Is there any rational basis for a belief in the existence of God?

[ThoughtCriminal]

I don't know of any, although I've heard many irrational and even antirational bases, such as faith.

Am I mistaken?

TC

[SoylentGreen]

Is there any rational basis for a belief in the existence of God?

Yes, it is a perfect way of gaining control and power over people who suffer from an irrational fear of death and the lack of understanding about it.
Those in power can appeal to a higher mystical power as the source of their own credibility to rule others. And by attempting to keep the populace in ignorance and the the superstitions that breed from ignorance and then directing that superstition towards a single higher mystical being , there control over others becomes firmer.
Moses was a good example of this. He needed control over a group of recently released slaves who having gained their freedom went wild with the freedom and became an unruly mob. He created the stone tablets and forced through the ides that a god had directly commanded him to command them. Being uneducated , ignorant and superstitious the mob easily accepted this and moses was then able to be an effective leader.
Most modern politicians would give their left testicle to be able to swing such a political victory.

PS sorry did you mean a rational basis or are you asking theists to rationalise their beliefs?

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Yes, it is a perfect way of gaining control and power over people who suffer from an irrational fear of death and the lack of understanding about it. Those in power can appeal to a higher mystical power as the source of their own credibility to rule others. And by attempting to keep the populace in ignorance and the the superstitions that breed from ignorance and then directing that superstition towards a single higher mystical being , there control over others becomes firmer. Moses was a good example of this. He needed control over a group of recently released slaves who having gained their freedom went wild with the freedom and became an unruly mob. He created the stone tablets and forced through the ides that a god had directly commanded him to command them. Being uneducated , ignorant and superstitious the mob easily accepted this and moses was then able to be an effective leader. Most modern politicians would give their left testicle to be able to swing such a political victory. PS sorry did you mean a rational basis or are you asking theists to rationalise their beliefs?

Without actually disagreeing substantially, I'd like to point out that you appear to be answering the wrong question. Yes, there are good reasons why theistic beliefs systems exist and are popular. They certainly serve psychological, social and political needs, if nothing else. But I was asking if there was any rational basis for a person to believe in any such system.

This question applies to theists, but also to atheists, agnostics and whatever else.

TC

[Jinei]

At some point someone's going to offer either ID or faith or both as their rationale. Which is fine with me as long as they don't try to mislead others into believing that it's a perfectly logical rationale (which is often the case anyway).

My signature says it all:

"We not only believe what we see, to some extent we see what we believe... The implications of our beliefs are frightening." Richard Gregory

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Jinei At some point someone's going to offer either ID or faith or both as their rationale. Which is fine with me as long as they don't try to mislead others into believing that it's a perfectly logical rationale (which is often the case anyway). My signature says it all:

Well, faith is explicitly irrational or even anti-rational, while ID pretends to be a rational, even scientific, argument. Even then, some people confuse faith with rational things to make it seem less intellectually repulsive.

Anyhow, I'm guessing that your bottom line answer here is a "no".

TC

[Jack]

Mine is. I have never encountered a logical, rational aspect to religion, or any other superstition for that matter, in the over 30 years I've been looking into organized spirituality. Those who invent their own gods aren't exempt from that generalization, but I haven't been able to examine their unique contentions.

The reason the idea of faith was incorporated into religion was to make up for the illogic and irrationality of what they were trying to sell to people.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: Jack Mine is. I have never encountered a logical, rational aspect to religion, or any other superstition for that matter, in the over 30 years I've been looking into organized spirituality. Those who invent their own gods aren't exempt from that generalization, but I haven't been able to examine their unique contentions. The reason the idea of faith was incorporated into religion was to make up for the illogic and irrationality of what they were trying to sell to people.

I think the notion of faith as a virtue is fairly bizarre, but I can see how it works in terms of memetics. You may already be familiar with a number of strategies found in nature in which an animal takes an unnecessary risk to prove that it can handle it. Example include white tail feathers, extremely large plumage, and stotting. It explains many conspicous costs, including many of the effects of testosterone in animals.

In order to be accepted into an organized religion, a person typically has to publically profess things that they themselves do not understand and cannot possible justify. This is a conspicuous cost.

