gc1765

I hope this isn't too off-topic (then again, threads tend to evolve), but I have trouble believing in the argument of a "prime mover" to get things started. If the "prime mover" got things started, then where did this prime mover come from?

Fair enough. I assume we can agree that believing in a literal interpretation of the bible is irrational (but believing in some sort of deity is not necessarily irrational). Still, according to Pascal, PolyNewbie should continue to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

I would argue that it's not only the gifts that provide joy, but also the underlying idea of fantasy/magic (which I would also argue is part of the reason why religion brings joy to people). I'm sure there are many more better examples I can think of. For example, some people such as PolyNewbie get pleasure out of believing that 9/11 was an inside job. Does that make it rational for PolyNewbie to believe that 9/11 was an inside job?

not bad

Why should only children benefit? I see no reason why a genuine belief in Santa Claus wouldn't bring the same joy to an adult as it does to a child. (if you don't like that example, then take believing in magic, which certainly does bring joy to people, otherwise magicians wouldn't make very much money).

No, but you did say that it is extremely rational to believe in God considering the benefits that belief provides (re: Pascal's argument). Since believing in Santa Claus can also provide benefits (with little negative consequences for believing) does that make it rational, in your opinion, to believe in Santa Claus? Or as rational as choosing not to believe?

But I take it you don't believe in Santa Claus? Why not? Understanding why you don't believe in Santa Claus is probably the best way I can explain to you why some people don't believe in God. (It should be noted that it's not possible to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist).

I agree that Pascal's question is a good one. Then again, is there any downside to believing in Santa Claus? For some people (i.e. kids), believing in Santa Claus brings them joy as well. Does that mean it's rational to believe in Santa Claus?

I propose we keep this thread as the official dispute thread. If things over in Federal Politics start getting into personal attacks, they can bring it to this thread so they can duke it out in public (doing it by PM would make more sense, but that isn't going to happen, for some reason people would rather get their shots in in public). Those who don't like the insults can simply ignore the thread, those who want to participate in the insults....go nuts. Hopefully that will cool things off, and the people having the dispute can return to the other threads with cooler heads. Of course, this is only if the moderator agrees, although that's probably not likely.

Even if you are only 50% or 75% sure you are having a heart attack, you would be stupid not to go to the doctor even if it costs you $1000. Whether you agree with them or not, that's how many of the people who believe in doing something about global warming feel. I'm confused because earlier you were arguing about people who are 100% certain. Quote: "The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists" You are probably thinking of Pascal There are a few problems with his argument: a) it depends on the probability of God existing. If a person is 99.99% certain that God does not exist, it would not be rational to believe in God (think of it this way, even though I have everything to gain by playing the lottery (millions of dollars), and almost nothing to gain from not playing (one dollar), it's still not a wise investment to play the lottery because the chances of winning are very low). He is assuming that believing in God will give a person infinite happiness and that not believing in God will give a person infinite pain. I believe he was talking about the "Christian" God here who punishes non-believers. While I am not certain whether some sort of deity exists, I am relatively certain that the Christian God, as described in the bible, is not true.

Exactly. So, I think it's safe to say that I am about 99.9999% sure that the rock will fall straight down. One can believe that we should act, even if we are not 100% certain. Put it this way, if I feel a pain in my left arm, I am not 100% certain whether I am having a heart attack, but that doesn't mean I am not going to act, and visit the hospital (even if it means making a sacrifice such as missing work, or paying medical bills, etc.). Only if people are claiming to be 100% certain about global warming does it require a leap of faith. If I say that I am, let's say, 90% sure that global warming is real based on the evidence, I wouldn't call that a leap of faith. To say I am 100% certain would require a leap of faith.

If they are 100% certain that a god exists, they are basing that on less than 100% evidence, and so they must make a leap of faith. When I say 100%, I mean 100% certain they are right. I am as close to 100% certain as possible that they sky is blue, but on most issues I am less than 100% certain. You could say I base my beliefs on evidence, but then I wouldn't call that a religious belief any more than you would call believing that the sky is blue is a religious belief.

