How I Feel About Atheists

[Polymath257]

You guys can't see past your own bias so for you there is no reality beyond the one you imagine, and there is no way of determining reality beyond the methods you use. But of course reality is greater than you know, and the methods you choose for verifying it are limited, and subjective, even in their presumed "objectivity".

I am more than happy to admit that there may be ways of figuring out things about reality that I have not yet considered. What way do you propose?

But, what I *do* expect is a way to tell truth from falsity, or at the very least criteria that allow me to eliminate falsehoods. Without at least that, there is no way to claim an idea has anything to do with 'reality' as opposed to, say, pure imagination.

So, for example, in science, we have a method for testing: it two ideas disagree, then we find an experiment where they differ in their predictions and then go do the experiment and see which one is right and which one is wrong. And perhaps both will be wrong.

In math, there are ways to decide whether or not you have a valid proof. Most people don't write a completely formal proof, but anyone can challenge a proof and if more details are not forthcoming, the proof is rejected, thereby reducing the incidence of error.

What procedure do you propose to *at least* eliminate false 'God ideas'? if you have none, then there is nothing for me in what you have to say: they are your own imaginings and of no value to me.

There isn't much I can do with your (or anyone's) unwillingness to recognize any of this. The point remains that theists do have evidence supporting the existence of their gods, whether you approve of their evidence, or not. And your disapproval is not sufficient for it's dismissal, except in your own mind, and the minds of those who share your bias.

Sorry, but imagination isn't the same as evidence. Coming up with ideas that you believe without any way to test them isn't a way to find out about reality. In fact, it is an almost sure way to insanity.

There really isn't any way around this. We are each deciding for ourselves what is real and what is true, and what criteria for "evidence" and "proof" we will use to make that determination. And presuming that our own understanding of reality and truth, and our own criteria for determining that is superior to everyone else's, is normal, I suppose. If not especially logical, ... or honest.

I am more concerned to eliminate falsehoods first. What methods do you propose for doing that?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You guys can't see past your own bias so for you there is no reality beyond the one you imagine

No, there is no known reality beyond that which we can experience. I don't really care about merely imagined "realities."

reality is greater than you know

You have no access to information not available to the rest of us

There isn't much I can do with your (or anyone's) unwillingness to recognize any of this.

That's a good thing.

The point remains that theists do have evidence supporting the existence of their gods

That evidence is apparently a carefully guarded secret.

And your disapproval is not sufficient for it's dismissal

Actually, it is.

a very significant number of reasonably honest and intelligent people are gaining significant functionality, and experiencing increased value in their lives, though their faith in this 'god-ideal'. Such that even if you still could not find any use of it in your own life, you might at least appreciate the good it has done for others.

That's not what I'm seeing. The faithful seem lost to me.

 

[HonestJoe]

You guys can't see past your own bias so for you there is no reality beyond the one you imagine, and there is no way of determining reality beyond the methods you use. But of course reality is greater than you know, and the methods you choose for verifying it are limited, and subjective, even in their presumed "objectivity".

You’re no less guilty of that than anyone else though. I agree that we’re massive limited in what we can actually know about reality (though I believe that’s less to do with limitations of our methods and more to do with the fundamental limitations in our ability to apply them).

The point remains that theists do have evidence supporting the existence of their gods, whether you approve of their evidence, or not. And your disapproval is not sufficient for it's dismissal, except in your own mind, and the minds of those who share your bias.

Everyone has evidence (however imperfect) to support their personal conclusions; we couldn’t have reached those conclusions otherwise. One problem with positive assertions for the existence of a god is that there are so many different (often directly contradictory) propositions, all of which their supporters believe the evidence supports.

Personally, I’ve never denied the possibility that some form of divine beings could exist (or have existed). What I do deny is that we are in any kind of position to say one certainly does, let alone to define all sorts of specific characteristics of them and declare what they want and expect of us. Even if I thought some kind of god existed, it wouldn’t change how I live my life because I couldn’t know how that gods existence could impact me or even whether my life choices make any different to that. Atheism isn’t my driving force, it’s practicality.

 

[PureX]

You’re no less guilty of that than anyone else though. I agree that we’re massive limited in what we can actually know about reality (though I believe that’s less to do with limitations of our methods and more to do with the fundamental limitations in our ability to apply them).

