Why do people believe?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

(…) writes:

“I continue to be flabbergasted by the number of people who dedicate there beliefs to hundreds of religions and gods yet have NO-NADA objective verifiable evidence to support their beliefs. There is no evidence that any of these gods communicate with any sane persons of these religions. No dead fathers, mothers relatives or friends ever verify there heaven or hell with their living siblings or friends There is no objective verifiable evidence that any of these gods have, in any clear manner, established their existence. All religious beliefs appear to be purely based on the claims of others humans of questionable sanity, veracity and intelligence. Would anyone invest their wealth based on these unsubstantiated beliefs? Why do they invest their very lives so carelessly?”

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

V:

Thanks for your timely topic.

In defense of the theists. A good study course is:

Faith and Reason - Philosophy of Religion

Modern Scholar Series - recorded books - 7 CD’s

Lecturer: Professor Peter Kreeft

A highly recommend series for anyone interested in the subject of religion and spiritual studies. The professor is a long time resident of Boston college. I found this course to be very fair minded. I could not tell and preference for any side of the subject and he argued for all sides with the same zeal. The bulk of the course discussed the monotheist and atheist views while the remainder dealt with comparative religion studies of Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucius, and Taoism.

Course Syllabus

Lecture 1 What Is Religion? Why Is It Worth Thinking About?
Lecture 2 Atheism
Lecture 3 The Problem of Evil
Lecture 4 Arguments for God’s Existence from Nature (Cosmological Arguments)
Lecture 5 Arguments for God’s Existence from Human Experience (Psychological Arguments)
Lecture 6 Religion and Science
Lecture 7 The Case Against Life After Death
Lecture 8 The Case for Life After Death: Twelve Arguments
Lecture 9 Different Concepts of Heaven
Lecture 10 Hell
Lecture 11 Testing the Different Truth-Claims of Different Religions
Lecture 12 Comparative Religions
Lecture 13 What Would Socrates Think?
Lecture 14 Religious Experience

recordedbooks.com/index.cfm? … 3A45%27%7D

As far as why people believe without indisputable evidence?

People do it for a number of reasons.

Some are trained from birth as I was - you take it all for gospel without question. I was catholic for 50 years before I became an agnostic freethinker. It took 45 years just to start questioning things and 5 years to come to a conclusion for me.

Others just need some comfort to ‘look towards’ and help escape the present pain of life.

You see, few of us like the idea of permanent death.

Nor does the average person like a life of pain and unhappiness.

So religion fills the gap that atheism cannot help with and in many cases atheism just makes matters much worse though bitterness and ill will while ripping out the previous moral and charitable foundation that religion supplied in the person previous life.

Isn’t it much easier to fantasize about something else than stay in the hear and now? Fantasies about being in heaven with no pain and all joy?

I try and catch myself when I practice this escapism and work to bring my thoughts back to the present.

Whenever the fantasy starts I check to see what I am escaping from?

Why do I fixate on something else instead of where I’m at?

If we take care of the present, the future will take care of itself so the good book tells us.

Practicing mindfulness of the present moment as part of a Buddhist practice has helped me as well as and working 12 step programs to repair the damage of the past and balance my life.

When theists look towards the atheist they see nothing but pain and hatred. So naturally this helps ‘keep them in religion’ as there is no other place to go for a semblance of peace.

No, just being an atheist will not solve one’s problems by any means.

See:

groups.google.com/group/alt.athe … 76205a536b?

A lot of atheists I run into make their intellect their God.

They do not know that academic smarts are not the same as peace smarts.

Until they can transcend their ego they will never find the answer (peace) they seek.

It is the same for those that think money is all that is standing between them and happiness.

So it goes for the ego and intellect based person that is devoid of spiritual values.

Always remember…one thing only goes so far with giving a person a good life. Seek balance.

Spiritual growth as well as humans are not perfect, but we can all do better at being humane if we try.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … ?topic=4.0

May I suggest that instead of being dogmatic, militant atheists as many of you are, you become agnostic freethinkers?

Same with the theists crowd. Start questioning the absurd and stop killing people in the name of God or Allah.

The only true freethinkers are agnostic freethinkers.

Theist or atheist…you are both mind manacled and deluded.

This is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves.

As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and useless.

