Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.

Are you replying to me?

Albatross wrote:

Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you. If you believe that your belief is somehow automatically the truth, and that everyone who doesn't agree is an idiot, how are you any better than the religious fanatics you put down. Think about it.

Are you replying to me?

No, what you said wasn't relevant to mine at all. Sorry for confusion.

SmackCakes wrote:If these findings are true then it wouldn't surprise me at all. Atheist are nearly always intelligent and well educated people who are able to see religion for the poorly formulated lie that it is.
How very dare you (no really!). If I said mysticism was a lie or even democracy is a lie, you wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. But just because I say some old bronze age texts and superstitions which endlessly contradict themselves and are contradicted also by modern science, regarding the nature of the earth and planets, the origin of animals, the 3 billion missing yeas of history... Suddenly I'm not entitled to call it what it is?

It is a lie, a poorly formulated one. A fair comment.

And on that note, I shall bow out of this thread.

I like this guy!

Hey... where did he go?!

Red scared him off..

Yes, you can spout hate about Israelis, politicians or peoples taste in music or fashion, but you just cant say anything bad about Religion. Typical.

I like to take solace in the fact that the Religious are so easy to wind up because they know that a common sense argument looks bad for them. If i believed in magic, virgin births and talking snakes, i think i would be pretty easily offended as well.

Taking offence and not answering criticism is all they have left, and in 50 years the desert God will have went the way of the dodo as long as people keep getting smarter and better educated.

Well, except the ones who get brainwashed as children.. they are just going to keep on trying to force their views onto everyone else, but we wont let them.

Keep up the good work Mr Obama! Planned Parenthood is a fine orginisation!

mattyrm wrote:
Yes, you can spout hate about Israelis, politicians or peoples taste in music or fashion,

No, you can't, that's against the rules as well.

Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you.

As a side note, it is impossible to prove a lack of existance, thus the burden of proof lies on the person claiming an existance.

Yes im aware of that red, but you guys arent anywhere near as good at "modding" those type of things are you?

Anyway, im not going to go into one, its your trainset, if i want a real argument i just go and talk about this stuff to a local taxi driver or a guy waving a bible on the high street.

skyth wrote:

Snikkyd wrote:Well if your so concerned with "evidence" and "proof", then prove to me that God DOEsn't exist. Prove your point that all religion is a lie. You can't do it can you.

As a side note, it is impossible to prove a lack of existance, thus the burden of proof lies on the person claiming an existance.

Yeah, thats my point. Athiests always say there's no proof of god, which is true, but there's also no proof he doesn't exist, so claiming that either side must be true is stupid.


Also, why are you guys convinced that the world would be some kind of utopia without religion? Your acting like your somehow better/smarter than everyone else, which can easily be taken as offensive, and is the reason why I don't think you can complain about religious bashing getting modded.

mattyrm wrote:Yes im aware of that red, but you guys arent anywhere near as good at "modding" those type of things are you?

..well, you are still here so I can't really argue there eh ...

Anyway, im not going to go into one, its your trainset, if i want a real argument i just go and talk about this stuff to a local taxi driver or a guy waving a bible on the high street.

We'll send flowers to the hospital/ a cake with a file in it as appropriate.

It's not impossible to prove something doesn't exist, it's just that the supernatural (gods, soul, the afterlife) prove difficult as their very state of being exists outside existence. I can point to a pile of dead gods/beliefs. At some point current religions will join them. Or be recycled as new ones...

Like a number of old gods that were 'discarded' this 'one True God' and son have a running archetype

Sun/the Light, foretold birth, heavenly/otherworldly messengers, walked on water, had 12 disciples, healed the sick, died and resurrected, and born in December no less.

Themes in tall tales are repeatedly used to recreate the familiar. If it sounds unlikely, and looks unlikely, it's probably a duck.

The 'old' Gods haven't been discarded.

Ok, perhaps saying 'converted' works better than discarded. It still follows that when a person's beliefs change, they 'discarded' or got rid of the now useless or unwanted ones. That is how Christians got Easter. Took the pagan spring holiday that celebrated new life (chicks and multiplying rabbits) with the resurrection of their savior. Hence the mallow peeps and chocolate rabbits

*edited for yummy sarcasm

All I was saying is that there are still followers of the 'old' gods around now. Perhaps in greater numbers than before? (Given population growth...There weren't all that many in the olden times with the generally lower population levels. Per capita levels are lower now though.)