I think we are just too limited in our ability to perceive existence as it actually is: an extremely complex, singular event taking place, of which we are a part. There are expressions of energy and matter that know nothing about, and likely more that we are not even aware of. There are primal causes and "laws" that we can only try to imagine, and speculate on, as we don't even know how to explore them, study them or experiment on them. Existence exhibits spectacular examples of transcendence, opening whole new universes of possibilities right before our eyes and we haven't the least idea how or why it's happened. And dare we even ask ourselves what other expressions of existential transcendence may be occurring that we are simply oblivious to?

To presume that our cognitive abilities are so thorough and accurate that we can reasonably judge what can and can't exist, is insanely arrogant. Which is exactly what we're doing when we decide there is no "god" because if there were, we'd have already have discerned the evidence, and validated it.

Everyone has evidence (however imperfect) to support their personal conclusions; we couldn’t have reached those conclusions otherwise. One problem with positive assertions for the existence of a god is that there are so many different (often directly contradictory) propositions, all of which their supporters believe the evidence supports.

Theism proposes existence of god is a possibility, not as truth, or fact. So we each have to define that possibility for ourselves in the way that it makes the most sense, to us. Dismissing someone else's god-ideal as untrue is just an exercise of ego. It won't change their mind (nor should it) and you've gained nothing.

Personally, I’ve never denied the possibility that some form of divine beings could exist (or have existed). What I do deny is that we are in any kind of position to say one certainly does, let alone to define all sorts of specific characteristics of them and declare what they want and expect of us.

There are a lot of people, and institutions, that try to use the god-ideal, and religious practice based on it to subjugate and control other people. Sadly, this is an innate aspect of human nature, and we must guard ourselves against it if we wish to be fully 'self-actualized' in this life.

Even if I thought some kind of god existed, it wouldn’t change how I live my life because I couldn’t know how that gods existence could impact me or even whether my life choices make any different to that.

I doubt that very much. Choosing to trust in the god-ideal of our own best understanding tends to focus and change us, often dramatically. By defining our 'gods' we are defining ourselves. And thereby defining our own sense of value, and purpose, and significance relative to the rest of existence. This god-deal can be very useful to us in a lot of different ways, and surprisingly effective. So much so that we need to be careful in how we conceptualize it to ourselves. Because it will tend reflect and amplify whatever spirit we choose to endow it with.

 

[Polymath257]

I doubt that very much. Choosing to trust in the god-ideal of our own best understanding tends to focus and change us, often dramatically. By defining our 'gods' we are defining ourselves. And thereby defining our own sense of value, and purpose, and significance relative to the rest of existence. This god-deal can be very useful to us in a lot of different ways, and surprisingly effective. So much so that we need to be careful in how we conceptualize it to ourselves. Because it will tend reflect and amplify whatever spirit we choose to endow it with.

Yes, defining a sense of purpose, and value has significance to how we live our lives.

How is that prevented by being an atheist? I still have purpose in my life. I still have values and a sense of significance in my existence. I just don't attribute those as being given by any deity. Nor do I think of them as having any cosmic significance. They are significant to me and that is enough.

Once again, of what benefit is God-belief? It seems to me that you are simply anthropomorphizing your ideals. If so, I don't see a need to do that. I can leave my ideals as ideals.

 

[HonestJoe]

To presume that our cognitive abilities are so thorough and accurate that we can reasonably judge what can and can't exist, is insanely arrogant. Which is exactly what we're doing when we decide there is no "god" because if there were, we'd have already have discerned the evidence, and validated it.

Largely the point I was making, but that no different if the assertion is that there is a god. We still have to reach practical conclusions though, incorporating the knowledge of our limitations. I've personally not yet encountered any hypothesis for a god that has convinced me of it's validity.

Theism proposes existence of god is a possibility, not as truth, or fact.

Sorry, but that definition is complete rubbish! That kind of thing is why I try to avoid the whole label game.

Dismissing someone else's god-ideal as untrue is just an exercise of ego. It won't change their mind (nor should it) and you've gained nothing.

How is your dismissal of atheism any different though?

I doubt that very much. Choosing to trust in the god-ideal of our own best understanding tends to focus and change us, often dramatically. By defining our 'gods' we are defining ourselves.

We can't choose what we believe. If you're defining something, especially as a reflection of yourself, that's nothing to do with universal reality and everything to do with personal desires and preferences. I could easily come up with a god I'd like to exist but I couldn't make myself believe it actually does.

