Anyways, just for my own knowledge, can I ask where specifically you got the idea that I was a "believer"? A certain post?

Hmmmm, sorry man I must have had you mixed up with somebody else, maybe with a similar avatar or name.


Quote Originally Posted by Coelho
Well... i dont believe this "the diety "up there" that judges and watches us" also... what i call God is somewhat more abstract... anyway, for me the logical reason why i believe in God (whatever it may be), is just "why not?"
We can not prove or disprove the existence of God by logic or reason, so some people choose to believe, and some choose dont believe. For me, both are logic and reasonable. The only difference is the arguments one uses to justify one's belief.
That whole "You can't prove or disprove" argument doesn't make sense to me. It seems like another one of those creationist tactics to put their beliefs on equal grounds. Really, you can't disprove the existence of absolutely anything I can imagine, like say gremlins at the center of the sun, but that doesn't mean they have a 50/50 chance because they can't be proven or disproven.



I think i understand the point. There is not any set of arguments of logic and reason capable of proof, in an undeniable way, that there is NOT superman, or anything else. We (im sure most of people too) just believe there is not, but there is not any fact that can prove us that he doesnt exist. Only arguments, only words. So, we believe in a thing for which we have no concrete proof. Its the meaning of "faith". So, even if irritates you, i must agree with them that is logically valid to say "My faith (or belief) is that there is not superman".
But like I said, if faith in the non-existence of superman is just a matter of faith, what makes god more valid than superman? Psychologically, I'd say because people feel more justified in their belief when millions of others hold to it as well.
You are quite right that almost nothing can be proven, but that's why we have terms like "accepted theory". It's funny when a lot of creationists say "evolution is only a theory", they think it means evolution is only a hypothesis. Medicine, gravity, quantum physics, pharmaceuticals, economics, and marketing are all just theory.


What we call "real", is simply what two or more people perceive in such alike way that they can agree about the nature of the perception they are having. If you see, lets say, an U.F.O., alone, you may think you were hallucinating. But if anybody else sees it too, both of you will agree that what you saw was "real". Was it really? Imagine how would be to tell your friends and another people who wasnt there that what you did see was "real"...
I suppose the point of using several people to validate a consistant piece of evidence, is that the odds of both (or more) of you hallucinating the same phenomena are an astronomically minute possibility.




Youre right... but i didnt mean make any appeal to authority or whatever like this... i only wished to cite a quote that, for me, resumes very well my visions about this kind of discussion. It only a personal opinion. The fact it was said by a "famous" person dont makes it truer or falser... anyway, Einstein was really a believer in God, and thats why i think the quote would be him's.
Ah, I wasn't sure if you were making an appeal to authority or just quoting something interesting, but OK that's cool.

Peace and weed. :thumbsup::jointsmile:
Peace man, you've provided some good conversation.