Albatross wrote:Here's an idea:

How about the people who who've had this argument a million times before bow out of the thread and just leave the newer people to argue amongst themselves as if the points raised haven't already been raised countless times on THIS VERY FORUM.

Long story short: You can't debate god INTO existence, nor can you debate he/she/it OUT of it.

Sure, I think it's a mistake to come into a thread trying to prove anything and trying to force anyone else to concede, but sometimes there's more potentially beneficial outcomes than just swaying someone to your side. While a person might not reconsider, they might accept that your point of view is more reasonable than they had previously assumed. They may not end up agreeing with you, but they might be a lot less antagonistic to that viewpoint in future.

There weren't that many in the olden times?

Read some history books, almost every civilization has had their own patheon or belief system (though some were borrowed/renamed). Even the Bible has some listed:

11 Kings 18:33 Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered at all his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria?
Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivah? Have they delivered Samaria out of mine hand?

I admit there may be followers of old gods but it still stands that I can point to dozens more that are no longer worshiped or even remembered now. It is a pile, a very large pile, of dead old and forgotten gods.

And I guess I'll address the comment someone made about the utopian world without religion. It's because we wouldn't be taking direction from any books with little relevance to today. The ethics can't keep up with the abilities of the modern society (communication, deadlier ways to wage war, a global economy etc). There are some good analogies that can be taken but by and large holy writings are for keeping people in line. Controlling what people said or did and more importantly what they can't do or say. I don't need to be told killing is wrong by some power beyond my understanding, I know what pain feels like and don't wish it on others. Killing should be avoided but sometimes the situation is escalated by those who don't feel the same. I feel that if someone is enforcing their will on me for their benefit and my detriment that I should use force to prevent that. I came to this conclusion by my life experiences and while the opinions of others (whose religion may have influenced their lives) were an influence I am still the deciding factor. Not a God or system thereof.

Gailbraithe wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Gailbraithe
I'm tempted to respond to your ideas from a theist perspective..... your carefully reasoned and insightful views on politics lead me to believe such a conversation would be deeply profitable for all involved......

Nah, I'll just annoy you, because I'm constitutionally incapable of taking a theist perspective seriously, and I'll piss you off by mocking the whole enterprise by referencing otherkin, the flying spaghetti monster, Eris and the aneristic principle, and, of course, the ever-present, invisible, intangible unicorns that are the basis of my faith.

Theists can't do the one thing that would make me take the proposition of theism seriously -- provide a definition of god that is relevant to living and empirically testable -- and consequently I don't take theist perspectives seriously.

You know, not all religions or beliefs subscribe to the traditional theistic notion of god. Just throwin' that out there.

mrwhoop wrote:

And I guess I'll address the comment someone made about the utopian world without religion. It's because we wouldn't be taking direction from any books with little relevance to today. The ethics can't keep up with the abilities of the modern society (communication, deadlier ways to wage war, a global economy etc). There are some good analogies that can be taken but by and large holy writings are for keeping people in line. Controlling what people said or did and more importantly what they can't do or say. I don't need to be told killing is wrong by some power beyond my understanding, I know what pain feels like and don't wish it on others. Killing should be avoided but sometimes the situation is escalated by those who don't feel the same. I feel that if someone is enforcing their will on me for their benefit and my detriment that I should use force to prevent that. I came to this conclusion by my life experiences and while the opinions of others (whose religion may have influenced their lives) were an influence I am still the deciding factor. Not a God or system thereof.

Yes, but people kill anyway. So its not like violence would go away or anything. My point is, if it isn't someone messing things up, its another.

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well I think its more rational if you accept rationality as the only test of truth. If theres no rational reason to believe in something, then why believe it?

Thing is, we're talking about belief in a supernatural entity. By definition that entity is beyond natural, rational consideration.

yes I guess thats so.

But you've heard this argument a million times from other atheists I guess so I dont need to repeat it..... Its not capable of permanent settlement by rational means thats true, but I think the absence of proof goes along way if, to you, positive proof is required to believe anything.

I think in most cases that's a pretty sound assumption. The complete lack of evidence of a cat in the room is reasonable evidence that it is likely there is no cat in the room. Thing is, though, we have knowledge about cats so that we know what evidence to look for... we know what cats generally look like, what they sound like, we know they'll tend to leave hair on cushions. We don't know those things about God, we have no frame of reference to begin considering God.