Again, a freethinker is ‘free to decide’ how they wish to proceed.

Just be careful of falling into the trap of ‘mind manacled freethinker’ as many ego based people fall into.

The prejudiced, blind, small minded thinker cannot entertain freethought as they must block or censor the ideas and concepts before testing them for truth.

Their ego will not allow it! Such people do not operate on truth, they operate on ego. There is nothing wrong with having personal opinions, but when we use these opinions to destroy others, then it does become very wrong.

The difference between an authority and an authoritarian is this.

An authority speaks from a place of truth and such speaks as an authority. Whereas an authoritarian rules by fear and not by truth. For the truth stands on it own and the authoritarian stands on their EGO.

No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth and sustenance for life - as no one person is God.

Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to garner wisdom to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from religion.

Kind of a misnomer isn’t it…I’m a freethinker…but I must block out everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?

Psychologist William James once said, “A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize the truth of Blake’s words that “all deities reside within the human breast.”

If it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have to look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good.

Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.

I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his life by the golden rule. Another person piped up that the golden rule came from the bible, which made the atheist wince.

The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it came up that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier source than the bible, the atheist was relieved.

This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light resides? Is it ego based or truth based?

When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not like, he was upset.

How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet only build a hovel for another? By one spiritual practitioner seeing truth and applying it to live a life at peace. And the other person only seeing prejudice and problems and doing nothing.

Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also has many “perfection’s” within it as well.

We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are serious about being at peace. This requires us to run our life by truth and not by prejudice.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse is commonly referred to as “The Golden Rule,” and is more commonly quoted as: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity

~1970-1640 BCE “Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do.” - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.

  • ~700 BCE “That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.” - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.

  • ? BCE “Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.” - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.

  • ~550 BCE “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD.” - Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.

  • ~500 BCE “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? This truth is universal in nature as it is based not on being of a certain religion, other than that of the religion of humanity.

In this case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to your life irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I had to chuckle one time when an atheist argued that the golden rule is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that applied to his life, all he could do was reply with profanities and attacks on me.

Those that can’t argue truth…argue personalities.

If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us.

The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look towards direction and forget perfection.

I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this point. “Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul.” The only thing we need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our spiritual practice and our life.

Regarding the golden rule? It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is a most useful tool to live a life at peace by.

And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural law, contrast the greater good with the greater right, etc the synergistic effect is close to perfection as humans can get with this subject.

But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open mind. Wisdom for living a life at peace is all around us for the taking. But many of us get blinded with labels and personal prejudices.

Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down, we are headed in a direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as others peace. As such, I practice from many religious and spiritual traditions without problems or prejudices and readily look for such gifts irrespective of what label they come under - on the contrary I am most grateful wherever I find them.

If I am not able to use a concept, I leave it alone, but do not spend my time or energies to beat others down.

Do we like to be beaten down?

I saw some paintings in a Japanese museum that showed a cousin of the Buddha being of great power and to show his strength he went up to a baby elephant and pushed it down to the ground. A second painting showed the Buddha helping this baby elephant back up to his feet and the Buddha lifted the elephant high up over his head and said, “It is much better to uplift - than to tear down.”

Whether this is a true story or not I do not know. But we can all benefit from uplifting rather than destroying.

I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of ‘no goods’ but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding peace. Maybe I do not have it ‘100% right’ but I have it ‘right enough’ to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I waited for perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.

Aristotle ~ “It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible.”

This being able to ‘rest satisfied’ is something the perfectionists lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.

The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb to personal attacks on me. We can examine our writing to see what useful tools for finding peace we offer to others it also says a lot about our own practice of generating inner peace.

When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will reap self destruction of inner peace. This is the truth when the prejudice of ego is stripped away.

Whether atheists, theists or Buddhists, I submit that you all drop the pretense and lies that you have been grasping onto for entire life and rebuild your life through a foundation of truth and testing and regenerate yourselves into a truth based agnostic freethinker.

2

Since either a or ~a is true, then either theism (the belief that at least one god exists) or atheism (the belief that no gods exist) has to be true; therefore, both cannot be false. It’s just not possible. Either theism or atheism has to be true.

Perhaps you’d be well-served to try to better understand what is generally meant by the term “truth.”

3

I won’t reply with profanities and I won’t reply with an attack on anything except your argument which seems to imply that the Golden Rule is perfect.

