Albert Cipriani

Dear D,
I like the alliteration of that. It’s also cool that every day of your life must be D-day.

You said,
The question your statement begs is: can belief exist without evidence? I answer in the negative. Even this board’s infamous belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon evidence. For example, you’ve seen illustrations of unicorns, you’ve used pink crayons in your coloring books, you can’t find your keys.

No belief can be conceived of without evidence. Perhaps you mean to assert that there is an inverse relationship between evidence and emotion, such that beliefs with the least amount of rational evidence tend to be the beliefs fraught with the most emotion. Perhaps you mean to say that emotions substitute for evidence in the gaps of our beliefs. To whit, my response would be, what’s wrong with that? Are emotions evil? Is it a sin to feel? – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Albert Cipriani

[Albert, keep your complaints in the proper forum. Last warning. -d]

Now to your question: What in the [expletive deleted] of man causes him to reach out to a deity? The same thing that causes man to close circles. The human brain is hard-wired for closure.

God is the only concept that can ultimately supply closure. All men know that, but atheists deny their need for ultimate closure. Contenting themselves with the little eddies of closure they find in the backwaters of science, they begrudge theistic closure with such pejorative terms as “fear" and "ignorance,” and by casting aspersions on our psychological stability.

Philosoft

Well, it doesn't actually. That's what's so morbidly fascinating about it. A transcendent God is a vehicle for us to stick our "first cause" questions so that we don't have to deal with them. We can maintain the possibility that God violates causation because we don't interact with God - we can attribute any characteristics to God that we feel are necessary to explain the universe because, hey, we don't know God; how do we know what he can or can't do?

Ho hum. It's apparently not a very pressing "need" is it?

The other thing about theistic "closure" is that it often needs to ensure the eternal happiness of those who believe the strongest. If I cast aside desires for transcendent purpose and eternal life, I can focus on discovering what really is true, rather than accepting what makes me feel the warmest and fuzziest.

Mageth

The question your statement begs is: can belief exist without evidence? I answer in the negative. Even this board’s infamous belief in an Invisible Pink Unicorn is based upon evidence. For example, you’ve seen illustrations of unicorns, you’ve used pink crayons in your coloring books, you can’t find your keys.

OK, playing this game, god(s) are based on similar "evidence". Every god I've ever heard described is some kind of being, similar to us, only more powerful, and typically invisible. Nothing new there, just an extension of things we're already familiar with.

God is the only concept that can ultimately supply closure. All men know that, but atheists deny their need for ultimate closure.

Please define closure, "ultimate" closure, how god supplies it, and why you think I need it. I haven't denied that I need it because I don't know what it is.

Dr Rick

We may have a tie for second with this gem posted here:

"God is the only concept that can ultimately supply closure."

Rick

Fiach

Recently I heard this on an American forum:

Jesus Christ died and then resurrected from the dead.
Only a god could resurrect from the dead like that.
Since Jesus resurrected, there has to be a God.

Second best:

Since the universe was created there had to be a creator.
Only a God can create Universes.
Therefore God has to exists.

Here is mine:

Every atheist, agnostic, and theist says "God Dammit."
Therefore even we must believe in God or why would we call his name when we stub our toe.

One that I heard a while back:

There must be a God because over 2 billion people believe in him.

Fiach

Jobar

Albert, that little ditty is classic Monty Python.

Eric, the half a bee

SecularFuture

Haha! Thats a good one!

Sue Sponte

Just reading some of these statements makes my head hurt.

I think we should also conclude that the earth really is flat. After all, people once believed it, and they couldn't have believed it if it wasn't true. :banghead:

ieyeasu

Personally, I've always thought the Ontological Proof was pretty bad--So very circular.