a lot off people on this board seem to disagree on this. so lets setle it.
i beleive that it's easier to beleive, because any inteligent will be made to think about many things that have no answer, and as Maupassant said "the only thing man truly fears is what he does not know". therfore many people simply cannot handle the stark reality of the fact that there is no sense in this world, that we will all die and that thats it! many people also cannot comprehend that there is no logic behind the world.
on the other hand, all religions will provide answers to these kinds of questions on a plater. thats why a lot of middle age people become christiam after a middle age crisis (born again christians.. to all of you: SHUT UP!)
these are just my opinions, and i look forwards to seying other peoples opinions too.

Its easier to breathe than not to, that doesnt make it wrong.

Depends on what you're trying to breathe, spirit.

It's easier to do both, but it's seen to be the inteligent thing to do one, and thats the difference,

Different people believe different things are intelligent.

We wouldn't have atheists if they believed that theism was more intelligent and vice versa

Crazy fool, your argument is contradictory. You are intolerant of Christian views but will allow other views. Seems a bit narrow, doesn't it?

[This message has been edited by Onefinefeller (edited 09-01-2002).]

Its easy to believe in god when you think you are about to die or your life is going in the shitter.

Its easy to believe in no god when life is going great.

This is how I am.

[This message has been edited by gombowlzombie (edited 09-04-2002).]

What gombowlzombie said is totally correct. Lots of people do it.

I believe that it is easier to believe because not believing would just be foolish

What would be the criteria for falsification of the proposition that there is a God? In other words, if there wasn't a God how could one show that?

Well formed, objective statements about reality usually have some criteria of falsification. If the statement "There is a God." doesn't have any criteria for falsification, then there are reasons to think that the statement is not a well-formed, objective staement about realiy.

Let me just expand a bit on my above point.

What I'm asking is this. What would it take to prove that there was no God?

"If you can show _______, than that would be evidence against there being a God."

If you can't fill in that blank with some criteria, then the statement that there is a God seems to be without content since no matter what the evidence was you would still believe in a God.

The credibility of a religion depends on the justifiability of its truth claims. There are three basic criteria we commonly employ to determine the validity and truthfulness of a worldview. These criteria affirms that in order for a religion to be true it must be: Logically consistent - Factually Verifiable - Existentially Livable.

It is meaningless to say that reality is beyond logic or that religion is a matter of faith and devoid of reason for this very statement presupposes logic.

"not believing would just be foolish"

I guess people with no principles can force themselves to believe anything, just in case.

I believe that's what's called "Pascal's sucker bet".

And even so, if you were just believing in God for insurance purposes, he would see that your just doing it to be a sycophant if he really does exist and you weren;t true to it.

True believers would believe in God even if the baseless claim could somehow be factually disproven, like if we discovered our true origins and not the School of Secular Thought's preferred origin.

i think its easier to believe for alot of reasons. mainly because its comforting to most people. also there is a peer effect, it is acceptable to believe in god where im from but athiests are looked down upon. also it builds a common ground for evaluation and justification when many people believe in a supreem authoritative figure.

personally i do not believe in a faith. im a bit of a cross between nihilism and agnosticism. im not totally sure about his existance (or lack there of) just yet so i dont htink i can really make a good call. i can say from experience that when i was a devout christian it wasz much easier, i didnt have to think and i could just rely on other forces for justification. i was much more ignorant and at ease. now that i believe im all alone in the mix i have to do more work in making decisions. if i suceed then its all on me same with failure, thats a scary thing for many people.

its much easier to follow than it is to be your own leader.

You guys have a point! At least concider all factors around the subject of God.