Here's an odd, theological sort of question for debate

[Answer]

Your particular religious beliefs are sort of irrelevant in this discussion - but I was speaking with my girlfriend earlier in regards to the evolution/creationism debate that's been going on recently, and she stated that she can't understand how people could believe in creationism - to which I replied something similar to "It's pretty much the same thing as you believing in Spirits and Ghosts"

and then I began to think about it. I mean, scientifically speaking - there's no real viable evidence of the existence of ghosts or spirits, and I've always assumed that if you were an Atheist that you couldn't be a dualist - but I have met self proclaimed Atheists who do believe in souls, spirits, ghosts, preternatural things with no scientific basis other than an unexplained observation.

On a fundamental level, is it really possible for the belief of such things to be consistent with the ideas of Atheism?

[Ryan 12]

i want to cum on the tits of that bitch in ur avy



fuck those are nice b00bzzz

[Exis]

I support the Jedi religion...

[Objective]

On a fundamental level, is it really possible for the belief of such things to be consistent with the ideas of Atheism?

The words ''atheism'' and ''belief'' can not co-exist. They may claim they're atheists, but they're not. Unless what they've experienced can be explained by science there's no viable reason to believe they're anything else than agnostic. This comes from someone who has been in their shoes.

Atheism and ''no scientific basis other than an unexplained observation'' got nothing in common. I consider myself an agnostic that moves heavily towards atheism, but I can't under any circumstances call myself one as long as I have doubts about my own observations not coinciding with science.
If I were a true atheist I would disregard all of my observations and experiences with what many people explains as ''ghosts'' or ''spirits''. I believe they're tricks by the mind, but since I have slight doubts to that I'm no atheist although I'd like to say that I am one.

If it can be proved by science and endless tests reaching the state of a theory that's backing up their thoughts about it actually being ghosts and spirits they can go back to calling themselves atheists again.

[Witty]

You shouldn't believe anything, belief is a lack of knowledge.

People have to 'believe' in God because they can not prove his existence, they have to 'believe' in Ghosts for the same reason.

I prefer to know rather than believe. If you say you believe in something, you admit ignorance right away.

[oats]

some terminology is getting confused here. atheism doesn't exclude believing in anything other than a god. unless you are equating the common belief of what ghosts are to a god, then atheists can believe in ghosts no problem. just like they can (and many of them do) believe in aliens.

atheism is not a scientific standpoint - it's a religious standpoint. the confusion comes about because most atheists tend to arrive at that religious standpoint through science.

on the idea that people shouldn't believe anything, that's a little absurd. belief is not only a valuable and necessary component of humanity, it's also inevitable (most people tend to believe, consciously or not, that they will wake up tomorrow, for example).

[Objective]

Kind of confused oats. I'm I, or threadstarters post, talking about getting the terminology wrong? I always assumed atheism was the complete lack of belief and 100% on scientific facts. There's a higher chance of aliens existing than not SOURCE (http://gizmodo.com/5875481/the-possibility-of-alien-life-is-now-extraordinarily-high), so atheists believing they exist kinda makes sense.

String theory and energies etc. comes to mind when we're talking about ghosts and spirits along with science, but they're still too far off to be labeled as anything else than hearsay in the atheist community. So I wouldn't label anyone believing in those sort of things as atheists.

Feel free to correct me.

[Answer]

This video is actually really relevant, and I like his comparison to Christianity and people who are Christians sharing different beliefs. I agree with these sentiments exactly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH2VZ600q2o


My underlying question here is *why* don't Atheists (and I do mean Atheists, not agnostics.) believe in God? I can only think of 2 reasons

1) They're just being dicks, attempting to go against the grain and choose not to believe in God to spite everyone who IS religious

or

2) They believe that there is little to no evidence supporting the idea of God, and that there are too many inconsistencies with science and religion to justify their beliefs, so they have chosen to reject the existence of a God

I think the only rational core underlying *REASON* for being an atheist in the first place is number 2. Number 1 just seems like something a 12 year old might do to be rebellious

So if 2 is true for religion, I don't see how they could believe in spirits/ghosts/souls without having a HUGE fundamental inconsistency with their ideology



Also, aliens are an entirely different story. Science and Mathematics gives way more evidence for life on other planets than it does souls or spirits.

