Is There a God?

[Xathranaar]

...okay.

Then a lot of people seem to take their hope very seriously. To the point where they will kill over what they "hope" is true.

That, to me, seems a bit ridiculous. And it also seems like a distinction without a difference, seeing as how they function more or less exactly the same way.

Yes. Many people take their hope very seriously. They could easily say that they believe in a given idea, but the methodology of belief and faith are very different.

If you say so... again, it seems like a distinction without a difference.

I also think your definition places many things into the category of "hope" that obviously don't belong there. I mean, does "something you believe to be true, but it fails to hold itself to any logical standards," apply to things you believe because you were taught them and never thought to question it? If it does, then there are plenty of things which, even I, believe - or I'm sorry, "hope" - simply because I don't realize that is what I'm doing. If not, well, there are plenty of people who believe in religion in this way, does that mean theirs is a "belief statement?"

[Vortropolis]

Because the arguments will get nowhere, and I thought you said you were out?

How does that make any sense whatsoever?
And i dropped by again, its a habit. But now im really out as i need to eat ^_^

Because nothing is gonna happen it's like the majority of arguments between theists and atheists on NSG, all that might happen is everybody getting off topic and mods giving out warnings.

[Xathranaar]

How does that make any sense whatsoever?
And i dropped by again, its a habit. But now im really out as i need to eat ^_^

Because nothing is gonna happen it's like the majority of arguments between theists and atheists on NSG, all that might happen is everybody getting off topic and mods giving out warnings.

If you are so convinced of the futility of all of this, why are you still here?

[Typhlochactas]

Yes. Many people take their hope very seriously. They could easily say that they believe in a given idea, but the methodology of belief and faith are very different.

If you say so... again, it seems like a distinction without a difference.

I also think your definition places many things into the category of "hope" that obviously don't belong there. I mean, does "something you believe to be true, but it fails to hold itself to any logical standards," apply to things you believe because you were taught them and never thought to question it? If it does, then there are plenty of things which, even I, believe - or I'm sorry, "hope" - simply because I don't realize that is what I'm doing. If not, well, there are plenty of people who believe in religion in this way, does that mean theirs is a "belief statement?"

1: The difference is in the methodology. Tell somebody that a hair dryer will excrete frozen yogurt when you turn it on, and they will demand evidence. Ask somebody why they believe in god, and the people that I'm talking about would tell you they believe it on faith alone.

2: Yes, I would consider it a faithful belief. You have no reason to believe in the proposition other than the fact that you have been told so by an authority that you trust and believe in.

[Vortropolis]

Because nothing is gonna happen it's like the majority of arguments between theists and atheists on NSG, all that might happen is everybody getting off topic and mods giving out warnings.

If you are so convinced of the futility of all of this, why are you still here?

To try to get them to not argue, like I said earlier.

[Tlaceceyaya]

If you are so convinced of the futility of all of this, why are you still here?

To try to get them to not argue, like I said earlier.

Do you know the purpose of NSG?

[Xathranaar]

If you are so convinced of the futility of all of this, why are you still here?

To try to get them to not argue, like I said earlier.

That is even less likely to occur then the chance someone will be convinced by another's argument.

[Vortropolis]

To try to get them to not argue, like I said earlier.

Do you know the purpose of NSG?

Yes but not to argue or ''debate'' about something thats just gonna end up with warnings being handed out by mods.

[Salandriagado]

Do you know the purpose of NSG?

Yes but not to argue or ''debate'' about something thats just gonna end up with warnings being handed out by mods.

Nope. Debating is what we're doing. It involves attacking the arguments presented (NOTE: The arguments, not the poster). What you are doing is posting annoying borderline-spam. I would suggest changing to debating.

[Vortropolis]

Yes but not to argue or ''debate'' about something thats just gonna end up with warnings being handed out by mods.

Nope. Debating is what we're doing. It involves attacking the arguments presented (NOTE: The arguments, not the poster). What you are doing is posting annoying borderline-spam. I would suggest changing to debating.

It's not annoying ''borderline-spam'' and were getting off topic again.

[Xathranaar]

If you say so... again, it seems like a distinction without a difference.

I also think your definition places many things into the category of "hope" that obviously don't belong there. I mean, does "something you believe to be true, but it fails to hold itself to any logical standards," apply to things you believe because you were taught them and never thought to question it? If it does, then there are plenty of things which, even I, believe - or I'm sorry, "hope" - simply because I don't realize that is what I'm doing. If not, well, there are plenty of people who believe in religion in this way, does that mean theirs is a "belief statement?"

