Lack of belief in gods.

[Jeremiahcp]

right, so we can calculate the improbability of 5 royal flushes, somebody did earlier on this thread and of course it's ridiculously long odds

it's tricky to calculate the odds of cheating (ID) in this case, the casino will try very hard to prevent that possibility, but we still know it's far far more likely than chance- simply because it can never be ruled out entirely- right?

Can you really be this certain there is no God?

You are confusing probability with possibility. Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. There is no way to measure God, therefore you cannot create a probability distribution for such a thing.

 

[Cephus]

Rejecting evidence to the contrary is problematic, as I already noted. We can't deny reality that is evidenced.

Plenty of people do. In fact, tons of religious people believe things that are demonstrably false.

However, it has not been my experience that believers claim there to be no evidence for god. They are usually happy to give multiple reasons and arguments and evidence for their belief.

Reasons, not evidence. And those reasons never stand up to any serious scrutiny. Usually, it's "something happened to me, I'm going to arbitrarily assert that some god did it, because I have no better ideas".

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said it could be evidence that it is correct.

How could it be evidence of anything? Feeling good doesn't have anything to do with being factually correct.

And no, there is nothing oppositional about feeling good and being factually correct. I often feel good when I am factually correct.

Just as people often feel good when they are factually incorrect. Feeling good has nothing to do with being true, just with getting the right chemicals in the brain released.

Heroin has objective evidence of being harmful, so no. You can't believe that heroin is good because we have evidence that it is bad.

What harm comes from believing that god exists, without any definite evidence of his non-existence?

I would argue that religion is just as harmful, as it leads to people being irrational. I would argue that anything that makes a person act irrationally is harmful, overall, to society.

 

[Falvlun]

Plenty of people do. In fact, tons of religious people believe things that are demonstrably false.

To be clear, I am not defending beliefs that are contradicted by what we know about reality.

I am only questioning whether beliefs about what we don't know ought to be condemned.

Reasons, not evidence. And those reasons never stand up to any serious scrutiny. Usually, it's "something happened to me, I'm going to arbitrarily assert that some god did it, because I have no better ideas".

The point was that they do have reasons for their belief, contrary to your statement.

How could it be evidence of anything? Feeling good doesn't have anything to do with being factually correct.

It could be evidence that it is a healthy belief to have, despite there not being hard evidence for it.

What evidence do you have that your life is worthwhile? But isn't it more beneficial to have that belief than not?

Just as people often feel good when they are factually incorrect. Feeling good has nothing to do with being true, just with getting the right chemicals in the brain released.

I get your point: I am not saying that feeling good about something always indicates that it is true. I said it might be evidence, and that is all. People trust their gut in a lot of things when there is no clear cut answer.

I would argue that religion is just as harmful, as it leads to people being irrational. I would argue that anything that makes a person act irrationally is harmful, overall, to society.

I wasn't really speaking of religion as a whole-- that is trickier since it's more likely to influence behavior.

I'm just talking about belief in the existence of a god.

I don't think such a belief is particularly irrational.

And if you are wrong about this belief, then so what? You were wrong. Nobody is going to punish you.

And say you are right to with-hold belief. Then so what? Nobody is handing out rewards for your rationality.

 

[Cephus]

To be clear, I am not defending beliefs that are contradicted by what we know about reality.

I am only questioning whether beliefs about what we don't know ought to be condemned.

And I am asking why beliefs about what we don't know ought to be considered valid at all. Because honestly, what's the difference between believing in gods and believing in unicorns or leprechauns? Why is one patently absurd and the other not?

The point was that they do have reasons for their belief, contrary to your statement.

And I'm questioning whether they are good reasons. Because again, the whole point is to get to truth. If that's not the point, then the whole process is meaningless.

It could be evidence that it is a healthy belief to have, despite there not being hard evidence for it.

Then it would also be evidence that taking heroin is healthy. We actually know how brain chemistry works. Women remain in abusive relationships for exactly the same reason that people remain religious. Are you going to argue that spousal abuse is healthy?

