(2) OK, a lot of people find it quite unbelievable that something appeared out of nothing

I think I see your point.

I would reply that maybe God has no origin, as opposed to the universe. Universe is contingent, and it probably had a beginning. God is the one who is – s/he is what remains when the universe is gone by Big Crunch or Big Rip. One can imagine him/her as the possibility that a universe can come into existence. That possibility exists with probability = 1, because we are here.

Now if something can cause a new universe to appear, then it’s probably pretty powerful. It can also be quite intelligent (balancing all the constants, setting the laws, creating a preference for the existence of things that can multiply themselves). Although considering the length of eternity, one can call it chance (on the other hand, it probably makes no sense to speak of time outside our universe).

It’s just a matter of looking at things – I believe that such a God as described above is at least logically possible, and IMHO exists with a decent probability. But if one has a different worldview, fine, as long as they don’t close me to a concentration camp.

(3) Why shouldn’t one believe? There is no evidence contrary to the possibility of existence of God (although there is evidence contrary to some practical implications that some theists derive from the existence of God). One is not getting the information one needs to be absolutely sure and it’s probable that one won’t get another life to reconsider. Religious belief can have a profound effect on one’s life – religious people have higher levels of personal happiness, they have bigger families and stronger family ties, they belong to a community (important during the time of rapid urbanization), they receive a safe way to practise their (sigh!) spirituality if they join a mainstream religion, which gives their children better protection from various cults, and they also get high quality passage rituals (sounds awful!).

It’s no science. One only has one life and can rarely experiment with it in a scientific way. It’s a decision one must take with incomplete information. Which takes me back to the idea in my first post – I just wanted to say that faith is one of the best things that I accepted in my life, and I recommend the experience to everyone.

(4) A lot of atheists throughout the 20th century actively fought against religions in very barbaric ways, while enjoying full state support. Church property got confiscated by the State. But you are probably talking about another country sure, false beliefs must be spoken against, but the belief in God by itself cannot be proven false. Veritas omnia vincit. Thank God for religious freedom and freedom of expression.

I support the separation of church and state.

That depends on your definition of god. Some – as defined by humans – are logically self-contradictory, and therefore should be safely disregarded. But more broadly you’re equating *belief-in-god* with *non-belief-in-god* and giving them the same value of reasonableness. This it seems to me is false. Whether or not any particular definition of god is or isn’t possible, everything we see around us can be explained materialistically, with the sole exception of the origin of everything, and that is not clarified one iota by adding a supernatural being.

…and if they spread the “hard” atheism across the population, then they are proselytizing just like any other religion, and they can be just as intolerant as some theists. – ‘spread’ how? By talking about it? There’s a difference between actively proselytizing – whilst, for instance – enjoying the many privileges afforded to religions in every society I’m aware of, and simply arguing against false beliefs when they present themselves to you. Or even actively trying to end privileges unfairly provided to one group or another.

I also tried to note that my experience with religion and religious people has so far been positive overall. – I’m glad. Outside the subject of justifying their particular religion (and that’s a big caveat), mostly, so has mine. As it has been with atheists. But why wouldn’t it be? And why would it prove anything either way? Religion is an evolutionarily massively successful organism – if it automatically alienated everyone other than the person holding to it, it wouldn’t be.

“Why is it ‘obnoxious’ to say that you think someone’s position is irrational or just wrong?”
a) If someone’s opinion is fallacious (see Argument from Ignorance), then it’s obnoxious if they think they are right by virtue of reason and force their opinion on others (hard atheists – those who believe that there is no God and that those who believe otherwise are fools). b) If someone has some weird opinions on values (like e.g. it’s OK to marry and consummate the marriage with a 9-year-old, and that we are wrong in prohibiting that), then what they say is obnoxious and potentially dangerous.

Who’s ‘forcing’ any opinions? How could an atheist – ‘hard’ or otherwise – do this? Religious people display their beliefs publicly constantly, receive funding from ordinary tax-payers, have thousands of explicitly religious schools dedicated to propagating their views, air-time on national broadcasters and seats in our democratic parliament, and still they demand more consideration when laws are formulated, and special exemptions when their – supposedly divinely-inspired – views conflict with human rights considerations.

Moreover, ascribing the origin of ‘something’ to g/God/s answers no questions and takes you no further, as the origin of your invisible friend has to be explained, and you simply push the inconceivable one step further back. Even without any other reason, it’s more economical not to add an invisible deity into the equation.

