synonymous with knowing EVERYTHING about that 'something' This objection is unwarranted. I can believe(based on strong evidence) my car will get me to work without understanding how a transmission functions.
4: Atheism is not really a 'position', as it doesn't forward an assertion. Atheism is simply a word given to people that lack a very particular irrational belief. Might as well call me an a-fairyist or a-boogeymanist.

Sorry if I hurt your paradigm when I stepped on it just now, but such is life.

Sounds like the theists you have been talking to then, pertaining to this matter, have been well educated and contain a lot of intelligence.

I suppose anything is possible. Although I have spoken to theists that are otherwise reasonable people, I have found when the subject of religion comes up that all fly's out the window.

Belief in some personal gods provides people with a benefit to their lives, without restricting their freedom or the freedom of others. Belief in the maniac in the bushes nearby would inevitably bring only negative consequences to an individual's life.

I am not arguing which is more beneficial, simply which is more reasonable, as per that words definition.

 

[S-word]

Good replys so far. If this made even one person THINK the thread is a success.

First come first serve -


Well, as an autotheist I believe in the 'concept' of deity as a mental construct, only having existence within ones own mind, so in that sense we are on the same page. If you mean they exist as separate entities, I am afraid I see no evidence of that.


And that good sir, is the point of this thread. I have no problem with theists that admit their faith is in fact, faith, but when people falsely try to represent that faith as a reasonable belief I have to take issue. The key word here, is reason


Good catch. I wrote this a long time ago, and I would agree that I could have phrased that better. A better way to put it is a 'reason to exist', in a causal sense.


I have no doubt that you do, I would love to see a reasonable argument for that, though. Flatly asserting what you believe with no explanation is not very useful in a dialogue such as this.


1: No reasonable evidence, no. Blind faith never equates to reason, I would further assert that blind faith is the antithesis of reason. If you care to make a case for how religious belief can exist without invoking blind faith, I would be excited to hear it.
2: Nonsense. Give me an example.
3:Not so. Having strong evidence that something is so is not synonymous with knowing EVERYTHING about that 'something' This objection is unwarranted. I can believe(based on strong evidence) my car will get me to work without understanding how a transmission functions.
4: Atheism is not really a 'position', as it doesn't forward an assertion. Atheism is simply a word given to people that lack a very particular irrational belief. Might as well call me an a-fairyist or a-boogeymanist.

Sorry if I hurt your paradigm when I stepped on it just now, but such is life.


I suppose anything is possible. Although I have spoken to theists that are otherwise reasonable people, I have found when the subject of religion comes up that all fly's out the window.

I am not arguing which is more beneficial, simply which is more reasonable, as per that words definition.

I have no doubt that you do, I would love to see a reasonable argument for that, though. Flatly asserting what you believe with no explanation is not very useful in a dialogue such as this.

Matey, if you believe that "who you are," was not in, and one with, the infinitely dense, infinitely hot, infinitesimally small singularity of Origin, that was spatially separated for the foundation of this living universal body, with a mighty Bang which still reverbarates throughout the cosmos, then it would be impossible for you to exist today. This cannot be argued against: this is a fact

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, as an autotheist I believe in the 'concept' of deity as a mental construct, only having existence within ones own mind, so in that sense we are on the same page. If you mean they exist as separate entities, I am afraid I see no evidence of that.

I do not believe in "separate, non-physical" entities. Therefore, yes, you understood me correctly.

However, here's where we may differ in opinion: for some people, such mental constructs are not bad things. After all, some people are born with dependent tendencies, and are unable to live to their full potentials without the knowledge that something is there watching them. For such people, gods are a boon. (I am one such person.)

On the other hand, there's the more schizophrenic side of things, where people actually "hear" voices; this can cause all kinds of problems, both in religious teachers (for they will end up teaching things that aren't true) and in people like Charles Manson. (No explanation needed, I hope.)

Then again, there are people who would prefer not having someone looking over their shoulders all the time; for such people, gods would be a detriment.

Therefore, I say: to each his or her own. Each is, and must be, great in his or her own place. (My opinion, anyway.)

 

[Dunemeister]

1: No reasonable evidence, no. Blind faith never equates to reason, I would further assert that blind faith is the antithesis of reason. If you care to make a case for how religious belief can exist without invoking blind faith, I would be excited to hear it.

Who said anything about "blind" faith? I'm just talking about faith simpliciter. You're the one invoking blindness, not me. But perhaps you're using the modifier because you actually think there's a "sighted" faith? If it's the latter you want, there are plenty of arguments in favour of it. You can pick up almost any work on what is known as "Reformed epistemology." Some works are better than others. I recommend Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief. Happy reading!

2: Nonsense. Give me an example.

An example of what?

3:Not so. Having strong evidence that something is so is not synonymous with knowing EVERYTHING about that 'something' This objection is unwarranted. I can believe(based on strong evidence) my car will get me to work without understanding how a transmission functions.

No, that's not what I meant by "mystery." By that term I mean that the position entails or involves ideas that are apparently contradictory and which cannot seem to be reconciled. Every view has its problems when you dig deep enough. If you think atheism is simply straightforwardly true and is free of mystery, it's because you haven't thought the matter through well enough. The presence of "mystery", in itself, doesn't necessarily tell against a view.

4: Atheism is not really a 'position', as it doesn't forward an assertion. Atheism is simply a word given to people that lack a very particular irrational belief. Might as well call me an a-fairyist or a-boogeymanist.

The best way to shield your view from criticism is to rhetorically remove it from the field of play. Well done.

Sorry if I hurt your paradigm when I stepped on it just now, but such is life.

When you're done strutting like a peacock and are ready to actually discuss issues seriously, let me know.

 

[footprints]

I suppose anything is possible. Although I have spoken to theists that are otherwise reasonable people, I have found when the subject of religion comes up that all fly's out the window.

Yeah, that is the answer I get from most religious people and believers, when they are discussing atheists and other non-believers.

Looks like both you and them are right. You wouldn't say it otherwise, would you?

 

[Erebus]

I am not arguing which is more beneficial, simply which is more reasonable, as per that words definition.

From an existential viewpoint, yes you are correct. From a pragmatic or consequential viewpoint I stand by my previous answer.

*edit* bear in mind also that the definition of the word "reasonable" is somewhat ambiguous. I would not consider belief in the maniac to be "sound thinking" because it isn't beneficial.

 

[Thief]

Krishnamurti told a variation on that story when he dissolved the Order of the Star in the East in 1929:

You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket.

The friend said to the devil, "What did that man pick up?"

"He picked up a piece of Truth," said the devil.

"That is a very bad business for you, then," said his friend.

"Oh, not at all," the devil replied, "I am going to let him organize it."

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices. ...

Your prejudices, your fears, your authorities, your churches new and old -- all these, I maintain, are a barrier to understanding. I cannot make myself clearer than this. I do not want you to agree with me, I do not want you to follow me, I want you to understand what I am saying.


​

I like the quick story....too bad the 'friend of the devil' isn't named.
Could that friend be God?

As for the truth...described above...
You have left yourself no manner by which to speak of it.
You cannot have it for yourself...it is beyond your acquisition.
Then you are not able to assist others as you cannot point the way.
Silence can be the only result.


There is no need to follow you.
There is nothing to understand.