I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist. thats more or less where gailbraithe is coming from. ("show me god on a gps," "define it," "give me proof") etc. I think that the idea that rationality is the only means of perceiving truth is absurd so ofcourse I'm not interested in trying to prove the existence of God on rational grounds. That doesnt seem to be your position though so I guess I dont really disagree with you here.

The complete lack of evidence of God is equally strong evidence of no God and of a God that chooses to leave no evidence.

which is equally applicable to invisible cannibal bunnies flying spaghetti monsters etc. what those illustrations show to me is not that the idea of God is absurd, but that the idea of rationality as a sole means of proof is absurd. Rationally those things are equally likely and equally unlikely to exist, as you say of God. So if rationality leads you to that place, then what does it tell you about rationality? Obviously its not the sole means of arriving at truth - that belief is a reductionist absurdity. I firmly believe that flying spaghetti monsters dont exist - not on the basis of rationality, since there is no rational basis for believing those things do not anywhere exist - but on the basis of my plain old every day common sense. Its not an infallible guide to truth but it doesnt have to be, and no such guide exists in any case. So I guess my issue here is more with rationalism than with atheism per se.

IMO thats silly. almost everyone on dakka believes there's a south pole, but how many people have been there? Know someone who has? We take the existance of such a place for granted on no better authority than someone else told us that such a place exists.

Except we have the capability to consider what people tell us and take it on good judgement. There is a qualitative difference between 'scientists have determined there is a magnetic core to the Earth with a north and south poles on either ends of the Earth, and this has been used for many years in all kinds of technical devices' and 'there is a God'.

There's a difference in the sense that you more readily belive the scientist than the prophet mystic shaman whatever. Such belief has been used from our earliest history to order the lives of individuals and of states with good results. If an atheist hasnt personally experienced the benefits of those beliefs, or has experienced them as a negative, that doesnt necessarily invalidate them. the poor people at hiroshima and nagasaki undoubtedly experienced scientific progress as a negative, not a positive - but we dont ditch science as a result, do we? The effects of religion on peoples lives are real and largely beneficial - on that basis I'm willing to listen to what the people who make a specialty out of religious practice have to say. Its not as far fetched as modern prejudices may lead one to believe - I'm applying the exact same kind of reasoning to prophets that we all blithely apply to scientists, and for pretty much the same reasons.

really? If I act on a set of beliefs that permit me to live, and my friend acts on a set of beliefs that get him killed, whose beliefs are more likely to conform to reality? to be true? It's not 100% but nothing ever is....

That makes it useful, not true.

well if it didnt have some truth to it it wouldnt be useful. how useful would it be to you or anyone else to believe they had x ray vision if they didnt? that they could photosynthesize sunlight like a plant if they couldnt? Those would be useless beliefs. they're useless because they're false. Likewise beliefs that are useful are pretty likely to have elements of truth.

alot of people think that past societies were uniformly religious, but they were not. Greece Rome China and (northern) India all went through stages where their educated classes were secular in the same way that our educated class is. People dont realize this because those stages were fairly brief (which is incidentally my point) but they really did happen.

Diversity of religion is not really the same thing as secularism. And I'd argue what was witnessed was the instability caused by rival power blocs, in a society lacking the tools for mutual respect.

no I mean secular as in all the old gods are a myth we need to concentrate on this life there is no afterlife etc. Greek culture leading up to and in the two centuries (IIRC) after alexander the great was secular in the same way that our society is secular. Hellenistic civilization.

Homogenity will by it's nature be more stable, if a society lacks other outlets for instability, such as those developed in liberal democracy.

not just any kind of homogenity would lead to stability. homogenous belief that all other humans are enemies who should be killed for instance would not lead to homogenity. speciifc kinds of homogenity lead to stability.

ummm... a couple things....
sometimes a belief is true in a way thats different than the holder of that belief realizes. for instance its true that exercise makes you healthier. if someone believes that UFOs will abduct him and perform horrible experiments on him if he doesnt exercise, then thats probably not true in the sense that the person means it - but it is true that by exercising he's promoting his health - by burning calories rather than by avoiding alien abduction, true, but the end result is the same, so what does it matter? Thats an extreme example - the guy is obviously a lunatic - but I think that its useful to look at beliefs as potentially true or false in senses other than just the factual content of those beliefs. The outcome, not the theory, is what really matters. So whatever motivates a desirable outcome is, in a sense, true.

