Why is belief necessary?

Phatboy If your reasoning and rationality show you that there is no good evidence that there is a god then what possible reason would you have to assume any reality for the existence of such a thing?You cannot assume the existence of such a thing as a reality before you investigate.It is not necessary to deny the existence of god while affirming that such a thing is unlikely in the extreme.I side with atheism because I cannot see a pattern in human relations or in the natural world that presents itself as the work of a deity of any type and as such consider it more likely the product of humans than an actual entity.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

grace2u I have been atheist my whole life and the sidelined handle refers to the burn injury that sidelined me from work and at which time I came to find EVC forum while web surfing to ease the pain from the injury by engaging my attention elsewhere. I have heard this many times before and I can only stste that I feel no rebellion but only puzzlement at the insistence of people who say that such a thing is obvious from the actions of humans as though we were somehow special. Please explain how this evidence presents itself without the prior assumption that there is a god. If you cannot I will suggest that you are filtering the evidence through a pre-concieved notion. Not in the slightest.A material world is what we live in as the evidence suggests and there is no evidence of other than a material world that I have been shown.Again you are assuming that the material world we investigate is somehow of neccesity tied into a spiritual world of which no evidence exists. But they fail to show how the interpretation follows from the evidence.Instead we are offered that the god of theism is beyond the realm of this world immaterial invisible and beyond human reckoning.And this is somehow convincing to you? I side with atheism because it explains what the paradox of gods and human actions to each other resolves to.That evil occurs, that hard work and good intentions do not necessarily mean a life of enjoyment.That death occurs to innocent people.That wars and disease are not the plan of a deity and are simply the result of people .That mushrooms are actually thought to be a viable source of food {eewwww!}
Theism struggles with these and never has aa satifactory answer that does not amount to other than goddidit. LOL.I have none and cannot ever have such. I have,rather, no compelling evidence that he does exist, hence the atheist stance. Human error and political interplay.Please explain what you mean by sound rational thought.Also if you could please show how the entire chistian experience is resolvable to a common ground that all other christians will agree to.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

Hangdawg13 Of course not.I would simply argue though that the belief is not some
thing based on a real entity.The history of belief in god shows a definite correlation between the secular understanding of science and the degree of fine tuning to the role of god in playing a part in explaining those things we do not understand. Do you? I cannot tell the extent of such a statements veracity. I do not think understanding of the world is gained by placing the answer for human actions and interactions in this tiny speck of a backwater galaxy as being of the inspiration of that which you would argue also created the rest of the surrounding universe. It is not necessary to prove that. I can no more prove that the schizophrenics visions and voices are not true,though they mey be "real" to them.I do not give them weight as we can explain the reason for the actual appearence of their reality.
Historical figures are immune from direct invesigation but cases can easily be made for non supernatural causes of these events.This does not disprove of course but rather offer up a scenario consistent with the knowledge we do have about humans and the errors of perception we are prone to.
Ah yes Glossalia or speaking in tongues.This is a phenomena rife with the error of human minds.I will answer further in a seperate thread but I ask if you have witnessed a speaking in tongues? I have. Hence the development of science.Because of the vagaries of humans and their agendas in life as well as our ease in deluding ourselves science does not pursue truth as such.It instead takes the weight of evidence and devises models that have the best explanatory potential.
God has consistently fallen in power of explanation through the ages and has retreated to domains where it is even now slowly losing ground.As we illuminate the dark corners of the world we have found that somethings that were once considered gods work were not so. So we don't prove it,that is not a problem.That we can explain far more things consistently across the board without a god than with one puts the weight of evidence on a non supernatural cause.As I will explain in our further talk on glossalia the human mind is rather easily duped even by,and sometime more so because of,a persons level of intelligence. Certainly. However,that people whom you trust can themselves be decieved is no odd occurence and that is why objective investigation is important.Before I piss you off by saying these things do you not think that an actual entity such as god {Devils advocate position here. Yes I know the irony} would be more or less apparent the further we investigate and not be dependent upon faith? Assumptions of some level are necessary.What is progressive in human understanding of the world is through taking the phenomena and subjecting them to ruthless scrutiny of these assunmptions constantly.There are no sacred cows. Correct, We need not rule it out.If the level of probability falls to that of green elephants or slate gray roses the lack of impossibilty does not increase the likelihood of the existence of such. Absolutely.I can again weigh the likelihood of events such as these. Indeed it is commmon among males to exaggerate the experience of such things and I can recognize these for what they are.If my friend stated to me that he went to Yosemite and climbed The Nose on El Capitan in 4 hours{the record being 4Hours 22 minutes}I cannot say it is impossible but it would certainly be at the bottom of the probability scale.Do I say to him he is bullshitting me? No I ask for extraordinary evidence such a third party verification by someone known to neither of us.
As for not being 100% sure of anything that is correct. Does this mean we say it is all correct or likely? No.Thus the human endevour of science.Taking the neutral road and testing by experiment under controlled condition to rule out deception.That we have progressed from trepanning to modern methods of medicine is because of the weighing of evidence.

grace2u How is god obvious from these in your eyes? No I have spent 40 years weighing the various arguements.Curiously I started in grade one with these big questions as a result of a kid in my elementary class whom I liked and who was tragically killed by a car on his way home.
I did not know about it immediately. I only knew he was absent from school and one day I arrived home and my older sister and brothers had been talking about something in the local newspaper when I walked in the door to hear them discussing it.
I asked what they were talking about and they hesitantly showed me the newspaper article outlining the accident. I was to young I suppose to actually grasp the significance of the event but I do remember that I was struck by the graveness of my family's talking about it.I always wondered what the meaning of it was.I investigated over the decades and was unconvinced by the theist point of view and came to settle on atheism as the most sound of solid stances. No I would question the point of following large numbers simply because they are large numbers.If the hordes are racing towards the wrong direction for whatever reason you do not change the direction by joining them. But we can evidence multiple independent sources on George Washintons existence. I am sure we could find similar testimony in Islam or Buddhism.Do we follw them for that reason? Could you elaborate on this as I am not certain of your meaning here? Have I done this? Can you tell me if you regularly subject your beliefs to examination and if so in what way? I have not said this. I have stipulated that the investigation of suchmust be testable else it cannot be considered viable since without such we cannot rule out the likehood of anything being as likely as another.Can you provide evidence of a non material world? Again please elaborate. How do you judge them to be the greatest and who might they be? To test and question is the result of not believing.Experiment is what is necessary to winnow out that which stands up to investigation from that which is merely accepted.Science does not claim certainty and never will.It is a meaurement of what we can say about the world around us seperate from our wishes and and beliefs. That is a poor analogy.We humans do not know ants in their fullness either yet we do not doubt their existence do we? Why is that? In what way is this evidence sir?How may it be possibly subject to falsification even in principle? Feynman,Dirac,Gould,Dawkins,Bondi,Sagan,Asimov,Smolin,Watson,Darwin{atheists all} are far more influential on modern science and thus the philosophy that trails behind as always than any of your list. So what? That a scientist or a philosopher reaches levels of fame and fortune is not a measure of any importance concerning the validity of their srguements.It is the investigation of their arguements and the constant criticism of these that makes or breaks them.

---

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg