One of the last sane

I believe I'll have another beer.

tronvillain

Oh, we all believe in all sorts of things, but there is not much evidence to justify a belief in gods, an afterlife, or astrology.

Now, what reason is there for placing confidence in empiricism? In a sense it is built in - our mere existence means that we wish to make sense of our perceptions, and empiricism appears to be the best framework for doing so.

AtlanticCitySlave

I think when someone says "you have to believe in something", they're basically saying you have to have some belief to make life worthwhile, to motivate you, etc. I've never met anyone who says "you have to believe in something" if i questioned astrology. Rather, the only time anyone has ever said such a thing (even in the movies), is when they are discussing things like God, the afterlife, etc., and things centering around what gives our lives meaning.

Skepticwithachainsaw

Well to me belief in God (and practically everything else) doesn’t solve the problem of “lack of meaning”, it just moves it onto another level.
For example according to (most of) Christianity the purpose/meaning of life is to simply “Love and worship God” (with a side optional extra on all of his creations (which includes everyone) as well, which
Now this seems all very nice until you start to question why exactly why you should worship and love God, why does he require it and why this elaborate game to see how much he can get.
And while we’re at it, what’s the meaning behind God (assuming he actually exists…)? Most Christians seem to sort of assume that essence precedes existence and that everything has to have a purpose, but if nothing intelligent created God then what meaning and purpose can “he” possess?* If God is ultimately purposeless doesn’t that remove any purpose he bestows upon his creation?
Simply God doesn’t have any more authority to bestow purpose than you do.

Therefore any purpose
My little maxim, “The meaning of Life is whatever you make it”, or if you want to be objective, I don’t know it and I don’t think there is one. J

*The usual theist “God is intrinsically meaningful” is self-contradictory, because it either assumes that there is some objective structure beyond God which we can compare Gods meaning to, which means something beyond God (which there cannot be by their logic) or that God creates his own purpose, which leads back to the problem of authority.

Sorry I went on a rant there…

WJ

Chain,

It is good to see Bill has finally brought up the question relating to what it means to have and hold a particular belief.

On the 'objective' side of things (or perhaps more subjective) I have just a few comments on your thoughts about Christianity (or religious beliefs). One, I think that the 'purpose to life' as a Christian also involves 'loving each other', not just God. Two, religious existentialists (SK and Pascal) I don't think would agree that essence preceeds existence. Essences cannot be known, as to the nature of their existence(human consciousness, just as one example). And if essences cannot be known, ultimately, all (existence)is meaningless. FH&L is what follows.

So, in life, all you need (have) is Love. (Should we 'believe' in Love?) In that regard, what is considered 'appropriate' to believe?

coocookachoo,

Walrus

[ June 25, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Brahma's atheist

I believe gods do not exist. I believe the afterlife is a nonsense. I believe astrology is crap.
Or is it belief? From what I see and have learned and after using my tired brain I know the above is nonsense.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Brahma's atheist

Thanks for your thoughts

emphryio

Believing in something for which there isn't adequate evidence or is even only contrary evidence eventually, notwithstanding short term luck, leads to an overall increase in pain.

(or faith is evil).

Mu

Belief is the death of intelligence.

It implies that one no longer need think about the subject of the belief. One can accept it 'on faith'.

Since not thinking about something requires no brain activity, if one were to believe in enough things, then one could in theory cease to have any brain activity at all.

I believe, though I am no doctor (this is funny if you know me), that complete absence of cerebral activity is technically sufficient evidence of death.

I like puzzles. Answers are for saps. Questions are for REAL men and women !

But I could be full of shit. Don't take MY word for it. Find out for yourself.

The Messiah

You do actually need to believe in something, in fact many things. As an example in order to walk around you make subconcious assumptions about your environment. You do not stop to confirm that the ground in front of you is still there you simply proceed. This is demonstrated most clearly when you stumble, over a misaligned paving stone on a slightly longer step. If you always, constantly confirmed your assumptions before moving you would probably be stuck indefinately.

In effect the statement 'I've got to believe in something' is true but it does not mean you need to believe in the afterlife or astrology. This probably means that belief itself is a naturally occuring phenomenon.

God I think is a independent subject. For many people God represents a mechanism that punishes people that cheat. Thieves, corrupt bureaucrats, mobsters and so on will get their comeuppance when judgement day comes, and so on and so on. This is a very effective method of social control, without this ideology people would not co-operate in the vast numbers that they do currently. Which means that if everyone who believes in God suddenly changed their mind we would probably have anarchy. Whether or not this means that they've got to believe in God is different matter.