1: The difference is in the methodology. Tell somebody that a hair dryer will excrete frozen yogurt when you turn it on, and they will demand evidence. Ask somebody why they believe in god, and the people that I'm talking about would tell you they believe it on faith alone.

2: Yes, I would consider it a faithful belief. You have no reason to believe in the proposition other than the fact that you have been told so by an authority that you trust and believe in.

Alright. I have no real problem with point one.

Two still seems wrong to me. Because you're not "having faith" on purpose, and you don't necessarily want it to be true, or want to keep it if you knew differently.

As an example: I used to (back when I was 12) think that the East Indies referred to the Caribbean, and the West Indies referred to India. It just seemed reasonable to me that, if you sailed west, and you thought you were in the Indies, you would assume you were in the eastern-most part of the Indies and name it that (and vice versa.) It was a mistaken belief, but one that I held because I didn't know better, and for the sake of argument, let us say that some Middle School geography teacher (a trusted authority figure) told me so.

As soon as I learned the point was in question, I reconsidered my belief immediately. I didn't instantly convert to the other belief, because that would be making the same mistake the other way. Instead, I checked; I tried to find out for myself. But I had no commitment, I wasn't hoping that the answer would come out one way or the other, and that is why calling this "hope" seems silly.

Calling this, "religious faith" seems absurd. Religious people just do not react like that when their beliefs are called into question.

[Typhlochactas]

1: The difference is in the methodology. Tell somebody that a hair dryer will excrete frozen yogurt when you turn it on, and they will demand evidence. Ask somebody why they believe in god, and the people that I'm talking about would tell you they believe it on faith alone.

2: Yes, I would consider it a faithful belief. You have no reason to believe in the proposition other than the fact that you have been told so by an authority that you trust and believe in.

Alright. I have no real problem with point one.

Two still seems wrong to me. Because you're not "having faith" on purpose, and you don't necessarily want it to be true, or want to keep it if you knew differently.

As an example: I used to (back when I was 12) think that the East Indies referred to the Caribbean, and the West Indies referred to India. It just seemed reasonable to me that, if you sailed west, and you thought you were in the Indies, you would assume you were in the eastern-most part of the Indies and name it that (and vice versa.) It was a mistaken belief, but one that I held because I didn't know better, and for the sake of argument, let us say that some Middle School geography teacher (a trusted authority figure) told me so.

As soon as I learned the point was in question, I reconsidered my belief immediately. I didn't instantly convert to the other belief, because that would be making the same mistake the other way. Instead, I checked; I tried to find out for myself. But I had no commitment, I wasn't hoping that the answer would come out one way or the other, and that is why calling this "hope" seems silly.

Calling this, "religious faith" seems absurd.

1: Whether or not you have faith on purpose or on accident is not the point.

2: Nobody would call that a religious faith. I called it a 'faithful' belief, as you have faith in the authority figure. The same is true for your anecdote on the East indies.

[Xathranaar]

Alright. I have no real problem with point one.

Two still seems wrong to me. Because you're not "having faith" on purpose, and you don't necessarily want it to be true, or want to keep it if you knew differently.

As an example: I used to (back when I was 12) think that the East Indies referred to the Caribbean, and the West Indies referred to India. It just seemed reasonable to me that, if you sailed west, and you thought you were in the Indies, you would assume you were in the eastern-most part of the Indies and name it that (and vice versa.) It was a mistaken belief, but one that I held because I didn't know better, and for the sake of argument, let us say that some Middle School geography teacher (a trusted authority figure) told me so.

As soon as I learned the point was in question, I reconsidered my belief immediately. I didn't instantly convert to the other belief, because that would be making the same mistake the other way. Instead, I checked; I tried to find out for myself. But I had no commitment, I wasn't hoping that the answer would come out one way or the other, and that is why calling this "hope" seems silly.

Calling this, "religious faith" seems absurd.

1: Whether or not you have faith on purpose or on accident is not the point.

2: Nobody would call that a religious faith. I called it a 'faithful' belief, as you have faith in the authority figure. The same is true for your anecdote on the East indies.

But that's exactly the point: I didn't have "faith" in it, I didn't have a commitment to it, I wouldn't defend it, and I didn't want it to be true, and the moment I even considered that it might be untrue, my position on the subject became agnostic. This is totally different from religious faith.

And it wasn't that I had faith in the authority figure, I knew my teachers were fallible even then. But they were placed in their position of authority because they were trained to be knowledgeable regarding their subject, and I believed them in the sense that, well as you put it: "A belief is something that you believe to be true because of logical reasons." It was logical to think that they were presenting accurate information.

[Typhlochactas]

1: Whether or not you have faith on purpose or on accident is not the point.