The comparison is between faith in the existence of something(‘1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.‘) vs ‘3. confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.‘

They’re not synonymous; they’re not interchangeable. There’s very little similarity between them at all.

Faith is belief irrespective of a lack of evidence. Confidence in the value of something is dependent on evidence.

‘Also note that both sentences can be rephrased…‘

…which is exactly where we started. You’re using what are essentially two *different* words, deployed with two *different* meanings, but because the word itself is the same, assuming/pretending/deceiving yourself that the *meanings* somehow become the same. They don’t.

v.intr. 1 and 3 really are the nuances of the meaning. But if you look more closely at the equivalents (faith vs. confidence), are they really so different? Both of them express some bridging of a mental gap between reality and knowledge, more or less certain or uncertain. The only difference is, in my opinion, that you consider one of the beliefs irrational and the other one rational.

Commendatory vs. existential claims of “believe in”: both could apply to God, and both could apply to human rights.

Also note that both sentences can be rephrased as “I believe that God exists.” and “I believe that human rights exist.”, and now there really is no difference between these existential beliefs. If you are a legal positivist, then human rights exist thanks to codification, if you like the Natural Law approach, then they exist thanks to human nature. In fact, both of these theories can be correct at the same time. It’s just the way of looking at things. Light beam can also be viewed as a wave or a stream of particles. The world can be viewed as a smoothly operating machine, as a plant that grew out of a seed, as a giant baloon undergoing inflation, or as the work of God. All of these theories can be correct at the same time and I see no problem in believing them, as long as they don’t offend my reason or feelings.

2) You believe there is/are no g/God/s, I believe there is a God. There is no way to tell which of these beliefs is wrong, i.e. out of correspondence with reality, because both are coherent with reality. I e.g. find it quite unbelievable that something appeared out of nothing. Nothing – no Planck’s constant, no numbers, no information, no laws of nature, no power which brought the universe into existence. Nick Bostrom’s idea that we are probably living in a computer simulation is intriguing, but still there has to be [someone/something that created/a principle by which arose] the ultimate reality.

3) “It’s only when people force their subjective, un-falsifiable views on others that it leads to intolerance.”

I totally agree. Both atheism and theism are such subjective un-falsifiable views. Neither can be proven wrong by observing the reality (see also the Argument from Ignorance at wiki). If the “hard” atheists meta-believe that they are epistemically better off with respect to God than the theists, then it’s only their fallacious belief, and if they spread the “hard” atheism across the population, then they are proselytizing just like any other religion, and they can be just as intolerant as some theists.

“By their fruits you will know them.” Mt 7:16. Our beliefs, all of which should also be coherent with our dis/belief in God, can have great influence on how we lead our lives. The evolution will eventually take its toll. Either the various kinds of theists and atheists alike will learn to share the planet with those who believe differently, or we’ll all become the evolution’s blind alley.

I tried to criticise in my comments those who deduce such opinions from their disbelief in God as are incompatible with my understanding of morality. I admit that this is a subjective category, and one may always be wrong in placing particular people in the category. I hate judging people. I just don’t like those who don’t think about their lives, that’s all. It’s not your case, I believe.

I also tried to note that my experience with religion and religious people has so far been positive overall.

“Why is it ‘obnoxious’ to say that you think someone’s position is irrational or just wrong?”

a) If someone’s opinion is fallacious (see Argument from Ignorance), then it’s obnoxious if they think they are right by virtue of reason and force their opinion on others (hard atheists – those who believe that there is no God and that those who believe otherwise are fools). b) If someone has some weird opinions on values (like e.g. it’s OK to marry and consummate the marriage with a 9-year-old, and that we are wrong in prohibiting that), then what they say is obnoxious and potentially dangerous.

Perhaps I’m explaining this badly, possibly because it seems such an obvious difference to me that I’ve never considered anyone else couldn’t see it, but the dictionary link you yourself provided contradicts your view:

‘be·lieve (bÄ­-lÄ“v’)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves

v. tr.
1.
To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2.
To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3.
To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.

v. intr.
1.
To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2.
To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3.
To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4.
To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.’

Either 1) agrees with the ‘believe in god’ meaning. Intransitive 3) agrees with the ‘hold these truths’ meaning.