There's a whole lot of philosophy dedicated towards that debate. Some of it says that truth is all that matters, utility be damned, some of it says truth is nice and all, but if a belief is useful it is good. But none of it concludes that a thing is true because it is useful.

I dont conclude that something is absolutely factually true because it is useful. Its a good rough guide, thats all. How do we know anything is true in an ultimate sense? We dont. We guess. I would argue that utility is as good a basis as any on which to do your guess work.

also when people believe things about life generally - if I work hard I can get ahead, for instance - they can sometimes make it true. If peoples beliefs stop matching up to reality - no matter how hard they work they never get ahead - then they'll abandone them as useless (non-adaptive) beliefs and start believing something else. change in the psyche of a large group of people takes time but it does happen, and those changes do tend to reflect the new reality, whatever it may be.

Sometimes. Sometimes a belief can make a thing true, other times it can stop people taking action to actually make it true (such as the social mobility example I gave).

yes thats true.

sebster wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:sebster
I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself very well about adaptability being an indicator of truth. what I'm trying to say is that the specific content of a belief isnt always important. Its the basic elements, and the kinds of actions that follow from them, that really matter. On that basis I conclude that a benevolent, caring God probably does exist, because that belief helps me to live a better life.

Which is an indicator of a useful belief, but not necessarily a true.

well it wouldnt be useful if it didnt have an element of truth to it. its the element, not the totality, of truth that I'm arguing for.
AF

@Snikkyd

True but then people would kill for some reason and not for belief/faith. You would need to have self defense or justifiable actions. People, not their souls, would be accountable. Divine punishment is a feel good, it'll come out in the wash reasoning. If people used more of the latter in "life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react" there might be some thought put into their actions. More of a wait three days to cool off before I go picking a fight. Faith in a divine source is intrinsically more emotion based and there are more problems from 'the gut' or 'the heart' than the mind. There can be more problem solving with discussion than a "God did it" approach.

I think there's also a more 'humanity is the favorite' mentality with having a God/religion.

Made in His image : Naming all the animals/beasts of burden : We can't save ourselves but He can : ...

I seem to really be raging on the One God here. So how about in Hinduism where if you die having lead an angry life you can be reborn as a violent god? People can be reborn? Either there's a long list in the afterlife or everyone can't move on to being with the divine (that's enlightenment where you stop being reincarnated; the goal as it were)

*edited to user response

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF

I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF

I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

does God?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF

I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

does God?

I would argue only as any literary device or character can exist. An intangible idea that carries a plot.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:I think that many rationalists would take issue with the idea that any kind of phenomena whatever is beyond rational observation; if it cant be rationally measured, it probably doesnt exist.
AF

I think that a rationalist would say that just becuase we don't know how to measure something yet means just that; we don't know how to measure it. Atoms existed before we knew they existed or how to measure them. I have no doubt there are many other things that exist that we don't know how to observe/measure yet. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

does God?

Just because we can't measure it/him/her doesn't automatically rule out that it doesn't exist. Going by your argument that if we can't measure something it doesn't exist when we know that not to be the case. The argument that a deity absolutely doesn't exist because we don't know how to measure it now is fairly weak. Again, just because for more time than not we didn't know how to measure atoms doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Things exist outside our ability (at the moment) to observe and measure them. Things don't exist at our whim. If that is the standard we would never have figured much of anything out. It is called discovery, and it is part of our better nature.

that is not my argument. that is my synopsis of the other side's argument. I believe that things that we cant define (very well) and cant measure most definitely do exist.

mrwhoop wrote:There weren't that many in the olden times?

I was talking about actual number, not percentage. 99% of 1,000,000 is still less than 10% of 100,000,000.

I think we crossed wires somewhere. I'm not talking about how many followers convert to new faith systems or abandon old ones but that there is a long list of divine beings that aren't in circulation anymore. Current faiths will be no different as societies rise and fall is what I'm getting at.


*editied found the crossed wire; yeah followers' numbers mean jack to proving or disproving a god's existence.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?

I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.

I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF

How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?

