Atheism...

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

There are plenty of facts in this world that have no physical tangible proof we can observe.

Originally Posted by Bridget

For example,

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

For example,

Interactions for one. If I say hello to you on the street, short of having a camera or recorder it's a fact that we spoke but you can not prove it to anyone, there's no record of it in the universe. You can tell people we did, I could tell people we didn't.

(have to give me time, I don't visit here as often as I used too, don't worry, I'll ignore uBeR's childish posts trying to interrupt our conversation.)

[Bridget]

We would be justified in personally believing and knowing that conversation took place, but we would be in the wrong if we dared to suggest everyone should believe us simply because we said so. Intellectually honest people would remain undecided on the issue until evidence was presented. Unless people have a good reason to believe something, they really shouldn't pay much attention to personal experiences.

If we all lived our lives believing everything to be true just in case then we would live very hectic lives. I find the best way to live life is to remain undecided on issues until they are objectively proven even disproven. I would even be skeptical of my own personal experiences too as I have hallucinated on prescription medication before and know that my mind can play tricks on me.

Now, it is really depressing when something is ultimately true or false, but lacks the evidence for or against it, but again, I have stated that intellectually honest people will remain undecided on the issue and not necessarily and immediately conclude something to be true or false. In the situation of God, if such an all power being can't objective convince humanity as a whole that he exists when he supposingly does, then whose fault is that? Is it my fault I didn't believe something for no good reason? I think if God were all powerful and all knowing and such, he would have worked that out.

But, I understand what you mean. That conversation did take place in reality, but we can't prove it. But, I don't think it's considered a fact if it can't be proven, and we're just offering our subjective view of reality. Facts are objective.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

We would be justified in personally believing and knowing that conversation took place, but we would be in the wrong if we dared to suggest everyone should believe us simply because we said so.

I'm not suggesting that, just giving you an example of a fact with no "worldly" proof to measure it (which you note below... just stressing this in case you misunderstood my comment)

Originally Posted by Bridget

But, I understand what you mean. That conversation did take place in reality, but we can't prove it. But, I don't think it's considered a fact if it can't be proven, and we're just offering our subjective view of reality. Facts are objective.

I guess it depends upon your burden of proof then. A fact is defined as "a truth known by actual experience or observation", or "something that actually exists; reality; truth", or "something known to exist or to have happened". All of these apply to our conversation, but there is no defnition of "fact" that requires physical evidence as the burden of proof. If a man kills someone and no one witnesses and he leaves no physical evidence linking him to the crime (did not leave, not just hasn't been found) he did in fact still murder that person. That fact doesn't change just because physical evidence is missing.

Which comes down to my point. Faith is a gift, a very tanglible one to believers, and perhaps it's perception is very much like the "facts" above.

Scuzzy

[Bridget]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

If a man kills someone and no one witnesses and he leaves no physical evidence linking him to the crime (did not leave, not just hasn't been found) he did in fact still murder that person. That fact doesn't change just because physical evidence is missing.

Yeah, I would agree, but I don't think fact is the right word for it. My definition of fact is a claim that is supported by evidence that either proves or disproves something. If we can't prove or disprove that crime happened or didn't happen, then we have to remain neutral or undecided, and no fact has been established. Even further, if we are ignorant of the event, then we would never even begin to attempt to establish it as a fact. Yes, it did happen, but that's not what I mean.

What you're getting at is that regardless of whether or not someone has evidence, there is a chance that their blind luck belief could be correct. That still doesn't change the fact that they believed something without a good reason. What if, on the other hand, someone holds a blind luck belief in a God that ultimately doesn't exist? I would argue it's pretty detrimental. Look at the state of the world.

I can waste my temporary life believing in one God in one Religion ignoring the thousands of other religions, prophets, and Gods as well as the infinite possibilities for what might happen after death and behind the curtain that man and religion didn't get right or I can believe in what I have good evidence and reason to believe in immediately and foremost and not wager what I know is real (my life, my existence, my belongings, etc) on a giant dice roll.

That's why personal experiences don't compel me, Pascal's Wager doesn't move me, and why I don't believe in a God or Gods. I can keep my money or I can throw it all down on a one in a thousand some chance of the specific religious beliefs I adhere to happen to be right. Of course I could be wrong, but as of right now, it seems to be the safest to keep my money off the table.

In the case that there is a God, if he is a loving and kind and merciful God, then he or she or it would obviously see why I had no good reason to believe in him or her or it especially considering how backwards the world is. I would probably be forgiven and whisked away to some form of heaven. In the off chance that God just throws me in some form of hell, then was that really such a God one would want to worship in the first place? A God filled with the lowest human emotions who throws a temper tantrum like a child? No thanks, I'll take the fire and torment. Express lane me.

[stray kitten]

Originally Posted by Bridget

e=mc^2

pretty much anything that ends in "theory" like another "the electron theory". The one I learned in school is already pretty much toast.