An interesting psychological aspect is that the organized religionist professes beliefs that they themselves do not (and cannot) hold. This can be expected to make them especially hostile those who publicly admit to not holding those beliefs.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

It has come to my attention that a comprehensive list of unassailable arguments for the existence of God may be found at: http://www.volconvo.com/forums/blog5/entry1080.html

While I've seen pretty much all of them, none seem to qualify as a rational basis, though many are quite funny.

TC

[ThoughtCriminal]

I just want to point out that we've had no theists at all coming to this thread and trying to provide a rational basis for their beliefs. Now, absence of evidence is not directly evidence of absence, but I think this deafening silence is telling us something.

I'm going to rest my case by concluding that there is no rational basis for theism.

TC

[HelioPrime]

Theists on these board have long learned that the non theists on the board only are looking for strictly well verified and currently testable responses that are supported by peer review and other forms of scientific insight.

Naturally such evidence wouldn't even exist. What would the point of judgement be if the christians God was proven and we knew for certain hell existed?

Personally I've always seen the overwhelming presence of ghosts, talented people, stories, and myths across the world as evidence. Where did such a massive amounts of circumstantial evidence come from if it's all made up. Non theists are quick to claim its all just a series of lies mean to explain the unknown and empower the holy class, yet where did such power and knowledge first come from? Did a bunch of people sit around and smoke and make stories up, then present them and suddenly everyone around them believed and followed them? Not likely... people may not have had the knowledge thousands of years ago but gaining acceptance of an unknown idea would have been just as difficult as ever.

Of course I'm sure the short response to this will be : "Show me the evidence"

My response is your not really looking for evidence, your defining what evidence should be as to fit your already pre determined ideals.

[Jack]

Theists on these board have long learned that the non theists on the board only are looking for strictly well verified and currently testable responses that are supported by peer review and other forms of scientific insight.

Thank you. That is one of the nicest things a theist has posted in regards to atheism.

Non theists are quick to claim its all just a series of lies mean to explain the unknown and empower the holy class, yet where did such power and knowledge first come from?

Even many theists disdain the idea of ghosts other than the holy one. Personally I don't suggest theists are lying about their experiences any more than early people were lying when the saw the Sun rise and set and presumed it was circling the Earth. It's more a matter of misunderstanding, drawing an obvious but incorrect conclusion from a poorly understood event.

Now we understand that the Earth circles the Sun. Some day we may have natural explanations for most if not all the things credited to the gods now.

[WilliamGladston]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Yes, it is a perfect way of gaining control and power over people who suffer from an irrational fear of death and the lack of understanding about it. Those in power can appeal to a higher mystical power as the source of their own credibility to rule others. And by attempting to keep the populace in ignorance and the the superstitions that breed from ignorance and then directing that superstition towards a single higher mystical being , there control over others becomes firmer. Moses was a good example of this. He needed control over a group of recently released slaves who having gained their freedom went wild with the freedom and became an unruly mob. He created the stone tablets and forced through the ides that a god had directly commanded him to command them. Being uneducated , ignorant and superstitious the mob easily accepted this and moses was then able to be an effective leader. Most modern politicians would give their left testicle to be able to swing such a political victory. PS sorry did you mean a rational basis or are you asking theists to rationalise their beliefs?

If I remember correctly, Judaism existed long before Moses. To say that he falsely created the Ten Commandments to gain some sort of political is strongly misleading.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime Naturally such evidence wouldn't even exist. What would the point of judgement be if the christians God was proven and we knew for certain hell existed?

I don't know HelioPrime, what is the point anyway?

Personally I've always seen the overwhelming presence of ghosts, talented people, stories, and myths across the world as evidence. Where did such a massive amounts of circumstantial evidence come from if it's all made up.

Wait a second. What would be the point of judgment if God was proven and we knew for certain that hell existed? Why are you trying your best to find evidence for the supernatural, yet claiming it does not exist?

Like I said. I don't have to logically argue with you about god's existence -- I just have to point out the inconsistenses in your rationallity. The point is, I am not going to listen to someone that is inconsistent with their arguments.

So before we go any further -- please either admit there is no evidence or there is evidence.

[rez]

Quote by: WilliamGladston If I remember correctly, Judaism existed long before Moses. To say that he falsely created the Ten Commandments to gain some sort of political is strongly misleading.

Humans have been creating rules and regulations since the dawn of consciousness. Didn't you know that?