 

[PureX]

Largely the point I was making, but that no different if the assertion is that there is a god. We still have to reach practical conclusions though, incorporating the knowledge of our limitations. I've personally not yet encountered any hypothesis for a god that has convinced me of it's validity.

it's not a question of conviction, it's a matter of faith. People don't believe believe in gods because they discovered convincing evidence. They simply have chosen to trust in their idea of 'god' as an act of faith, and they've accepted the personal results of this act of faith as sufficient reason to continue it. If you're looking for "convincing evidence to believe in the existence of 'god'" you have completely misunderstood the theist's proposition.

How is your dismissal of atheism any different though?

The difference is that the theist's bias provides him the benefits of faith. The atheist's bias in favor of skepticism gains him nothing but a closed mind, and a disdain for an important aspect of human nature.

We can't choose what we believe. If you're defining something, especially as a reflection of yourself, that's nothing to do with universal reality and everything to do with personal desires and preferences. I could easily come up with a god I'd like to exist but I couldn't make myself believe it actually does.

You don't have to, because this was never an issue of fact, or evidence. It's an issue of faith, and of possibilities beyond the limitations of facts and evidence.

 

[HonestJoe]

it's not a question of conviction, it's a matter of faith. People don't believe believe in gods because they discovered convincing evidence. They simply have chosen to trust in their idea of 'god' as an act of faith, and they've accepted the personal results of this act of faith as sufficient reason to continue it. If you're looking for "convincing evidence to believe in the existence of 'god'" you have completely misunderstood the theist's proposition.

Much like atheists, theist covers a vast number of very different people with a wide range of beliefs, opinions and approaches. I don’t think the concept of a singular “theist’s proposition” is valid. In my experience, the basis for theistic beliefs are combinations of faith and evidence. After all, plenty of people propose evidential support for the existence of a god, like miracles, visions and answered prayers through to the simple existence of life and the universe as it is. It seems that assessment of evidence brings some people to faith and the development of faith influences other people’s views and opinions of the evidence. Those of us who are neither drawn to any (theistic) faith and are unconvinced by the evidence with remain atheist by definition.

The difference is that the theist's bias provides him the benefits of faith. The atheist's bias in favor of skepticism gains him nothing but a closed mind, and a disdain for an important aspect of human nature.

I question that there are automatic and fundamental benefits to faith. Some kinds of faith can certainly be very beneficial to some people but other kinds of faith can be equally harmful, to the individual and others. Also, faith need not be in a god at all.

An atheist isn’t biased in favour of scepticism. Scepticism can be an element of atheism but it doesn’t need to be and nor does scepticism automatically lead to atheism. Atheism most certainly doesn’t mean a closed mind. After all, the theist who unconditionally asserts the existence of a specific god is closed to the existence of any of the other gods, if anything a step further away that the atheist who remains open to being convinced of any proposed god.

Remember that theist and atheist only describe simple, singular belief positions. Neither term implicitly carried anything about reason for or intensity of those positions. I think you’re drifting back towards the negative stereotyping of classes of people based on these flimsy labels rather than recognising them as just small elements of each individual’s wider world-view.

 

[Polymath257]

it's not a question of conviction, it's a matter of faith. People don't believe believe in gods because they discovered convincing evidence. They simply have chosen to trust in their idea of 'god' as an act of faith, and they've accepted the personal results of this act of faith as sufficient reason to continue it. If you're looking for "convincing evidence to believe in the existence of 'god'" you have completely misunderstood the theist's proposition.

So you act *as if* you believe, hoping for good results from this self-delusion?

The difference is that the theist's bias provides him the benefits of faith. The atheist's bias in favor of skepticism gains him nothing but a closed mind, and a disdain for an important aspect of human nature.

What benefits come from deity belief that do not come from simply being honest with yourself and thinking deeply about your convictions? What 'important aspect of human nature' do you think is missed?

You don't have to, because this was never an issue of fact, or evidence. It's an issue of faith, and of possibilities beyond the limitations of facts and evidence.

In that case, I see 'faith' as a definite negative: it is a form of self-delusion. It is a dereliction of responsibility.