While I believe that in general the Golden Rule or its equivalent which is found in virtually all religions is a good rule of conduct, I don’t believe that it is perfect.

This seems to be better:

That’s my Golden Rule and it is an improvement on Jesus,’ don’t you think?

Don’t you agree that this will result in a better, more considerate world? Given the cultural disparities that exist in the world, why should any of us assume that someone from a different culture will want to be treated as we want to be treated?

4

People believe because their lazy, they don’t want to work it out for themselves by actually experiencing the pain that real life has to offer. So they instead read books and take a shortcut thinking that this will keep them from this painful life of real knowledge.

5

Lazy? It takes some people a LOT of effort to reconcile their beliefs with their experience, and more to defend themselves and their beliefs in the face of what a lot of people would call ‘incontrovertable effort’. And how does belief divorce you from pain? Because you believe everything is for a cause it stil hurts when you saw a finger off…

And an interesting thought: the lazy are those who do not believe. It is easy to merely sit back and observe the world rationally and develop a point of understanding from there, but the real effort lies in trying to see if there is something beyond this world. If a person can, at the end of their life, say that they have seen the world and everything it offers with an open mind and still not believe then they have moved beyond faith and seen their truth: reading Dawkins and saying that faith is for suckers is merely a long and arduous journey to truth.

As for the claim (and ‘argument’) to develop an agnostic, free-thinking outlook, I have very little to respond with. All I want to bring up is that belief coupled with ignorance is not exactly the best solution. I am fine as being a free-thinking theist. Everyone is confined to certain personal paradigms of understanding, mine is merely one where God is not absent or a possibility but true. My beliefs in certain worldly institutions lead me further into a blinded view, but if something is true then should you not incorporate it?

6

People also believe to feel comfort within a community and comfort within themselves.

The people who have no real time in their lives to think about these issues tend to cling to the nearest religious branch and after feeling “inspired by god” they continue to believe until they die or someone opens their mind to something else.

god gives people an excuse to act like lunatics with other like minded people and not feel ashamed for their irrationality through ceremonies, hand gestures, listening to preachers with strong voices and accepting propaganda.

Aside from church no one really knows who what god is as he is subjective to those who believe in god without the church.

Belief in god should have stayed personal and not extended to a rally cry for changing others religions because all religions are wrong (if only slightly) to all other religions as is. If a personal god had remained all would be much better off.

Religions are good to assist the learning of morals, but they do more harm than good when it comes to dogma especially “fearing hell” and such nonsense that only encourages the weak minded.

Why do people believe in god?
I’d say partly tradition (religion) Fear (going to hell and retribution from relatives) isolation outside of social circles within community, comfort in knowing heaven is available for certain, god is a nice concept for a happy yet ignorant faithful gathering, Laziness (mentioned), God fills spiritual voids quite easily through a construct called prayer which in essence is only giving ourselves inspiration to accomplish whatever we like.

AFter learning of god, one also has a hard time breaking away from god which can be described as staying with something that is familiar for familiarity’s sake.

God is not necessary but helpful to those who need to believe.

7

Since either a or ~a is true, then either theism (the belief that at least one god exists) or atheism (the belief that no gods exist) has to be true; therefore, both cannot be false. It’s just not possible. Either theism or atheism has to be true.

Perhaps you’d be well-served to try to better understand what is generally meant by the term “truth.”
[/quote]

Agnostic atheists do exist…

8

I suppose people believe because of a need for giving and taking of others emotions and support. Perhaps they believe because of love.

The world and the universe seems designed to kill us and support us. Its like having one parent coddle you and love you while the other tortures you and scares you. Then you look around and realize there are so many others that are like you. So you share with them. Belief is a mental security blanket of support in a harsh mental environment. It is needed. It does not matter wether the blanket is cotton candy or wool. It is needed right now for those that believe. The truth of religion is what the person gets from it. Nothing else really counts. It does not matter if there is a god. A god is second in importance to religion. First is what you get from that religion.

9

Bullshit dont make faith and religion the same thing. Your grossly overgeneralising

10

Agnostic atheists do exist…
[/quote]

“I don’t believe God exists but I am certain we cannot know anything about God in terms of existence.”