What evidence do you have that your life is worthwhile? But isn't it more beneficial to have that belief than not?

We're not talking about worthwhile, we're talking about true. In evolutionary terms, no individual human life is "worthwhile" because no single life actually contributes anything to the survival of the species.

I get your point: I am not saying that feeling good about something always indicates that it is true. I said it might be evidence, and that is all. People trust their gut in a lot of things when there is no clear cut answer.

The argument that people believe things for no good reason, which I think both of us agree with, doesn't make said belief a good thing. I get into these discussions all the time with theists, who invariably get to the point of "I'm going to believe anyhow, so there, pfffft!" That's not a mature or rational way to look at the world.

I wasn't really speaking of religion as a whole-- that is trickier since it's more likely to influence behavior.

Unfortunately, since beliefs inform actions, believing absurd things results in absurd actions. We look at religious violence and we find that, absent the beliefs, the violence would have no justification whatsoever. We look at religious parents who refuse to allow their children to see doctors, out of a belief that their god will heal them, that just results in lots of dead children. Without the beliefs, there is no reason to think those kids would be dead. We look at people who actively fight science because science contradicts their heartfelt beliefs. Take away the irrational beliefs and there's no reason for them to do so. I could go on and on and on.

I'm just talking about belief in the existence of a god.

Which is not supported by any objective evidence whatsoever.

I don't think such a belief is particularly irrational.

By definition it is. Irrational is defined as "not logical or reasonable." I'd love to see someone make a logical case for the factual existence of any specific god.

And if you are wrong about this belief, then so what? You were wrong. Nobody is going to punish you.

But you can harm a lot of people in the meantime. Besides all of the things I listed above, because, as I said, your beliefs inform your actions, your religion affects how you vote, how you treat others and how you raise your children, all of which has a demonstrable impact on society.

And say you are right to with-hold belief. Then so what? Nobody is handing out rewards for your rationality.

The benefits to society are all the reward anyone needs. Look at the Dark Ages, when religion was imprisoning anyone who didn't agree with their teaching and killing so-called heretics. Imagine where we might be today if there hadn't been hundreds of years of religious ignorance imposed upon the world. Imagine where the Middle East might be today without fundamentalist Islam. Ask the people who died on 9/11 what their lives have been like... oh wait, you can't do that, they're all dead because of religion.

 

[Falvlun]

And I am asking why beliefs about what we don't know ought to be considered valid at all. Because honestly, what's the difference between believing in gods and believing in unicorns or leprechauns? Why is one patently absurd and the other not?

I don't know about validity. I'm speaking more to a "what does it matter since we don't know either way" sort of viewpoint. The belief might be absurd, but so what? We don't know they are wrong.

And I'm questioning whether they are good reasons. Because again, the whole point is to get to truth. If that's not the point, then the whole process is meaningless.

I don't think the whole point is the truth, especially truth that will never be known. The point is to live a good, healthy, happy life.

Then it would also be evidence that taking heroin is healthy. We actually know how brain chemistry works. Women remain in abusive relationships for exactly the same reason that people remain religious. Are you going to argue that spousal abuse is healthy?

Why are you making the same arguments that have already failed? We have objective evidence that heroin and spousal abuse is not healthy. So no matter how good it makes you feel, they cannot be considered healthy. And none of that negates my point.

Why do you think we evolved endorphins? We did it because there's an evolutionary advantage to feeling good in regards to things that are good for us. But like many evolutionary things, it works imperfectly.

We're not talking about worthwhile, we're talking about true. In evolutionary terms, no individual human life is "worthwhile" because no single life actually contributes anything to the survival of the species.

I'm talking about worthwhile. Truth is besides the point. Some beliefs are good to have, regardless of truth value.