Wikipedia draws the same distinction:
‘To “believe in” someone or something is a distinct concept from “believe-that”. There are two types of belief-in:[11]

* Commendatory – an expression of confidence in a person or entity, as in, “I believe in his abililty to do the job”.

* Existential claim – to claim belief in the existence of an entity or phenomenon with the implied need to justify its claim to existence. It is often used when the entity is not real, or its existence is in doubt. “He believes in witches and ghosts” or “many children believe in fairies” are typical examples.[12]‘

2a)I didn’t request a ‘proof that God exists‘ so it was a distraction for you to introduce it into the discussion, and dishonest of you to ask if I ‘still‘ wanted one. Your statement ‘OK, so we have done away with Clifford’s principle.‘ was similarly false. ‘We‘ hadn’t ‘done away‘ with anything. You raised Clifford’s principle specifically because you felt you were able to safely ‘do away with it’. I said it:

‘seems sound to me. Do you feel you don’t have sufficient evidence to accept it? Excluding your belief in god – which you accepted in your first post is irrational anyway – how many examples can you think of where Clifford’s principle wouldn’t apply? I would suggest that in most cases, most of the time, it’s a description of how we interact with the world around us. If you believe its validity is merely subjective, do you think it would harm or benefit your life if you attempted to live counter to it?

Moreover, do you think a question of the unique scale and significance of ‘Is there a supernatural being who created the universe?’ should be decided by an exceptional/extreme loophole in an otherwise sound principle?‘

To compare ‘belief‘ in Clifford’s principle with ‘belief‘ in god/God/gods is the same false equivalence that you make between god-belief and human-rights-belief, as above. One is literal belief in the existence of a supernatural being, the other is assertion of the value of some type of behaviour.

2b)‘Even Richard Dawkins is cautious enough to say that ‘a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist’‘

And? The onus is on the person making the claim to support it, and a claim for the existence of a supernatural being requires extraordinary support. It would inevitably be an entirely separate discussion from any other point under consideration, but if you think you’ve got some, go ahead. Why you think you would need – or even think it possible to have *belief* in a god for whose existence you actually had proof, I don’t know.

3)’…’Why are we here?’ to repeat myself. You can call it non-sensical or irrelevant, mock it or whatever, but still you have to answer it, ‘

I gave you a straight answer to this right at the beginning Tom:

‘because my parents had sex and my mother gave birth me‘

In what way does that *not* answer the question? How is it calling the question ‘non-sensical or irrelevant‘ or mocking‘ it? It’s the answer at the specific level, and if you extrapolate it backwards, it’s the answer 3 billion or whatever years ago as well.

This is the question you said atheists avoid, yet there is my answer from the beginning of this thread. You may not find it satisfactory, but it is the answer. This materialistic explanation – like it or not – answers your question. You don’t like it, therefore you pretend atheists aren’t answering your question – because they don’t come to the conclusion you have about god. It’s you who is avoiding things – specifically, the answer to your own question.

‘…but still you have to answer it, at least by continuing your life‘

It would take a positive effort *not* to continue my life, and it would probably be painful, and it could well go wrong and cause me considerable suffering and put me in a worse condition than I am. And I would gain nothing anyway. And I would have the relatively certain knowledge that it would cause considerable unhappiness to a number of people. So what other – non-material – ‘why’ do I need? Is that not enough? Once it’s over it’s over. Continuing it for as long as possible seems a no-brainer.

3) ‘The ‘materialists’ are not making it difficult for me to sustain my belief (remember, I used to be an atheist too). They can just be obnoxious to other people by considering their own position (There is/are no g/God/s) as the universal truth achievable by ‘reason’ (i.e. Belief in g/God/s is rubbish.)‘

If it is ‘perfectly rational (why believe in something there is no proof for‘, how can it also be rational to believe the opposite? Why is it ‘obnoxious’ to say that you think someone’s position is irrational or just wrong?

‘Of course there can be a conflict between the rational and emotional part, but it can’t be solved by crippling the emotional part.‘
Who’s crippling anything? You’re just complaining people come to a different conclusion than you.

‘…a “way in” to lead my limited life down here with a proper fear of God, not trying to think that I know all the answers when I don’t.‘
Who *does* think they ‘know all the answers’? And how does ‘fear’ of an (usually all-loving – strange, that) imaginary being prevent it?