2: Nobody would call that a religious faith. I called it a 'faithful' belief, as you have faith in the authority figure. The same is true for your anecdote on the East indies.

But that's exactly the point: I didn't have "faith" in it, I didn't have a commitment to it, I wouldn't defend it, and I didn't want it to be true, and the moment I even considered that it might be untrue, my position on the subject became agnostic. This is totally different from religious faith.

And it wasn't that I had faith in the authority figure, I knew my teachers were fallible even then. But they were placed in their position of authority because they were trained to be knowledgeable regarding their subject, and I believed them in the sense that, well as you put it: "A belief is something that you believe to be true because of logical reasons." It was logical to think that they were presenting accurate information.

1: I am inclined to point out the two instances where you have thought that I have said 'religious faith' when I have only said 'faith'. Religious faith is not the only form of faith, and I have not every said religious faith to describe your example. It is faith, however.

2: It is logical to believe that they would not tell you anything they believed to be false. It is not logical to extrapolate from that and decide that it must be true.

[Xathranaar]

But that's exactly the point: I didn't have "faith" in it, I didn't have a commitment to it, I wouldn't defend it, and I didn't want it to be true, and the moment I even considered that it might be untrue, my position on the subject became agnostic. This is totally different from religious faith.

And it wasn't that I had faith in the authority figure, I knew my teachers were fallible even then. But they were placed in their position of authority because they were trained to be knowledgeable regarding their subject, and I believed them in the sense that, well as you put it: "A belief is something that you believe to be true because of logical reasons." It was logical to think that they were presenting accurate information.

1: I am inclined to point out the two instances where you have thought that I have said 'religious faith' when I have only said 'faith'. Religious faith is not the only form of faith, and I have not every said religious faith to describe your example. It is faith, however.

2: It is logical to believe that they would not tell you anything they believed to be false. It is not logical to extrapolate from that and decide that it must be true.

I never decided that, and at this point I have to wonder if you can even hear what you are saying?

You would have us believe that almost all scientific knowledge, not personally verified, is taken on faith.

That demeans science. It also demeans faith.

[Typhlochactas]

1: I am inclined to point out the two instances where you have thought that I have said 'religious faith' when I have only said 'faith'. Religious faith is not the only form of faith, and I have not every said religious faith to describe your example. It is faith, however.

2: It is logical to believe that they would not tell you anything they believed to be false. It is not logical to extrapolate from that and decide that it must be true.

I never decided that, and at this point I have to wonder if you can even hear what you are saying?

You would have us believe that almost all scientific knowledge, not personally verified, is taken on faith.

That demeans science. It also demeans faith.

Uhh right, and when have I said that you need to personally verify something for it to be true?

[Xathranaar]

I never decided that, and at this point I have to wonder if you can even hear what you are saying?

You would have us believe that almost all scientific knowledge, not personally verified, is taken on faith.

That demeans science. It also demeans faith.

Uhh right, and when have I said that you need to personally verify something for it to be true?

Because apparently it is faith if you take an expert's word for it.

[Typhlochactas]

Uhh right, and when have I said that you need to personally verify something for it to be true?

Because apparently it is faith if you take an expert's word for it.

That is a faith statement in itself, yes. Believing something because an expert says so is not logical, as it is an appeal to authority. It becomes faith at that point.

Believing in ideas that have been tested over and over by science is not faith.

[Xathranaar]

Because apparently it is faith if you take an expert's word for it.

That is a faith statement in itself, yes. Believing something because an expert says so is not logical, as it is an appeal to authority. It becomes faith at that point.

Believing in ideas that have been tested over and over by science is not faith.

...

How many times have you personally checked to see if something your bio prof tells you has been tested over and over again?

It is logical to believe that an authority in a field, teaching in that field, will generally provide accurate information. And it is not faith, again, because if you find out that said information might not be accurate, you do what?

I have never encountered a religious person who, upon my saying that god might not necessarily exist, has replied, "oh? Really? Wow, that changes everything." Clearly faith is a different animal.

[The Scarlet Pact]

I, as a devoted Christian, do believe there is a god, for several reasons, some, being purely logical, others being faith, upbringing, and tradition.
The first major reason is Pascal's Wager. This was a theory made in the 17th or so century made by a scientist and psychologist who was also a member of the Catholic clergy. It is basically summed up as so:
-If you believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win everything.
-If you believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing
OR
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win nothing.
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose everything.

Logically, the best odds are, therefore, believing that there is a God- if nothing else, for the devoted Atheists and Agnostics, its simply a hedge bet, which you cannot lose. From a simply logical and statistical standpoint, it stands to reason that the rewards for believing there is a God is greater than the rewards/consequences of not believing there is a God.
If you really need more explanation, fire away- I'm open to any theories or questions, and will answer them to the best of my abilities.