"In an interview with the Globe and Mail, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to target Europe with missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons, in a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States." Link

Fair enough, but technically those people would be considered agnostic. When I say theist, I am talking about the people who are 100% convinced that they are right, and there are plenty of them. (an atheist is 100% convinced that God does not exist, and there are varying levels of agnosticism in between). I can not speak for other so-called non-theists, I can only speak for myself. I do not put my 100% faith in things that can not be proven. I can say there is a 50% chance, 90% chance or 99% chance (IMO) that a given theory is correct, depending on the evidence. Anyone who puts 100% of their faith that taking action against global warming is the right thing to do, I would consider them to base their beliefs on faith, yes, but that's not what I would do. One can be 100% convinced that God exists, and still believe that God is not going to interfere in their lives (to save the pope when he is sick, for example).

Given the 'evidence' he has, I think it's fair to say that if he is a scientist (or bases his beliefs on evidence) he would be agnostic with respect to God. The fact that believing in God always seems to relieve his anger might give him some reason to believe there is a God, but he should also realize that the results are far from conclusive. This happens in science too, but good scientists are not dogmatic. They realize that the more evidence they acquire, the better their chances of their theory being correct, but they can never be 100% sure that they are correct. In the previous example, there is very little evidence for a God (again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation). A scientist would acknowledge that there is a still a good chance that God does not exist, whereas (some) theists takes it as absolute proof of the existence of God The difference is, non-theists do not put 100% of their belief in something that can not be explained with 100% repeatable experiments. Thus, they are agnostic with respect to things that require faith.

Not really: Link Your example shows that the man put 100% of his faith into something that is certainly not proved through this experiment. It would be fair to say that, after his experience, he could be agnostic with respect to God, and his chances of believing might increase slightly. However, he would be foolish to put 100% of his faith into God as a result of this experiment.

Agreed. They are also more likely to vote.

You can't be interested in politics and be undecided at the same time?

"LANSING, Mich. - Jack Kevorkian, the retired pathologist dubbed “Dr. Death” after claiming he had participated in at least 130 assisted suicides, left prison after eight years Friday still believing people have the right to die." Link As long as there is consent, which I believe there was in this case, I don't see the problem with it. To each his own.

I think the gap is that a theist's beliefs are not based on evidence, whereas a non-theist's beliefs are. I'm not saying that is a large gap, or a small gap, but it's a gap. I can agree to that. If I say that I believe the sky is blue, is that a religious belief? At first glance, no, but the only reason I believe it is blue is because I believe in basing my beliefs on evidence (which is a metaphysical belief). Thus, my belief that the sky is blue is a metaphysical belief.

I'd call it a belief, yes, but I wouldn't call it a religious belief. That is because apparently we have different ideas about what the word religion means. To me, the definition of the word religion (or faith) is essentially belief without evidence. In that case, I wouldn't call my beliefs religious. You might have a different definition of the word religion, but when you say that word, that is what I think of, and what many other people (including, most likely, some on this forum) believe, and probably explains why there is some confusion in this thread. But if you want to belive that my beliefs are "religious", wouldn't that make every belief religious? And if so, isn't the term "religious beliefs" redundant?

What is true and what is false (presumably) does not depend on how what I use to evaluate what is true. The only assumption I start with is that I don't know anything for certain....although I could be wrong about that too

Then they are probably not very good scientists. In general, I find scientists to be much less dogmatic than theists (of course there are going to be exceptions).

What about people who don't believe in the metaphysical, but also don't believe that metaphysical beliefs are necessarily false. IOW, they are agnostic with respect to metaphysical beliefs. As an aside, what exactly is a metaphysical belief? In my mind there is only what is true and what is false. If God turns out to exist, then believing in him would not be a metaphysical belief, because God would be part of the physical world.