One of the great benefits I found to giving up the 'God quest' is self-honesty. it is the benefit of not having to live 'as if' you believe. it is living as you really are. It is the benefit of taking responsibility for yourself and the world around you. Instead of pushing the 'plan' off on some unknowable entity that nobody can agree upon, we focus on problems here and now and try to make things better for people here and now.

 

[Polymath257]

im not lost

Why do you think others are?

 

[Polymath257]

The difference is that the theist's bias provides him the benefits of faith. The atheist's bias in favor of skepticism gains him nothing but a closed mind, and a disdain for an important aspect of human nature.

Being willing to look at *all* the evidence and basing your beliefs on said evidence is almost the definition of an open mind, not a closed one. Skepticism is a positive value: it helps us avoid error and self-delusion. I tis required to have a truly open mind.

Rejecting ideas without sufficient reason to believe them isn't having a closed mind: it is being honest about the weight of the evidence and following where it leads. That is a *good* thing.

 

[DavidFirth]

the best i can say about facts and proof is that God is a fact in my mind and the proof is in my heart but that prolly wont cut it for science and i respect others who deny his existance.

I completely get what you're saying. It is like God has made Himself known to me spiritually. But of course we can't prove that scientifically.

 

[PureX]

I completely get what you're saying. It is like God has made Himself known to me spiritually. But of course we can't prove that scientifically.

We can't prove it logically, either, I suspect. But the possibility of "God" doesn't require any proof to be useful to us. Because we have the active process of faith to go on when the necessary information is not available. Atheists rarely understand this. And no small number of theists don't understand it, either.

Nevertheless, it is so.

 

[PureX]

So you act *as if* you believe, hoping for good results from this self-delusion?

No, I act is if what I hope to be true, is true, and see how that works out for me. I don't have to believe, anything. I only have to be willing to trust in the possibility. If it works out in a positive way, I would continue doing it. If not, I would either alter my conception of the possibility, or stop engaging in the process.

What benefits come from deity belief that do not come from simply being honest with yourself and thinking deeply about your convictions? What 'important aspect of human nature' do you think is missed?

There are many different possible benefits, depending on who we are, what we need, and how we conceptualize the god-ideal. Placing one's faith in their "God" ideal can help people find hope, strength, moral focus, moral courage, calm, resolution, comfort, self-awareness, other-awareness, meaning, and purpose, just to name a few. And do so when they most need it, and when there is no other means available to them.

In that case, I see 'faith' as a definite negative: it is a form of self-delusion. It is a dereliction of responsibility.

"Delusion" is the human condition. We are all "deluding ourselves" in that we think we know what's real and true, and what isn't real and isn't true, when in fact we have very little access to reality, and no logical way of assessing the truth apart from our inherent subjective bias. So the question that matters is not whether or not "X" is true. It's whether or not presuming "X" to be true works for us as we interact with reality.

One of the great benefits I found to giving up the 'God quest' is self-honesty. it is the benefit of not having to live 'as if' you believe. it is living as you really are. It is the benefit of taking responsibility for yourself and the world around you. Instead of pushing the 'plan' off on some unknowable entity that nobody can agree upon, we focus on problems here and now and try to make things better for people here and now.

Faith becomes necessary when our knowledge runs out and we still have to make a decision about what to do next. Or what to think. And for we humans, knowledge is ALWAYS running out. I'm pleased that you chose to let go of ideas of god that didn't work for you. Yet the possibility of god still remains. And when you run out of self-knowledge, you can trust in that possibility, defined any way you like, and any way you choose.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I act is if what I hope to be true, is true, and see how that works out for me. I don't have to believe, anything. I only have to be willing to trust in the possibility. If it works out in a positive way, I would continue doing it. If not, I would either alter my conception of the possibility, or stop engaging in the process.

That describes my approach to Christianity, which began at about age 20. I agreed to suspend disbelief long enough to see if wearing the ideology for awhile would make it more comfortable somewhat like breaking in a pair of new shoes. They never fit, so I discarded the shoes about a decade later. Christianity never delivered on its promises and met no needs.

Furthermore, I learned the hard way why one shouldn't make decisions based on faith.

This is why your exhortations about possibilities ring empty to me. They've already been tested and found wanting.

Placing one's faith in their "God" ideal can help people find hope, strength, moral focus, moral courage, calm, resolution, comfort, self-awareness, other-awareness, meaning, and purpose, just to name a few. And do so when they most need it, and when there is no other means available to them.