Unfortunately, since beliefs inform actions, believing absurd things results in absurd actions. We look at religious violence and we find that, absent the beliefs, the violence would have no justification whatsoever. We look at religious parents who refuse to allow their children to see doctors, out of a belief that their god will heal them, that just results in lots of dead children. Without the beliefs, there is no reason to think those kids would be dead. We look at people who actively fight science because science contradicts their heartfelt beliefs. Take away the irrational beliefs and there's no reason for them to do so. I could go on and on and on.

Again, I'm not trying to defend religious beliefs. Just belief in the existence of god.

By definition it is. Irrational is defined as "not logical or reasonable." I'd love to see someone make a logical case for the factual existence of any specific god.

Reasonable does not necessarily mean logical or factual. Maybe Fred would be suicidal if he didn't believe in the existence of God. Then for Fred, the belief in the existence of God is reasonable.

But you can harm a lot of people in the meantime. Besides all of the things I listed above, because, as I said, your beliefs inform your actions, your religion affects how you vote, how you treat others and how you raise your children, all of which has a demonstrable impact on society.

The benefits to society are all the reward anyone needs. Look at the Dark Ages, when religion was imprisoning anyone who didn't agree with their teaching and killing so-called heretics. Imagine where we might be today if there hadn't been hundreds of years of religious ignorance imposed upon the world. Imagine where the Middle East might be today without fundamentalist Islam. Ask the people who died on 9/11 what their lives have been like... oh wait, you can't do that, they're all dead because of religion.

Where logic can illuminate, it should be allowed to do so. But logic cannot explain everything. And for things that are left in the dark, I don't see why personal preference shouldn't rein, as long as harm isn't shown to be caused. I don't think mere god belief has shown any harm.

 

[Thief]

If I may butt in, it seems to me that Thief is saying that the evidence doesn't particularly matter since there is none (that we can access). Without any evidence, all that's left is choice. Which one do you prefer? Preference, rather than evidence, is the criteria.

precisely.....

for all that we might think we know.....

we make the choice
and better to do so with a touch of logic @Willamena

it's one or the other ....Spirit first or substance
and science would insist.....substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

 

[Willamena]

precisely.....

for all that we might think we know.....

we make the choice
and better to do so with a touch of logic @Willamena

it's one or the other ....Spirit first or substance
and science would insist.....substance does not move of it's own volition

Spirit first

But "one or the other" isn't the logic.

 

[Cephus]

I don't know about validity. I'm speaking more to a "what does it matter since we don't know either way" sort of viewpoint. The belief might be absurd, but so what? We don't know they are wrong.

There is absolutely no reason to think they are right. That's like saying "what difference does it make if you go around shooting people since we don't know if they're real and solipsists might be right!"

I don't think the whole point is the truth, especially truth that will never be known. The point is to live a good, healthy, happy life.

Even if you're living a lie?

Why are you making the same arguments that have already failed? We have objective evidence that heroin and spousal abuse is not healthy. So no matter how good it makes you feel, they cannot be considered healthy. And none of that negates my point.

Because you're just making assertions. If feeling good is good enough to prove religion worthwhile, why is it not good enough for the others? Pick one position and stick to it.

Why do you think we evolved endorphins? We did it because there's an evolutionary advantage to feeling good in regards to things that are good for us. But like many evolutionary things, it works imperfectly.

Because it provided a survival advantage. Of course, we left that behind thousands of years ago and it simply hasn't been edited out of our genes. We can also ask why we don't use the rational mind that we evolved with, a mind that shows that religion is almost certainly nonsense.

I'm talking about worthwhile. Truth is besides the point. Some beliefs are good to have, regardless of truth value.

Name one.

Reasonable does not necessarily mean logical or factual. Maybe Fred would be suicidal if he didn't believe in the existence of God. Then for Fred, the belief in the existence of God is reasonable.

Maybe Fred would be irrational if he wasn't irrational?

Where logic can illuminate, it should be allowed to do so. But logic cannot explain everything. And for things that are left in the dark, I don't see why personal preference shouldn't rein, as long as harm isn't shown to be caused. I don't think mere god belief has shown any harm.

I'll hold you to that when radical Muslim terrorists kill your family for being heretics.

