Identifying false religions.

So your argument in favor of that behavior which was reasonably argued as being unacceptable, is that it is OK because you already do it?That seems to imply the premise that you cannot be wrong, and I find no reason to accept that.

Belief in something that simply might be true and belief in something simply *because* it might be true are very different things. Believing that someone is in love with you because they have shown something that indicates they might be is quite reasonable. Believing someone is in love with you simply because it *might* be true, without any other reason, isn't OK. So when Rahvin says that something potentially being true is not alone an acceptable reason to believe anything, your response is that you are comfortable with a decision-making process that yields more incorrect conclusions that Rahvin is prepared to accept.That is probably the most honest answer I have thoroughly disagreed with in a long time.

Hope and belief are two very different things. Hope that the target of your crush will go out with you is natural, belief that they will is simply wishful thinking.This distinction has important effects on your behavior. Someone who believes their crush will go out with them might purchase movie tickets in advance, while someone who *hopes* will recognize the uncertainty of their desire. I don't think anyone claimed you were uncomfortable with your belief system, the claim is that you should be. Semantics are often a problem when twisted away from their common meanings. I think most people would consider that they believe gravity exists and operates, using the term "belief" to mean "confidence in the truth or existence of something". If you have a significantly different view of the term, please explain in detail.Now, if you are confident that a god exists but cannot *present* evidence it does not mean that you came to your decision without evidence whatsoever. My parents for instance claim individual personal revelations which of course don't stand up to scrutiny after the fact, but were convincing to them at the time. I find it extremely unlikely that you came to your belief in a god based solely on it being *possible*. It is very astute of you to admit this point.My question to you is what convinced you that a god exists at all, rather than simply delusion?

Again, you are drawing distinctions between beliefs and conclusions that I don't think you have adequately explained, and are not implied through the regular use of the language.For me, belief in something that I have no evidence (even personal evidence) is true is lunacy. I might just as well believe anything and everything is true.

Are you arguing the conclusion that that behavior is lunacy, or suggesting that I should be arguing a different point?My overall view:If someone has hard evidence that something exists, and no evidence contradicting it, they should believe it exists.If someone has personal evidence, unavailable to others but convincing to them that something exists (and no contradicting), then they should believe it exists but understand and even support those who lack that evidence disbelieving.If someone has no evidence whatsoever that something exists, and no contradictory evidence, then they shouldn't believe it exists. They shouldn't believe it doesn't exist either. In the end though, they lack belief in that thing's existence.

Other people have no compelling reason to consider it more than their personal opinion based on their world view, but presumably the person with the experiences would consider it as more than that. For instance, someone who thinks they saw Bigfoot would presumably consider it more genuine than their preference for chocolate cake, even if they were simply mistaken about that observation of Bigfoot.They should be distinguishable by the person with the private evidence. No, the latter two are insanity if they are not accompanied by evidence. Deciding to believe that something exists simply based on personal preference and a lack of contradictory evidence sums up what I would view as mental illness. Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false. Good, that is exactly the behavior I am saying would be lunacy to perform. Those who base their interpretation of what exists in reality on personal opinion alone are in my opinion engaging in unsound thinking practices.A personal observation should be distinguishable from personal opinion, otherwise the individual has serious problems relating to reality.---To identify false beliefs, each proposed belief should be treated as a claim.If that claim has adequate evidence to warrant belief in the claim, it should be accepted.If it does not, the claim should be rejected. This does not mean the claimed thing does not exist, merely that the claim is unsupported.Everything else tends to be a question of what constitutes "adequate evidence", and I propose that personal preference does not constitute adequate evidence to believe something exists.

Said person is of the belief that they saw Bigfoot as an objective observation, distinct from their subjective opinions on other things. Anyone else they make the claim to may be unable to distinguish this from their opinion, but the observer presumably *can*. That is the key reason why it is reasonable for the observer to believe Bigfoot exists, and why it isn't reasonable for the third other party to believe the claim.The point is that the observer's "opinion" of seeing Bigfoot as you state it shouldn't be confused with other opinions, such as their preference for there being a million dollars in their bank account, or preference for there to be a god. The observer *must* be able to distinguish these things with some regularity, otherwise they are suffering from mental illness. Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence. No, it isn't. Rejecting a claim does not imply a decision on the subject of the claim whatsoever. Rejecting someone's claim of seeing Bigfoot does not mean that you have made a decision that Bigfoot exists or does not exist. It simply means that you don't find that claim adequate.If you have rejected all claims of Bigfoot's existence you don't necessarily conclude that Bigfoot does not exist. However, you should also lack belief in its existence and by doing so you are an a-Bigfoot-ist in that regard. Similarly, rejecting all claims of a god's existence does not imply a decision about the existence of gods, but should logically result in atheism. And by doing so you lack belief in Bigfoot's existence, correct? Sure. Someone being insane does not directly effect the reality of their beliefs, but it does tend to result in them holding wrong beliefs.