I find my life full of purpose, meaningful, and well grounded without such beliefs.

Regarding courage, here's what takes courage:

Try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be.

Shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious beliefs, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all.

Then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you - people, and maybe a few animals.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Or, if that is too threatening to you, take refuge in the hope that somebody is watching over you, cares about you, will keep you aware forever, and reunite you with loved ones if that's what you need to get through life. It's what I would call an inauthentic existence. I'm here to testify that life can be lived happily without false hope.

Faith becomes necessary when our knowledge runs out and we still have to make a decision about what to do next.

Faith is never necessary. When our knowledge can't sufficiently inform our choices, then if we are forced to choose, we must guess. That is not faith. Faith in the religious sense is unjustified belief.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I act is if what I hope to be true, is true, and see how that works out for me. I don't have to believe, anything. I only have to be willing to trust in the possibility. If it works out in a positive way, I would continue doing it. If not, I would either alter my conception of the possibility, or stop engaging in the process.

I prefer to work based on the best available evidence and the potential consequences. Simply 'hoping' is a very poor reason to do anything.

There are many different possible benefits, depending on who we are, what we need, and how we conceptualize the god-ideal. Placing one's faith in their "God" ideal can help people find hope, strength, moral focus, moral courage, calm, resolution, comfort, self-awareness, other-awareness, meaning, and purpose, just to name a few. And do so when they most need it, and when there is no other means available to them.

Funny, I get ALL of those and without a God belief. I suspect you could also if you tried a bit.

"Delusion" is the human condition. We are all "deluding ourselves" in that we think we know what's real and true, and what isn't real and isn't true, when in fact we have very little access to reality, and no logical way of assessing the truth apart from our inherent subjective bias. So the question that matters is not whether or not "X" is true. It's whether or not presuming "X" to be true works for us as we interact with reality.

Here I *completely* disagree. We have enough 'access to reality' to be able to test ideas, see which agree with observation, and to restrict ourselves to those that can be tested. Most people are just too lazy to try.

Faith becomes necessary when our knowledge runs out and we still have to make a decision about what to do next. Or what to think. And for we humans, knowledge is ALWAYS running out. I'm pleased that you chose to let go of ideas of god that didn't work for you. Yet the possibility of god still remains. And when you run out of self-knowledge, you can trust in that possibility, defined any way you like, and any way you choose.

Running out of knowledge or having to make a decision based on limited knowledge isn't a time to look to a deity: it is simply a time to make a judgment based on what we *do* know, consider the possible effects and take responsibility for your own decision. I fail to see how a deity enters into the decision in any way.

The 'possibility' of Santa Claus also remains. That doens't mean there is any good reason to believe in such. That there is a 'possibility' of a God does absolutely NOTHING in helping me to live my life or to understand the world around me. At best, it is an abstraction, a metaphor for what 'believers' like. At worst, it is a way to berate others who don't hold the same ideals. You have done a bit of the latter in the OP of this thread.

If I want to make up a deity, I would be choosing between the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Both have their advantages: FSM has more followers, for a better social life, but I just don't like pirates and spaghetti as much. The IPU seems a bit teenage girlish for me. Both are *far* better than YHWH or other obvious monotheist positions.

 

[Polymath257]

That describes my approach to Christianity, which began at about age 20. I agreed to suspend disbelief long enough to see if wearing the ideology for awhile would make it more comfortable somewhat like breaking in a pair of new shoes. They never fit, so I discarded the shoes about a decade later. Christianity never delivered on its promises and met no needs.

Furthermore, I learned the hard way why one shouldn't make decisions based on faith.

This is why your exhortations about possibilities ring empty to me. They've already been tested and found wanting.



I find my life full of purpose, meaningful, and well grounded without such beliefs.

Regarding courage, here's what takes courage:

Try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be.

Shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious beliefs, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all.

Then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you - people, and maybe a few animals.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Or, if that is too threatening to you, take refuge in the hope that somebody is watching over you, cares about you, will keep you aware forever, and reunite you with loved ones if that's what you need to get through life. It's what I would call an inauthentic existence. I'm here to testify that life can be lived happily without false hope.

Faith is never necessary. When our knowledge can't sufficiently inform our choices, then if we are forced to choose, we must guess. That is not faith. Faith in the religious sense is unjustified belief.

