It's not so much of a "flaw" as merely an "observation" about how systems of beliefs are formed. At the base of your totem pole is some arbitrary line in the sand that you've drawn.

There's a difference between "no reason" and "no evidence." This is particularly true when you define "evidence" in narrow ways. (Edit: Again, there is no evidence for you to believe me if I say that I clapped my hands, but there is a reason to believe it. This does not "prove" my claim in any way, but it does form a reasonable basis upon which to believe the claim.)

This is a common charge, but it's just a strawman. There's no particular logical pattern of thought that says "if you can believe X, then you can believe anything."

I still don't get what your point is.

You led with this:

I responded with this:

The point is that this "tipping point" goes in both directions. It's not a one way street. And so for the big point of the thread, the claim is that if it's intellectually sufficient in one direction, then it seems that it's intellectually sufficient in the other.

Do you agree?

Im not sure what you mean by disbelief based on intellectual reasons. But does someone who has intellectual reasons to disbelieve in the Mayan rain God mean someone else can have intellectual reasons to believe in him? Or is this just for the biblical God?

Sure, you can throw the Mayan rain god in there. Ultimately, this is the pursuit of the "thing" (idea, notion, experience, whatever) that causes these types of shifts in beliefs. There is *some* catalyst of some sort that causes believers to stop believing. And there is *some* catalyst of some sort that causes nonbelievers to start believing.

This is the question: Whatever it is that causes these changes, are they intellectually sufficient in both directions? That is, if it's the same "type" of catalyst in each direction, why should it fair for the atheist to say that their change in perspective is justifiable but the believer's is not? Or if it's not the same "type" of catalyst in each direction, then what makes them different, and is this distinction one that can be successfully justified?

Edit: It's not so much about belief itself, but more about the changing of beliefs.

Abandon beliefs, accept your brain as a tool that can help you understand the world.

These two are mutually exclusive, I hope you make the right choice.

You're right. The belief "the brain is a tool that can help understand the world" is not coherent with the notion that you should abandon your beliefs.

Edit: Your statement is very dogmatic in a religious sort of way...

War is peace, love is hate, etc. You're so damn smart.

But seriously, the statement "i am sitting in a chair" is not a belief. The statement "all **** will go to hell" is. If you can't figure out the difference between the two, sorry I can't help you.

Nor can I help you.

It actually takes effort to do philosophy. But if you're not interested in thinking carefully about things, no worries.

I've already done the math on this one, no need for me to rehash it. I'll leave that to you and your buds.

I was just wondering if you were including all Godly beliefs. But for me this really boils down to what you mean by intellectual sufficient because im not sure.

If you mean pretty much everyone, from their own perspective, has logical reasons for believing what they believe or disbelieve id agree. Not many hold an illogical belief they know of as the truth.

I guess this means you're not willing to show your work. Oh well.

I'm not really following. Obviously I don't think that the existence of God is inherently not disprovable, so you can't use that as an assumption in your argument. The evidence I'm using is real, not a thought experiment (pointless suffering really does happen).

Lamentations 3:33 (NIV):

33 For he does not willingly bring affliction
or grief to the children of men.

Using your probable definition of "intellectually sufficient" - no, I don't agree.

Although people can probably have limited information in such a way that it becomes rational to believe in God.

I doubt anyone is forcing God to do so, so either this verse is false or God doesn't exist.

W/e.

Classic Aaron W post.

The dilemma isn't god vs not god. First we admit that we know nothing. Then we figure out what useful observations we can make about the world.

What in the world is God doing?

Here, I think he means this for you. It could be the answer to your concerns expressed above.

Read chapter 1 and may God bless and keep you.
http://gods-kingdom-ministries.org/c...er.cfm?CID=255

That sounds a lot like Einbert's position. And it suffers the same flaw.

what does this mean?

I believe when most people use that it means "whatever". Common usage is not necessarily a good indicator of what that particular person means.