#-o

11

Indeed, most agnostics are atheists. What seems to be little understood is that theism and atheism exhaust the metaphysical possibilities for belief in the existence of god(s). One either has a belief that a god or gods exist or one does not. This means that metaphysically, one is either a theist or an atheist.

Agnosticism, OTOH, is an epistemic stance that has to do with the lack of evidence for a proposition. Agnosticism on this view, therefore, is a very good reason to be a metaphysical atheist. As far as the claims go for the existences of most gods, I myself am not an agnostic-type atheist because I believe that there are convincing, positive reasons not to believe that any of those gods exists.

As a side note, it is also possible to be both an agnostic and a theist. It’s just that it’s not possible to maintain view and to claim that it is rational.

12

I was leaning towards blind faith and book knowledge. Are you defending the general sense of belief, cuz that’s a broad road that need some narrowing down?

13

“I don’t believe God exists but I am certain we cannot know anything about God in terms of existence.”

#-o

[/quote]

I’m open to the possibility of God’s existence, but as of now I do not believe in god. (agnostic atheist)

If this does not reflect a true agnostic atheist (which cannot know for certain) then ignore the above stance.

From another philo site as well:
What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence. A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

I see what you mean now Reality check, The snow can’t be white and not white. :slight_smile:

However i might argue the term ‘God’ here. What is the definition of god in this context?

Maslow’s definition about what god means to certain successful individuals, einstein’s god?

Granted supernatural god’s appear to be bullshit. But how can you eliminate the possibility of a God?

14

Reality check again yes snow can be white and not white.

One does not need evidence to know that a creature humans call god can indeed exist.

How many living humans believe in a God? How many dead people believed in gods?
Thats an awful lot of energy spent in creating an imaginary creature. So are laws. Laws are imaginary too, they are not real. But we believe in them. Boundries and country or state borders are not real but, we believe in them. We get up everymorning believing in the imaginary or constructs of society. All these things are made up things, imaginary. Why do we do it? So that we can live better, happier and healthier. Whats the difference between an imaginary border and Gods? Both exist for the same basic reasons. just different aproaches to cover different areas of living as a human. By believing in gods humans have essentially created this creature so it does indeed exist on some plane of human reality. Its beleived abilities can indeed affect humans that truly believe in it. So it exists. A construct or belief can be just as real as a rock or black snow.

15

First off to the OP, Nice Post! Melike.

Good post Kriswest. I think realitycheck means that their either is a universal god or there isn’t? I’m awaiting his definition of god. “One either has a belief that a god or gods exist or one does not.” This stance doesn’t seem too open minded… Just because i don’t believe in god now doesn’t exclude the possibility i might believe in god later. I’ll probably die an atheist… But I like to dream…

To add: This reminds me of Al Sharpton vs Athiest(can’t remember his name)

Al actually denounces scripture as the word of god (surprisingly to some) and defends his own personal god, which can not be denounced by the atheist. Meanwhile the atheist continues to rant on about scripture being contradictory as well as examples of how bad religion can seem. Can one enter one’s head and say “your god does not exist! Here’s the evidence that your god in particular does not exist!” Not at this point and if one cannot fully describe him to that questioner, one cannot disprove his/her god.

In regards to social construct and my belief in them:To see everyday things in new ways or at least try is quite refreshing…

Can there be an nontraditional agnostic thiest or deist that is open minded enough to accept the possibility of a god, but discounts religion, so if IT existed we could not comprehend IT in this life at all?

Our own personal gods i’d see as a nontraditional god that equates itself to creative energies and feelings of awe and wonder or/and inspiration.(Maslow touches on this in the book Personality and Motivation)

16

If you point at some particular thing in the world that you call “snow,” declare that you believe that the thing at which you point is both “white” and “not white” at the instant that you point at it, it is a very easy matter to show that your belief is irrational.

I don’t recall stating that a logically possible god cannot exist. In fact, without even reviewing the thread, I can state unequivocally that I did not make such a statement.

The reason one needs evidence is to support the belief that a particular god DOES exist, not that such a god merely CAN exist (which is trivial). Given the absence of evidence to support such a belief and given that such a belief is not logically necessary, there is no rational reason to hold such a belief.

Did you not intend to write “What is the difference between an imaginary border and an IMAGINARY God?”