Precisely! We need to learn to take responsibility for ourselves in a universe that doesn't care whether we live or die. Which only means *we* have to learn to care. It is up to *us* to make things better for us, not some imaginary friend that tells us how important we are.

In other words, at some point we should just grow up and stop looking to a deity to save us.

 

[PureX]

That describes my approach to Christianity, which began at about age 20. I agreed to suspend disbelief long enough to see if wearing the ideology for awhile would make it more comfortable somewhat like breaking in a pair of new shoes. They never fit, so I discarded the shoes about a decade later. Christianity never delivered on its promises and met no needs.

Who's Christianity didn't? And why Christianity at all? The Christian religion is not God, and God is not a religion. So testing religion is fine, but wen it doesn't work it only means that religion didn't work. It doesn't tell you a think about how a God of your own understanding might have worked out for you..

Furthermore, I learned the hard way why one shouldn't make decisions based on faith.

We all make decisions based on faith all the time. It's unavoidable as we are limited human beings that have to make decisions, to live.

This is why your exhortations about possibilities ring empty to me. They've already been tested and found wanting.

Sounds like all you tested was someone else's idea of God. And I question how thoroughly you could have actually done that when you don't seem to grasp the human necessity of faith.

Faith is never necessary. When our knowledge can't sufficiently inform our choices, then if we are forced to choose, we must guess. That is not faith. Faith in the religious sense is unjustified belief.

We have to have faith that what we have determined to be accurate knowledge, is accurate. We have to have faith in our own ability to apply that knowledge effectively. And we have to have faith that if we err, we will not err so badly that we cannot recover. We engage in such faith every day of our lives, because we cannot know these things to be true, ever. Thinking they're true, believing they're true, and boasting about how true they are does not them true. In the end it always comes down to faith.

 

[PureX]

I prefer to work based on the best available evidence and the potential consequences. Simply 'hoping' is a very poor reason to do anything.

This isn't about "evidence", and establishing a presumption of knowledge. It's about what to do when there isn't any evidence. Or enough evidence to establish that presumption of knowledge. Which happens to we humans much of the time, as there is much that we don't know.

Here I *completely* disagree. We have enough 'access to reality' to be able to test ideas, see which agree with observation, and to restrict ourselves to those that can be tested. Most people are just too lazy to try.

And a lot of people pretend they know a lot of things that they don't really know because facing their own profound ignorance frightens the crap out of them. They run to religions and science looking for 'the truth of it all' so they can pretend they've got all the answers. But all they've really gotten is the habit of self-delusion.

Running out of knowledge or having to make a decision based on limited knowledge isn't a time to look to a deity

That would depend on the knowledge you need, but do not have, and the choices you need to make without it, don't you think?

I fail to see how a deity enters into the decision in any way.

Obviously. But then it doesn't appear to me that you are trying very hard, either. In fact, it rather looks like you're trying quite hard NOT to see any possible value in it.

 

[Polymath257]

This isn't about "evidence", and establishing a presumption of knowledge. It's about what to do when there isn't any evidence. Or enough evidence to establish that presumption of knowledge. Which happens to we humans much of the time, as there is much that we don't know.

When there is no evidence, there is no knowledge. If there isn't *sufficient* evidence in a situation, I make the most informed decision possible. If there is NO evidence at all, then a pure guess is warranted. But I have *never* found the latter to be the case in anything significant.

And a lot of people pretend they know a lot of things that they don't really know because facing their own profound ignorance frightens the crap out of them. They run to religions and science looking for 'the truth of it all' so they can pretend they've got all the answers. But all they've really gotten is the habit of self-delusion.

And what you are doing is promoting even more self-delusion. At least with science, there is *some* evidence by which to make a decision. And that is far, far better than anything faith can provide.

That would depend on the knowledge you need, but do not have, and the choices you need to make without it, don't you think?

I have trouble even imagining a time when the existence of a deity would assist in any decision I would have to make.

Obviously. But then it doesn't appear to me that you are trying very hard, either. In fact, it rather looks like you're trying quite hard NOT to see any possible value in it.

No, I am not *trying* at all to not find value in it. I simply don't find value in it. It is quite simple. All that you have proposed as values for a deity belief I have found without it and I am more honest with myself (I believe) in the process. In fact, from what I have observed in others, belief in a deity seems to often produce exactly the type of person I do not wish to be: judgmental, arrogant, egotistical, and denigrating of others.