[Crazycarl]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I guess it depends upon your burden of proof then. A fact is defined as "a truth known by actual experience or observation", or "something that actually exists; reality; truth", or "something known to exist or to have happened". All of these apply to our conversation, but there is no defnition of "fact" that requires physical evidence as the burden of proof. If a man kills someone and no one witnesses and he leaves no physical evidence linking him to the crime (did not leave, not just hasn't been found) he did in fact still murder that person. That fact doesn't change just because physical evidence is missing.

Legally, the murder is not a fact unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting the allegation. We wouldn't convict someone just on the perception that they are guilty. Similarly, I wouldn't restructure society and impose arbitrary morality on people just on the idea that it pleased my particular god.

Which comes down to my point. Faith is a gift, a very tanglible one to believers, and perhaps it's perception is very much like the "facts" above.

I have faith, too. I have faith that when I drive on the road, people aren't going to cross the center line and ram into me. It takes an enormous amount of trust to take that chance, if you think about it. The only evidence I have that that's not going to happen is from history. People are typically pretty good about staying in the lane.

Now, you may say that your faith in God is also supported by a history of God's works, but I 'd say that's a "retcon". You only see God working once you already believe. We nonbelievers look for worldly causes first.

[stray kitten]

I have a hope drivers won't cross the center line. Definitely not a trust or faith. I see people walking out in front of cars, my guess is they have "faith" that the driver is paying attention to their stupid ass and not texting. But who knows maybe it's so much trust that they will put their life and/or reputation on the line? I can also put trust in the pilots ability and training that he will not accidentally push the "engine off" button. Can't say I would call that "faith" in terms of religion.

[Crazycarl]

A hope wouldn't be enough for me to get on the road.

Trust is something that is built between you and an individual or company, based on good behavior. I don't know who is in the other car and I don't trust them in the least.

I would trust the airline to hire a trustworthy pilot, but I have to rely on faith that he wouldn't lose his mind and crash the plane.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by Bridget

For example,

Magnets. Why do they work the way they do?

Explain it.

This isn't some stupid ICP shit either. There's a difference between how they work and why they work.

[squeek.]

But, how do they work?

[Bridget]

Why don't you ask Mr. Feynman?

YouTube

YouTube

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bridget

In the off chance that God just throws me in some form of hell, then was that really such a God one would want to worship in the first place? A God filled with the lowest human emotions who throws a temper tantrum like a child? No thanks, I'll take the fire and torment. Express lane me.

I wouldn't say that God has made that choice for you Bridget. You can choose to be with God, or you can choose to not. You have made your choice and I think he respects your decision, but don't try to blame him for your the ownership you want in all things. I find it puzzling how you don't believe in God, but you've worked hard on an excuse just in case to blame him for your lack of belief in him should you end up being wrong. This is why I think it takes more determination to be an Atheist then a Christian, a lot of energy is spent trying to make other people follow you and to make excuses in case your wrong.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

Legally, the murder is not a fact unless there is overwhelming evidence supporting the allegation.

Incorrect. You guys are trying to redefine what a "fact" is, and I'm not going to play that game. A fact is something that happens, a truth, not a conclusion based on evidence. A fact is a fact whether or not anyone has knowledge of it or there is any evidence of it.

Originally Posted by Crazycarl

I have faith, too. I have faith that when I drive on the road, people aren't going to cross the center line and ram into me. It takes an enormous amount of trust to take that chance, if you think about it. The only evidence I have that that's not going to happen is from history. People are typically pretty good about staying in the lane.

I would describe that as hope and trust, but not faith.

Originally Posted by CrazyCarl

Now, you may say that your faith in God is also supported by a history of God's works, but I 'd say that's a "retcon". You only see God working once you already believe. We nonbelievers look for worldly causes first.

I haven't said that in this thread, I'm saying that perhaps believers perceive and feel God in a way that is very tangible to them but not to those who have choosen in their hearts to not accept God. If you openly choose to not accept God in your heart, it's probably not something you're going to feel or witness. That's just a guess though... maybe you do feel it, maybe that's why some Atheists I know have very complex rationalizations about how they couldn't have been expected to believe and therefore should get a free pass... No idea though.

Scuzzy

[Crazycarl]

I certainly agree with that definition of fact, but whenever you are trying to discuss reality with other people, they have to be convinced. In that realm, there's a difference between an objectively true fact and established fact.

You may tell me you that went to the supermarket last night. I have no particular reason to doubt you, but the fact is more real to you than it is to me. So for the purposes of our conversation, this fact is something less than absolute.

I wouldn't say I choose not to accept God; I think I would be unable to even if I wanted to. It's a completely unreal thing to me and I do not see any way that it could improve my life. I think all those atheists' rationalizations are a backlash to the religious bias in society and the many (some compelling and some not) arguments for God's existence. If they could think about it without so much cultural baggage they might have better reasons for being atheists.

[Credge]

Originally Posted by Bridget

Why don't you ask Mr. Feynman?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

I'm curious if you understand what you just linked.

Because you just proved my point entirely.

[Bridget]

I was complimenting your point.