Exactly, presumably they misinterpreted a real experience they had. Confusing it with a dream, or a personal preference toward it's existence is much less reasonable. So you don't believe Bigfoot exists, but you cannot say it because your personal cult of insanity doesn't allow you to admit it for fear of becoming an atheist.Every regular at EvC is familiar with this, but it bears outlining for those new to the forum.

I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence. No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner. Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false. Keep in mind that lacking an opinion that the concept is either true or false implies lack of belief that the concept is true or false.Thus, agnosticism toward the concept implies lack of belief (and lack of disbelief).

Could you clarify this? You have an irrational, illogical, unreasonable belief that is contrary to your will and you would prefer to not have... and yet you don't seem to consider this to be mental illness.I don't see how this is different from, for instance, hallucinating that there are large, hairy, terrifying spiders crawling on your bedroom walls. Surely you would seek to rid yourself of such a belief through logical reassurance and perhaps medication and psychiatric treatment. Yet you seem to be defending your belief in "GOD". Why?

Would you agree that saying you don't believe gods exist is technically true considering your agnosticism, but that it does not fully state your position? Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief. There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:1) I believe Bigfoot exists.
2) I don't know/care/etc.
3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.Therefore, you don't believe Bigfoot exists. If you also take a completely impartial, agnostic view toward the existence of gods you are also not taking position number 1. Therefore, you lack belief in the existence of gods.Your religious agnosticism is an atheistic position. Atheism is not the claim that gods don't exist, it is simply the lack of belief that gods exist. It is literally "not Theism", which understandably covers a wide range of beliefs, including completely impartial agnosticism. How do you know the decision is based on insufficient evidence? The lack of evidence to support the claim is, when considering the claim, sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim as unreliably representing the truth.Disbelief of a claim that lacks evidence to back it up is not a decision made lacking evidence. Exactly, it doesn't believe.Are you a Theist RAZD? I don't see how you could be if you are completely impartial to the existence of gods.If not, you lack theism. You are an atheist. I have chosen to disbelieve a claim, not the subject of the claim. As an atheist I am perfectly open to the possibility that gods exist, but I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to validate such a claim has been met.Surely you are not suggesting I have absolutely no evidence regarding the claim itself?

You don't see how holding irrational, illogical, unreasonable beliefs which affect your behavior and presumably distribution of your wealth would have a down side? ... Really?Would you be interested in buying a bridge? If you think that you may get a conclusive answer after you die, why do you have a compelling reason to keep it?For instance, lets assume you go to church for 2 hours every week for 50 years because of your belief. Thats about 217 days of your life gone; a life that only *may* continue later. If its all the same, that seems a fairly compelling reason to get rid of the belief.

Jar has already admitted that his/her beliefs about "GOD" are irrational, illogical, unreasonable, contrary to his/her will, and apparently *secret* both in formulation and content. Furthermore, he/she sees no potential problems with such beliefs.I have therefore concluded that Jar is intentionally lying to salvage an untenable faith position, seriously mentally ill, or some combination of the two. I suggest you consider this in any further debate you might engage in with Jar, as I don't see any possibility of beneficial communication.

So it seems that you only are willing to say what you believe, not discuss the reasoning (if there is any) behind it at all.Can you distinguish your participation within this forum as anything other than 1-way communication, with a focus on proselytizing? Are you familiar with a guy named "Gish"?

No, I didn't read them all. Please read the Library of Congress and reply to my post with that in mind.As for if they discuss your reasoning, it doesn't appear that they do. Your unwillingness to discuss your reasoning here backs that up. It appears that you are simply interested in stating what you believe, not explaining why except in an extremely general and yawn-inspiring sense. "Once upon a time I was but a young boy..."Part of the participation in a discussion forum is to discuss things, which often relies upon explaining not only your position but how you got there. Most of the time it isn't simply to get to know more about the particular individual posting. The similarity lies in the deliberate presentation of far too much material to actually formulate a decent reply. The thread is about Identifying False Religions, and you are unwilling to discuss how exactly you came to decide your religious beliefs are correct or how other religious beliefs are false. Your willingness to link to novel-length compendiums of tangentially related ramblings does not really address the topic at all.Unless you are actually willing to discuss your reasoning behind your beliefs, I suggest you simply introduce yourself (as you have already done in other threads) and quit posting. We are not here simply to find out *what* you believe.