[Witty]

some terminology is getting confused here. atheism doesn't exclude believing in anything other than a god. unless you are equating the common belief of what ghosts are to a god, then atheists can believe in ghosts no problem. just like they can (and many of them do) believe in aliens.

I have to disagree....based on the sheer amount of galaxies in the observable universe many scientists have come to the conclusion that it is a mathematical certainty that some other life form exists. Believing in God based on no evidence whatsoever is not the same as observing the universe and coming to a conclusion based on what can be seen. No scientist worth the title is saying they believe aliens definitely exist, that would completely go against their profession, a scientist works on facts and evidence they are just saying that the evidence points to the existence of other life. That is very different than blind belief in God or ghosts.

[Witty]

As for believing you will wake up in the morning, that's because you have woken every morning, so if you go to bed and think 'I believe I will wake in the morning' really what you are doing is making an hypothesis based on past experience. You are in bed, you don't feel unwell, you are about to sleep, it is likely you will wake in the morning.

It does not require belief.

[Objective]

I don't see how they could believe in spirits/ghosts/souls without having a HUGE fundamental inconsistency with their ideology

That's because they can't. Atheists don't believe anything, they point towards facts. Spirits/ghosts/souls doesn't point towards facts. Also, atheists doesn't disregard God, spirits or ghosts as long as it can be proved, but it can't, so they don't unless new evidence comes to light.

[Witty]

Also, one more thing.

I don't even know why people of faith use the word belief...surely if they worship a God they should KNOW he is real, otherwise why are they worshipping him?

Nothing should really require belief.

[oats]

Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

I agree with you (and Witty) that aliens are far more likely to exist, but as of today there is just as much actual scientific evidence for alien existence as there is for the existence of a deity. IE none. so in terms of evidence or data-driven analysis, aliens are equivalent to a god insofar as belief is concerned.

[oats]

As for believing you will wake up in the morning, that's because you have woken every morning, so if you go to bed and think 'I believe I will wake in the morning' really what you are doing is making an hypothesis based on past experience. You are in bed, you don't feel unwell, you are about to sleep, it is likely you will wake in the morning.

It does not require belief.

as long as death is a possibility (as it always is, since it's inevitable), then yes, you are believing that you're going to wake up. you can't know the future. I understand what you're saying, but hypothesizing is just as devoid of certainty as belief is. It's just that usually hypotheses yield results, whereas beliefs do not. think of it like this: if you hypothesize that you'll wake up in the morning, and you die in your sleep, what's the difference between being wrong in your hypothesis or being wrong in your belief that you were gonna wake up?

[Witty]

Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

I agree with you (and Witty) that aliens are far more likely to exist, but as of today there is just as much actual scientific evidence for alien existence as there is for the existence of a deity. IE none. so in terms of evidence or data-driven analysis, aliens are equivalent to a god insofar as belief is concerned.

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

[Fig]

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

[Witty]

as long as death is a possibility (as it always is, since it's inevitable), then yes, you are believing that you're going to wake up. you can't know the future. I understand what you're saying, but hypothesizing is just as devoid of certainty as belief is. It's just that usually hypotheses yield results, whereas beliefs do not. think of it like this: if you hypothesize that you'll wake up in the morning, and you die in your sleep, what's the difference between being wrong in your hypothesis or being wrong in your belief that you were gonna wake up?

The difference is that it simply isn't belief if you have evidence and reasoning behind it, believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it. Waking in the morning is supported by the fact you have woken every morning, based on that evidence you get the conclusion you are likely to wake, it is not evidence you will definitely wake up, it is evidence that you probably will, if you believe you will definitely wake, you are wrong in believing that because you may not.

[Witty]

Scientists should just not believe anything? They gotta believe sometimes

People say scientists believe what they see, which is incorrect, when you see something the need for belief disappears and it becomes knowledge.

All belief is blind, by nature...sometimes what people perceive as belief is just their minds drawing conclusions based on evidence. Such as the belief of waking up in the morning, or the belief that it will rain in Ireland. This isn't belief, it is a subconcscious hypothesis based on experience.