If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)

Are all atheists unfulfilled? I dont know. I found atheism a pretty dry and lonely way of looking at the world. It certainly didnt serve me to hold those beliefs. I can only speculate as to other peoples experiences, unless they decide to communicate them.... which incidentally many atheists have. I believe I could find as many quotes as I wanted from atheists attesting to a sense of loss, of loneliness, of insignificance in the face of a vast cosmos etc etc, if I chose to go looking for them. On that basis I think its fair to conclude that atheism has some psychological baggage attached to it. How debilitating that baggage is depends on the individual I guess. If an atheist could relieve himself of it by becoming a theist, when the answer isnt discoverable on a factual basis one way or another, then obviously he should do it. The only thing he has to lose is an unreasonable pretension to absolute knowledge.
AF

reds8n wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Yes im aware of that red, but you guys arent anywhere near as good at "modding" those type of things are you?

..well, you are still here so I can't really argue there eh ...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
as a group they dont believe in an afterlife or souls or prophecy or miracles. none of these things necessarily require the existence of God. we're just used to thinking of them as bundled up with the concept of God, so people who chuck that tend to chuck the rest. They do tend to be materialists with a strong bias towards rationality over irrationality. Again these are not things that have any necessary connection to the idea of God. To me this evinces a common thought process among a wide group of people and suggests a similarity of motivations and/or explanations for those beliefs. ie a system of thought. Atheistic thought is in truth so uniform that its absurd for them to persist in thinking of themselves as some kind of community of renegade intellectuals, as "free thinkers" living in a world of religious zombies. Religious people disagree with each other more than atheists do. Which group is really the zombies here?

I think we're talking about different things here. There's definitely a vocal group of people that advocates a certain brand of Atheism, but they don't define the belief category any more than Christians define Theism. Its pretty easy to just call them Atheists and be done with it, but I think that's needlessly confusing. Atheism, as a whole, includes many different people with many different belief sets; including plenty of non-materialists who believe in souls and an afterlife (I'm thinking of members of the New Age movement). Now, I'm not sure I can suggest a better term for the guys you're discussing (well, besides the obvious list of technical qualifiers), but I think its worthwhile to at least recall that you really are talking about a subset of a very diverse group.

I guess I would need some more specific information to really respond here.... which groups/persons specifically are you talking about? Every atheist I can recall ever meeting was a rationalist and a materialist who denied the possibility of spirits an afterlife etc. Not saying it's impossible for them to be out there - but I cant remember ever meeting one. Can you provide some examples?

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I determine whether or not my belief in God is likely to be true based on the effect it has on my life. I perceive the effect to be beneficial so I conclude that it is more likely to be true than false. that's all.
AF

How do you reconcile that with the many people who find the opposite belief beneficial to their lives?

If someone has a religious motivation for doing something wacky that would probably end their life, then its plainly adaptive for them to abandon their religious beliefs. For them atheism would be more true than the brand of theism they ascribed to as a potential nut job. If an atheist finds himself less happy then he would be as a theist, then it makes sense for him to abandon his atheism for theism. The atheist's beliefs are more true than the suicide bomber's, the contented christian's are more true than the unfulfilled atheist's. It's not the factual, but the psychological content of the beliefs that matters in this case because, as sebster pointed out, the question is incapable of resolution by rational means. Obviously the factual content of beliefs matters alot more where that content is in some manner verifiable (ie in the case of someone who believes they can fly)

Are all atheists unfulfilled? I dont know. I found atheism a pretty dry and lonely way of looking at the world. It certainly didnt serve me to hold those beliefs. I can only speculate as to other peoples experiences, unless they decide to communicate them.... which incidentally many atheists have. I believe I could find as many quotes as I wanted from atheists attesting to a sense of loss, of loneliness, of insignificance in the face of a vast cosmos etc etc, if I chose to go looking for them. On that basis I think its fair to conclude that atheism has some psychological baggage attached to it. How debilitating that baggage is depends on the individual I guess. If an atheist could relieve himself of it by becoming a theist, when the answer isnt discoverable on a factual basis one way or another, then obviously he should do it. The only thing he has to lose is an unreasonable pretension to absolute knowledge.
AF

Well, a lot of athiests say they are happier that way. Maybe they worry too much, so worrying about such things would only make things worse. I see what you are saying, but there's different strokes for different folks.

they probably are if they held theistic beliefs that were maladaptive. In that case I'd say their atheism is more true than their previous theism..... its just an inferrence though. of course I dont know whats really going on in their heads and I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.

AbaddonFidelis wrote: I dont claim to have any special access to universal truths.

I do, but of course I'm not allowed to talk about it. It was in the contract, so to speak. I am allowed to answer Jeopardy questions in the form of a parable though, which is kind of neat.