If so, well, then you’ve just conceded my point. There is no difference. Both are imaginary.

If not, then the answer to your question as literally written is that there is all the difference in the world between an imaginary border and a non-imaginary, existent god. It is the difference between what is real and what is imaginary; and unless you subscribe to a form of naive idealism, you’ll understand the difference in those two phenomena without further elaboration.

17

Snow is not white until light hits it. Until then it is a mass of opaque ice crystals. So it is white but not white at the same time when light hits it. When there is no light, snow has no white color, it looks black so it is black snow. it is light that gives the color, not the snow.

Naww, you did not Actually I did not notice your name was reality check, until just now. The snow comment was more or less directed at Joekoba. Cuz of the phrase reality check, not you in particular. The rest was just thrown in as my feelings not addressed to any one in particular.

Sorry I did not look at your names until now, last night I was hurting too bad to sleep and just came on line. Normally I am alseep at such late hour. My observation part of my brain was probably asleep. Reality Check was just a phrase up til now :smiley:

Did you not intend to write “What is the difference between an imaginary border and an IMAGINARY God?”

If so, well, then you’ve just conceded my point. There is no difference. Both are imaginary.

If not, then the answer to your question as literally written is that there is all the difference in the world between an imaginary border and a non-imaginary, existent god. It is the difference between what is real and what is imaginary; and unless you subscribe to a form of naive idealism, you’ll understand the difference in those two phenomena without further elaboration.
[/quote]

Actually a god does exist if a person believes it exists. All evidence points to it. Doctors know that positive and negative thinking has a real impact physically on our bodies. We can eat right exersize do all manner of physically healthy things, but if we are negative thinking our bodies will eventually be affected. There are thousands upon thousands of people that will tell you that prayers have helped heal them. Now is that positive thinking or the belief of God that heals them. Doctors have documented the physical changes from deathly ill to healthy.

The power of our minds are not fully mapped out yet. We don’t know half of what we could know. We do know that some pretty unscientific things occur. That despite science’s best and brightest looking at it they have no pat and hard answers to many occurences. It could be the power of many creating a godly energy effect that touches people who can feel it. And so it is God. Perhaps we did not create this energy. Perhaps this energy created us and those that truly believe are the ones that can feel this energy. We all know that there are different energy wavelengths and such out there. Sounds affect people, light affects people, elecrtical currents affect people, magnetic power all in different ways. Heck my son’s music makes me fall asleep. He listens to Robb Zombie, M. Manson and such. The heavy guitar sounds and vibrations make me lethargic. The louder it is the faster I will fall asleep.

When I say that this energy created us I don’t mean our bodies. I mean our sentience. Along with our ancestors omnivore diets, physical makeup and need to survive. This energy could have triggered thought patterns combined with their physical makeup and diets to bring us to an unprecedented class of species in such a remarkable short time. This energy could actually be felt by some and not others. Thus people feel the Gods. It is possible it is a sentient energy too.

When people are asked about their Gods they don’t say God is somewhere specific except when they are asked about a permanent resident sort of thought. They normally say God is everywhere and everything. Well, would that not point to an energy? It does. All logic and all facts or evidence can be brought to a conclusion that god does indeed exist as energy. Our minds translate it into creature images called Gods.

Some folks feel this energy some don’t. Facts can exist and quite likely do for gods if one looks in the right places. This may go with what Tentative has brought up about a religious meme also.

18

All true and all utterly irrelevant to this discussion. You said that a thing can be both x and ~x at the same time in the same respect and I say that such is impossible.

A snowflake, a car, a galaxy, you, me, anything whatsoever is either white or not white and can be nothing else, there are no other options. It’s just a simple law of logic. If you do not agree that these laws of logic are true then you opt out of rational debate.

No, not as an entity in external reality it doesn’t, which was clearly the point, and this can be easily shown.

OTOH, if you are saying only that, for example, the biblical Jesus can exist in the same way that King Lear exists, OK, we both believe that the biblical Jesus is a fictional character. This is not, however, what fundamentalist Christians mean when they say, for example, “Jesus lives” and it’s a mistake to conflate the two beliefs.

19

I opt out of rational debate, because, I logically can see that something can be x and~x LOL Well you are a tad pompous aren’t you?

I say that you are being irrational and illogical to not see it.