‘ad the nexus between underestimating the subjective and being intolerant: the more you hold a proposition to be “objective truth” the more likely you are to be intolerant to those who don’t see the “truth” as “objective”.

Propositions in the magisterium of science can be verified/falsified by scientific means, and therefore be tentatively called ‘objective truth’. Propositions in the magisterium of metaphysics cannot.‘

If a proposition can’t be verified or falsified then it can’t be investigated or tested by anyone other than the person subjectively experiencing it. Therefore it can’t be applied generally and cannot have the same value as a testable proposition, yet you complain that people who value objective, empirically testable views higher than un-verifiable, un-falsifiable ‘spiritual’ or ‘supernatural’ views are being obnoxious. It’s only when people force their subjective, un-falsifiable views on others that it leads to intolerance.

Propositions in the magisterium of science can be verified/falsified by scientific means, and therefore be tentatively called ‘objective truth’. Propositions in the magisterium of metaphysics cannot.

(2) Fine, then you don’t want a proof and therefore you accept my belief as equally justified for me as yours for you.

(3) Not only some atheists, but also some theists try to avoid questions like: “Why are we here?” to repeat myself. You can call it non-sensical or irrelevant, mock it or whatever, but still you have to answer it, at least by continuing your life. The “floating question why”, to quote my favourite poet.

The ‘materialists’ are not making it difficult for me to sustain my belief (remember, I used to be an atheist too). They can just be obnoxious to other people by considering their own position (There is/are no g/God/s) as the universal truth achievable by ‘reason’ (i.e. Belief in g/God/s is rubbish.). Similar to late-19th-century Catholic traditionalist triumphalism (God can be known solely by reason), only the other way round.

Of course there can be a conflict between the rational and emotional part, but it can’t be solved by crippling the emotional part.

“The problem is the conflict between the reasoning, rational part of your mind and the emotional part. Rationally, you know we are just meat, with a limited use-by date, and it causes you emotional discomfort to confront that, so you are offended when this is brought home to you by people who consciously reject the spirituality/supernatural which offers you a way out of that unpleasant knowledge. That would be perfectly natural – for you and for every other human being. The awareness of our own mortality is the seed of god/s, the afterlife and religion.”

I almost completely agree with the above. Only the “spirituality” is not offering me a “way out”, but rather a “way in” to lead my limited life down here with a proper fear of God, not trying to think that I know all the answers when I don’t.

Ultimately, every ‘subjective feeling’ I might have could be traced down to physical, electrical and chemical action in my brain. There’s nothing ‘spiritual’ about it; there’s
nothing outside the natural world about it. It’s not extra-material in any way. It’s very, very small and very complicated, but it’s entirely material.

Your definition of ‘materialists’ (ie, ‘people who grossly underestimate the importance of subjective feelings and values (spirituality) and in turn don’t respect the spirituality
of others’) – seems to have nothing to do with whether they accept this explanation for their subjective feelings or not, and is simply a description of whether they are
polite/sensitive/respectful to others or not. Indeed, your definition (‘These are the materialists… people who grossly underestimate the importance… etc.’) could be re-written as: Materialists are people who are sometimes rude, insensitive or obnoxious.

You may not like people who view existence materialistically, but you haven’t offered any reason – or evidence – why someone who sees their own and others’ subjective
feelings naturalistically must necessarily ‘grossly underestimate the importance of subjective feelings and values (spirituality) and in turn don’t respect the spirituality of others’.

Seeing things realistically doesn’t for a moment necessitate underestimating other people’s subjective feelings.

It sounds more like you are simply offended by the idea that some people choose not to accept your views on the supernatural/spiritual or whatever you prefer to call it. In fact you said:

‘As long as the materialistic atheists are denying the importance of spirituality, I feel offended.‘

As you’ve still not provided any support for your own initial point (this mysterious question atheists must avoid), and given your explanation re ‘materialism’, it seems to me that your main motivation here is your ‘offence’ at people expressing views which make it difficult for you sustain your belief in the spiritual/supernatural. The problem is the conflict between the reasoning, rational part of your mind and the emotional part. Rationally, you know we are just meat, with a limited use-by date, and it causes you emotional discomfort to confront that, so you are offended when this is brought home to you by people who consciously reject the spirituality/supernatural which offers you a way out of that unpleasant knowledge. That would be perfectly natural – for you and for every other human being. The awareness of our own mortality is the seed of god/s, the afterlife and religion.