[Senkaku]

All evidence so far points to no. But people believe in Him/Her anyways.

[Typhlochactas]

That is a faith statement in itself, yes. Believing something because an expert says so is not logical, as it is an appeal to authority. It becomes faith at that point.

Believing in ideas that have been tested over and over by science is not faith.

...

How many times have you personally checked to see if something your bio prof tells you has been tested over and over again?

It is logical to believe that an authority in a field, teaching in that field, will generally provide accurate information. And it is not faith, again, because if you find out that said information might not be accurate, you do what?

I have never encountered a religious person who, upon my saying that god might not necessarily exist, has replied, "oh? Really? Wow, that changes everything." Clearly faith is a different animal.

Your question is pointless. I could verify 0% of what my teacher says for the entire semester, and that would have no bearing on the fact that trusting somebody on their authority alone is faith.

Telling yourself that this information is accurate based simply on their authority and knowledge is not logical, however. If you come out of your biology class and your friend disagrees with the teacher, simply citing his academic qualifications would not be a logical statement. It would be a fallacy of argumentation called an appeal to authority. So, it is faithful to believe in an expert for the sake of him being an expert.

And your final sentence is a really stupid. You cannot make a universal claim based off of an anecdote.

[Xathranaar]

I, as a devoted Christian, do believe there is a god, for several reasons, some, being purely logical, others being faith, upbringing, and tradition.
The first major reason is Pascal's Wager. This was a theory made in the 17th or so century made by a scientist and psychologist who was also a member of the Catholic clergy. It is basically summed up as so:
-If you believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win everything.
-If you believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing
OR
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win nothing.
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose everything.

Logically, the best odds are, therefore, believing that there is a God- if nothing else, for the devoted Atheists and Agnostics, its simply a hedge bet, which you cannot lose. From a simply logical and statistical standpoint, it stands to reason that the rewards for believing there is a God is greater than the rewards/consequences of not believing there is a God.
If you really need more explanation, fire away- I'm open to any theories or questions, and will answer them to the best of my abilities.

This works only if Christianity and Atheism/Agnosticism are the only two options.

There are literally thousands of other religions, as well as other possibilities: What if only atheists go to heaven? What if there is a god, but no afterlife? What if there is an afterlife, but no god? What if you go to the same afterlife regardless of what you believe. Etc.

Also, do you really think a just god would reward you for pretending to believe in him just in case? Or would he prefer someone who honestly didn't believe in him, and didn't lie about it?

[Typhlochactas]

I, as a devoted Christian, do believe there is a god, for several reasons, some, being purely logical, others being faith, upbringing, and tradition.
The first major reason is Pascal's Wager. This was a theory made in the 17th or so century made by a scientist and psychologist who was also a member of the Catholic clergy. It is basically summed up as so:
-If you believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win everything.
-If you believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose nothing
OR
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are correct, you win nothing.
-If you don't believe there is a God, and you are wrong, you lose everything.

Logically, the best odds are, therefore, believing that there is a God- if nothing else, for the devoted Atheists and Agnostics, its simply a hedge bet, which you cannot lose. From a simply logical and statistical standpoint, it stands to reason that the rewards for believing there is a God is greater than the rewards/consequences of not believing there is a God.
If you really need more explanation, fire away- I'm open to any theories or questions, and will answer them to the best of my abilities.

Of course this assumes that god has created an afterlife.

[Xathranaar]

...

How many times have you personally checked to see if something your bio prof tells you has been tested over and over again?

It is logical to believe that an authority in a field, teaching in that field, will generally provide accurate information. And it is not faith, again, because if you find out that said information might not be accurate, you do what?

I have never encountered a religious person who, upon my saying that god might not necessarily exist, has replied, "oh? Really? Wow, that changes everything." Clearly faith is a different animal.

Your question is pointless. I could verify 0% of what my teacher says for the entire semester, and that would have no bearing on the fact that trusting somebody on their authority alone is faith.

Telling yourself that this information is accurate based simply on their authority and knowledge is not logical, however. If you come out of your biology class and your friend disagrees with the teacher, simply citing his academic qualifications would not be a logical statement. It would be a fallacy of argumentation called an appeal to authority. So, it is faithful to believe in an expert for the sake of him being an expert.

And your final sentence is a really stupid. You cannot make a universal claim based off of an anecdote.

Wow. You just distorted everything I said.

I guess this is what I get for trying to be nice.

Where's that Serb guy? I liked him better.