I never once mentioned Jesus. buts, lets touch on that if you wish. Jesus is both fictional and real or was real and is real. Jesus does live still and yet he is dead, also he is fictional.

If you look at things in only one or two dimensions then you will only see that x cannot be ~x at the same time. If you look at things in more than 1 or 2 dimensions you can see your statement as false.

some people can only think in one or two dimensions others can think in more.

It has nothing to do with education or intelligence. It seems to me it has more to do with the ways of a person or how they process thoughts or feel the universe.

You say internal belief cannot be an external entity or real. I see that it can. There is that distinct possibility that can be both. I am not saying all things can be equal to x is also~x well, It is possible that I am wrong about that and all things can be 2 things. I can’t know that for I have not examined or thought about all things, I am bit too busy in my life for that.

The Christian God is real and not real. There can be found external proof for his existence on this earth if you know where to look and how to look. There is also proof that God does not exists in this world if you know where to look and how to look.

Red does not exist for a color blind person or a blind person. You can’t prove that red exists to them. You know it exists because you can see it, and because someone told you that it was red. You can describe red all you want to a blind person or a color blind person and they will believe that you see red. They can’t see it but, they know for you it exists. That it is real. Its not real to them. It only exists in your mind that what you see is called red from their external perspective of the world. why do they believe there is red? Because they know they are in the minority they know that there are more people that can see red. So Red must exist but, it doesn’t exist for them.

Now imagine that eventually vision became the minority. That the blind were the majority.

So lets do this. Imagine that a huge amount of the human population was blind say 60%. Say 28% were color blind, and 12% had what we think of a normal vision. Does red exist? Does anything that requires normal vision to see exist? Lets include color blind people they can see things that the blind can’t but they can’t see things that a normal visioned person can’t. what is real and what is not? It is very important to note that; The 60% that is blind can prove that red does not exist. That there is no such thing as red. Heck the blind can prove that anything that can only be seen does not exist. There will be some that believe or have faith though.

Our minds work much like that. The cat in the box exists but, does not exist at the same time. The wonderful thing about existence and the universe is Dimensions. Certain dimensions cannot exist if you cannot see it or sense it or prove it. Is a cat a dog? ROFL if I said yes it would make you think that I went overboard and have lost it right? well don’t sweat it I won’t say it nor do I believe it either. I do believe there is a possibility though. What one believes,senses or sees is just as valid in the external world as what is not seen, sensed or believed. Most especially when there is such a huge amount of the population that is one particular way.

For religion it can be broken down to knowing God exists, believing god exists and having faith god exists. Blind color blind and full vision. Then throw in the total Athiests somewhat athiests then borderline athiests. blind color blind and full visioned again. It almost looks linear but its not, if I had at least a thousand pages and 20 years I could flesh out all the dimensions, to show its nonlinear aspects or form.

x can be ~x at the same time. Perhaps it can be proven to you perhaps it cannot be. Red exists and does not. God is real and is not. Like I said if I had at least a thousand pages and 20 yrs I could possibly find a way to prove this.

20

I apologize. I don’t mean to be pompous but it is a truth of logic that neither you nor me nor anyone else can see an entity as both x and ~x at the same time and in the same respect as you say here that you can. Of course, you may say that you can, but no one should believe you. Instead they should believe that your belief is irrational because you either misunderstand the concept ‘both x and ~x can be true’ or are hallucinating or lying or joking.

If you insist that an entity can be both x and ~x at the same time and in the same respect then there is no way for me (or for anyone else) to rationally communicate with you because it will be impossible to show that some of your arguments are incorrect. In terms of argument, impossible only means contradictory. If you do not believe that white and not white are contradictory terms and as a result cannot reside in the same object at the same time in the same respect, then the terms ‘contradiction’ and ‘impossibility’ have no meaning to you (or else an idiosyncratic meaning that few people, if anyone, else uses).

It is only by agreeing on the basic rules of logic that logical, rational argument becomes possible. Take the simple claim made in your signature: “I am not a guy, Repeat- I am not a guy.”

What does this claim mean in a world in which ‘~ [x & ~x]’ is false? It means nothing. The claim “I am not a guy” does not mean that whoever makes such a claim claims not to be a guy, because guy can be ~guy. It is literally without any clear meaning whatsoever.