[WilliamGladston]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal I think the notion of faith as a virtue is fairly bizarre, but I can see how it works in terms of memetics. You may already be familiar with a number of strategies found in nature in which an animal takes an unnecessary risk to prove that it can handle it. Example include white tail feathers, extremely large plumage, and stotting. It explains many conspicous costs, including many of the effects of testosterone in animals. In order to be accepted into an organized religion, a person typically has to publically profess things that they themselves do not understand and cannot possible justify. This is a conspicuous cost. An interesting psychological aspect is that the organized religionist professes beliefs that they themselves do not (and cannot) hold. This can be expected to make them especially hostile those who publicly admit to not holding those beliefs. TC

In my experiences, I have never once had to do anything similar to publically confessing something to be part of an organized religion. Nor has anyone I've seen. However, there are exceptions in extremist or fundamentalist sects of religions. The things you descibe seem akin to some sort of street gand or the like. On the point of people not being able to prove what they claim to believe, this isn't necessarily true. While most religions can't prove everything about their religion, such as the existence of God/gods, there is evidence to support the case. For example, there are scientists that say they have evidence that points to some sort of creator as every living creature has an identifiable signature--those these scientists tend to believe they are aliens, this doesn't mean those "aliens" couldn't be the God/gods of a religion. There is also the point that science is flawed as are the humans who create it, after all humans are infinitely fallible. While evolution is widely accepted among most scientists, there are gaps in the theory itself. They call it the "missing link", but this is misleading as there are many "links" missing. There was also the case of the finding of a dinosaur fossil that had living dinosaur DNA in it--which would suggest that it is thousands of years old instead of millions, and it would suggest that Humans and Dinosaurs existed at the same time. On another point, though this doesn't necessarily support my argument, if there is no God/gods, then approximately 70% (number is supposed to include Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs) of the world's population is wrong. If religion in general is false then approximately 84.4% of the world's population is wrong. These numbers don't even take into account the countless numbers of people that believed and have passed away.
To me, just accepting that there is no God/gods isn't very intelligent in itself, if you have not exhausted all forms of research and perhaps haven't conducted any of your own, then you can't possibly be correct in your assumption. (And for those who see religion as a form of "crowd control", just repeating Karl Marx's talking points doesn't constitute an argument.) Most religions--key word there most--preach values that are very virtuous and when its followers live up to them, it makes not only that follower a better person, but society improves as a result.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: HelioPrime Theists on these board have long learned that the non theists on the board only are looking for strictly well verified and currently testable responses that are supported by peer review and other forms of scientific insight.

Wow, I must be such a horrible person for demanding actual evidence. Unfortunately for you, my evidential standards, while high, are quite reasonable and consistent. I don't make exceptions for things that I'd really, really like to be true.

The problem here isn't that we set the bar too high, it's that you simply have no evidence that can withstand the same sort of scrutiny that we apply everywhere else. It's not like you're overflowing with evidence and we're being terribly picky and unfair. Rather, it's a lot like the famous Monty Python Cheese Shop Sketch.

A man walks into a cheese shop and orders a bit of some cheese, only to be told it's not in stock. He then asks for some of another kind, meeting the same response. After exhausting his list of cheeses, he demands to know if there is, in fact, any cheese at all in the shop, and of course there isn't.

Quote by: HelioPrime Naturally such evidence wouldn't even exist. What would the point of judgement be if the christians God was proven and we knew for certain hell existed?

Ah, and here's where the proprietor explains why it's unreasonable to expect a cheese shop to have cheese. :-)

With all due respect, I think you'll find that if you try to put yourself in my shoes, you'll understand why this sounds like special pleading, bordering on conspiracy theories. Rather than giving evidence, you're saying that if your view is true, no evidence will ever be found. Perhaps, but if it's false then we'll also have no evidence. Parsimony requires us to accept this as the most likely explanation for that lack.

Quote by: HelioPrime Personally I've always seen the overwhelming presence of ghosts, talented people, stories, and myths across the world as evidence. Where did such a massive amounts of circumstantial evidence come from if it's all made up. Non theists are quick to claim its all just a series of lies mean to explain the unknown and empower the holy class, yet where did such power and knowledge first come from? Did a bunch of people sit around and smoke and make stories up, then present them and suddenly everyone around them believed and followed them? Not likely... people may not have had the knowledge thousands of years ago but gaining acceptance of an unknown idea would have been just as difficult as ever.

