I don't have anything against someone believe in a god.

You're right, there is nothing wrong with beleving in something that makes you happy, but hen you force this beliefs on others, it becomes a problem.


And, it's still intellectually dishonest to believe in something without evidence.

But earlier you said that one should not believe in something just because it makes one happy. Are you retracting that?

If the issue is underdetermined by the evidence, then where's the dishonesty?

No, you still should not believe in something because it makes you happy, I'm just not holding that against anyone for doing so.

If you want to believe in flying purple monkeys because that makes you happy, fine! But it's still silly to believe in it ONLY because it makes you happy.

It is dishonest to make a stand on either side of something without evidence.

But being happy makes one function better, and functioning better makes you more useful to those around you.

So long as the belief does not inform any harmful action (and non-religious theism seems to fall into this category) then at face value it seems that we should very much accept it should it make us happy. Assuming as we have been, of course, that we lack the evidence to refute it.

And what is your evidence for the stand you're making with respect to this quoted issue?

Why should we accept it for any reason? It has no evidence, therefore there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to "accept it". There is just no reason to bust any balls over it.

Because it makes one happy.

Irrelevant. Murdering people makes psychopaths believe they're happy. Should we accept that? No. Because being happy is not a reason to accept something.

Strange attempt at a counterexample. We shouldn't 'accept that', because there are overwhelmingly overriding considerations as to why murdering people isn't acceptable.

What we're talking about, on the other hand, is an activity that makes one happy in the absence of any overriding considerations not to do it.

What we're talking about is why beleving in something becasue it makes you happy is silly.


We aren't saying it's evil, wrong, or illegal, it's just not a reason to accept something.

Yes, that is the very issue at hand. But you haven't explained why. You just keep restating yourself.

There are two (essentially equivalent) claims you're throwing out there:
(1) Absence of evidence is sufficient to obligate someone to withhold belief.
(2) Good consequences (namely happiness) are not a reason for belief.

But why are either of these true?

Lots of our activity is with the express purpose of becoming happy. Why should our rational activity be strictly excluded?