However , be warned research has suggested "spiritual" people may suffer worse mental health than conventionally religious, agnostic or atheist people.
Khandro, //I will say that I believe that God (which I really CAN'T define!) probably exists, and this statement is therefore a non-provable 'truth' to me.//
But not to me. My perception of truth clearly differs from yours. If you have no evidence whatsoever to support an assertion, you cannot claim it to be truth. The only 'truthful' thing you can say is 'I don't know'.
n; //If you have no evidence whatsoever to support an assertion, you cannot claim it to be truth.//
Therefore, can you claim that your belief in the non-existence of God has any basis in truth?
//Therefore, can you claim that your belief in the non-existence of God has any basis in truth?//
I’ve never claimed my opinion on the matter to be ‘truth’. I have said that in the absence of evidence, I doubt a creator God exists, but if one does indeed exist, the alleged evidence we have for the God of Abraham (the bible) indicates that it isn’t him.
n. Phew! I'm trying hard to get an answer somehow. What if I ask; Though one believes in X, but have no hard evidence to support that belief, and yet that belief makes one happy and gives a sense of well-being, is that not a better position to be in than NOT believing in X, also without evidence to support that disbelief, and it making one unhappy?
This question is purely hypothetical, referring to no one in particular.
So what you’re saying is, is it better to delude yourself in pursuit of happiness, or to acknowledge ‘truth’ and risk unhappiness? In my opinion, the latter.
Self-delusion can under no circumstances, be considered ‘truth’ – which was the fundamental issue in your original question.