For something to be evidence, its truth would have bearing on the truth of the hypothesis in question, so none of this is evidence. It's not even circumstantial evidence, which is much more substiantial than what you describe. What you're giving are reports of evidence, not evidence, and these reports fall apart when closely examined. Talk to James Randi if you think you've got anything more solid than that.

Your main point, though, seems to be that so many people couldn't be wrong. Unfortunately, they can, and you admit this everytime you deny the truth of Greek "mythology" while asserting the truth of your own religion (and you'd probably be offended if I called it mythology).

The world is full of people who genuinely believe things that are completely false, even who have killed and died for those falsehoods. How do we know they're false? Because they contradict. If Jesus died for you, then Hercules didn't, and vice versa.

How did these belief systems come to be? Well, not from some council sitting down and creating them from scratch for nefarioius purposes. History shows us that religions, particularly the organized sort, evolved over time from a variety of beliefs, some of them even true. Without the scientific method, people tend to acquire superstitions more easily than they do truths, which is why your religion has its roots in pre-scientific views of the world.

Why are some beliefs so popular? Lots of reasons having very little to do with truth. Some beliefs are natural consequences of intuitions taken too far. Others serve psychological and social needs. Still others are just good stories or make us feel better. For a combination of any and all of these reasons, some beliefs win the popularity contest. But popularity and longevity are not criteria for truth.

Quote by: HelioPrime Of course I'm sure the short response to this will be : "Show me the evidence" My response is your not really looking for evidence, your defining what evidence should be as to fit your already pre determined ideals.

I'm looking for the truth, so I see no reason to lower my standards of evidence, much less embrace fideism, when it comes to matters of religion. Do you really expect me to just believe you without evidence? If so, why?

Finally, why do you continually deny that I'm looking for evidence when all I keep doing is asking for evidence and hearing stuff that's clearly not?

TC

[WilliamGladston]

Quote by: rez Humans have been creating rules and regulations since the dawn of consciousness. Didn't you know that?

Do not rules and regulations bring about order--for the most part--in society, and help us to live in a world with consequence for our actions.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Quote by: WilliamGladston Do not rules and regulations bring about order--for the most part--in society, and help us to live in a world with consequence for our actions.

When the rules exist by mutual agreement, sure. When they're claimed to come from above, no.

TC

[WilliamGladston]

Quote by: HelioPrime Theists on these board have long learned that the non theists on the board only are looking for strictly well verified and currently testable responses that are supported by peer review and other forms of scientific insight. Naturally such evidence wouldn't even exist. What would the point of judgement be if the christians God was proven and we knew for certain hell existed? Personally I've always seen the overwhelming presence of ghosts, talented people, stories, and myths across the world as evidence. Where did such a massive amounts of circumstantial evidence come from if it's all made up. Non theists are quick to claim its all just a series of lies mean to explain the unknown and empower the holy class, yet where did such power and knowledge first come from? Did a bunch of people sit around and smoke and make stories up, then present them and suddenly everyone around them believed and followed them? Not likely... people may not have had the knowledge thousands of years ago but gaining acceptance of an unknown idea would have been just as difficult as ever. Of course I'm sure the short response to this will be : "Show me the evidence" My response is your not really looking for evidence, your defining what evidence should be as to fit your already pre determined ideals.

I agree to an extent. To say that, take the Bible for example, every one of the people in the Bible who gave witness to the existence of God are lieing suggests that that person merely wishes to destroy any argument that points to the existence of God. There are the writers in the Bible who claim to have witnessed God or his power, and then there are the thousands of those who witnessed it as well. (Such as the thousands who--as the Bible claims--were resurrected and were seen and spoken to by thousands of other people, if I remember correctly.) It is a similar story with other religious holy books. There are many who claim to have witnessed God/gods or their power.

[WilliamGladston]

Quote by: ThoughtCriminal When the rules exist by mutual agreement, sure. When they're claimed to come from above, no. TC

What if there is mutual agreement upon what is claimed to have come from above?
For example, if someone said that we shouldn't murder others--which happens to be a commandment--wouldn't that be something upon which we could have mutual agreement?