 

[Falvlun]

There is absolutely no reason to think they are right. That's like saying "what difference does it make if you go around shooting people since we don't know if they're real and solipsists might be right!"

There's also no proof that they are wrong.

Its more like saying "what's does it matter if Susie believes that there's aliens living on Alpha Centauri?"

I've consistently made a distinction between a) beliefs which have objective evidence proving them wrong and b) beliefs which cause harm. Your example violates both of those.

Even if you're living a lie?

Having one wrong belief constitutes living a lie? Isn't that a bit dramatic? I hate to break it to you, but you probably hold a couple wrong beliefs yourself.

Because you're just making assertions. If feeling good is good enough to prove religion worthwhile, why is it not good enough for the others? Pick one position and stick to it.

I have picked a position. Its not my fault it's not the one you wish it was.

To repeat, my position is that in the absence of contrary evidence, feeling good is evidence that something is worthwhile. I mean, that sorta seems self-evident.

Because it provided a survival advantage. Of course, we left that behind thousands of years ago and it simply hasn't been edited out of our genes. We can also ask why we don't use the rational mind that we evolved with, a mind that shows that religion is almost certainly nonsense.

Endorphins are hardly some unuseful evolutionary vestige.

Name one.

I think free will is a healthy, worthwhile belief as it promotes personal responsibility and feelings of control over our lives.

I also previously mentioned the belief of self-worth.

Personal "meanings of life" are also worthwhile beliefs without any known truth value.

Maybe Fred would be irrational if he wasn't irrational?

Ain't nobody perfect.

I'll hold you to that when radical Muslim terrorists kill your family for being heretics.

Not talking about religion. Only god-belief.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Which one?

any, as opposed to whichever spontaneous universe making machine you happen to believe in

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are confusing probability with possibility. Probability is the proportion of possible outcomes measured by the repeat exercise of a random event. There is no way to measure God, therefore you cannot create a probability distribution for such a thing.

By which rationale, we must assume that the gambler who played 5 royal flushes in a row, musta just got lucky

 

[Jeremiahcp]

By which rationale, we must assume that the gambler who played 5 royal flushes in a row, musta just got lucky

I am sorry but luck is not a real measurement of probability, it is just a subjective term people use to describe the occurrence of favorable events.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am sorry but luck is not a real measurement of probability, it is just a subjective term people use to describe the occurrence of favorable events.

what are the odds of 5 royal flushes being dealt in a row?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

what are the odds of 5 royal flushes being dealt in a row?

I don't know, and don't really care, it is irrelevant to my point.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know, and don't really care, it is irrelevant to my point.

lower than the odds of cheating

 

[Jeremiahcp]

lower than the odds of cheating

I start a thread about this, which explains why we cannot apply probability to the question of God.

Probability of God's Existence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I start a thread about this, which explains why we cannot apply probability to the question of God.

Probability of God's Existence.

We can calculate the odds of 5 royal flushes being randomly dealt to a gambler in a casino, we cannot calculate the odds of that gambler cheating

we both know which is the more likely explanation

 

[Jeremiahcp]

We can calculate the odds of 5 royal flushes being randomly dealt to a gambler in a casino, we cannot calculate the odds of that gambler cheating

we both know which is the more likely explanation

We can approximate the odds of a cheater, human behavior is the subject of statistical analysis all the time, in fact I am willing to bet most big casinos have already calculated the expected loss due to cheating as a cost of business.

You should just read the thread and maybe learn something new.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We can calculate the odds of a cheater, human behavior is the subject of statistical analysis all the time, in fact I am willing to bet most big casinos have already calculate the expect lose due to cheating as a cost of business.

You should just read the thread and maybe learn something new.

TLDR

But please summarize for me, what odds did you calculate for the multiverse existing, or any other spontaneous unguided mechanism?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

TLDR

But please summarize for me, what odds did you calculate for the multiverse existing, or any other spontaneous unguided mechanism?

If that was too long for you to read, then you are not worth my time.