[oats]

most scientists are driven by their beliefs. that's why they become scientists in the first place - they want to know for sure. One of my former professors (Yakir Aharonov) is a firm believer in aliens, and he won the national medal of science for physics. Probably 100% of the scientists who worked in the SETI believe in aliens. Like you said though, scientists have more of a rationale than the average religious believer, but that doesn't make their belief any different - it's still based off of zero actual evidence.

also, beliefs can and do change. I've changed many of my beliefs throughout my lifetime. but your point isn't lost on me - scientific beliefs are generally more fluid and flexible than religious beliefs. but there are plenty of scientists who are stubborn to change their ideas, even in the face of evidence. especially if it's ideas/theories they developed themselves.

[Answer]

I think you're missing the point tho, nobody worthy of calling themself a scientist should be saying they believe in aliens, they should not be dealing in belief, a real scientist would just observe and draw conclusions based on those observations, that is their profession. Belief is unneccessary and it doesn't have any worth as far as I can see, if you can't prove something to be true then don't speak it as truth. Why would you convince yourself something is definitely true if you do not have any evidence for it? That is very unscientific, all a real scientist should be saying is 'based on the evidence, other life forms must exist' they can not claim to believe it until they see it, at which point belief is useless because it becomes knowledge. Making an hypothesis is not the same as believing something, because if the evidence shows this hypothesis to be wrong they will change it, people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*

[Fart]

aliens, b

[oats]

The difference is that it simply isn't belief if you have evidence and reasoning behind it, believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it. Waking in the morning is supported by the fact you have woken every morning, based on that evidence you get the conclusion you are likely to wake, it is not evidence you will definitely wake up, it is evidence that you probably will, if you believe you will definitely wake, you are wrong in believing that because you may not.

again, it is a belief - it doesn't matter how probable something is, if it's uncertain and you perceive it as certain, then there is an element of belief involved. it goes without saying that the amount of belief involved with waking up in the morning is much smaller than the amount of belief required for a god, but belief is still there. don't be afraid, witty. embrace your non-believing beliefs!

[Witty]

but there are plenty of scientists who are stubborn to change their ideas, even in the face of evidence. especially if it's ideas/theories they developed themselves.

This is ego, nothing more and nothing less, and they don't deserve to call themselves scientists if they do this. I'm not saying scientists are perfect, I'm just saying their profession dictates they must not deal in belief, and if some of them do, they are being unscientific. If a scientist is saying he believes aliens are definitely real, he is a fraud because it has never been observed. I think, as I've said, hypotheses and beliefs get confused very often, a scientist pursues something he does not know to be true because evidence has shown it is likely to be true, that is an hypothesis. A belief by definition is the acceptance of something that has absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true.

[Witty]

You focusing too much on semantics and the word belief. I could say "I believe that if I leave a full bottle of water in the freezer, the liquid will eventually expand, causing the bottle (or at least part of it) to "explode" and that would have a scientific basis.

You're correct - no real scientist would EVER state that life on another planet is a certainty, but they CAN say that based on observational data in regards to the Earth's conception and organism evolution on this planet, respective to the similar conditions appearing in millions of other pockets of the universe, that they *believe* that life on other planets is *probable*

In that case they would be using the word belief incorrectly.

[Witty]

Anyways, it's 7am and I believe I should start getting ready for work.

[Fig]

Alright faggot see ya later

[oats]

right - just like the idea that you'll wake up tomorrow has no observable evidence. until you wake up. in the same way, christians have no observable evidence that Jesus is their savior and will return to rapture them. until it happens.

to be clear, I don't believe it will happen, but I don't know. and if it did happen, their belief would be just as valid as a hypothesis as anything.

some footnotes: belief is the acceptance of something that has less than 100% evidence. also, religious people pursue their beliefs just as much as scientists do, just in a very different way.

[Fig]

I take it back immediately

[Objective]

Objective atheism only refers to not believing in the existence of a God or god. I've never heard anyone say that ghosts=gods, so by definition an atheist can believe in a ghost. Of course, this is unlikely, because the existence of ghosts is often associated with ideas of afterlife and supernatural gods etc, but it depends on what you believe a ghost is; they aren't necessarily exclusive beliefs.

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

[Fig]

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

Cynical

[oats]

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

a scientist? naturally, any religious affiliation is unfalsifiable, so I wouldn't group the two categories.

[Witty]

So, atheism is simply just going against existence of a God? I had to resort to wikipediaing to be sure, and it seems to say that as well. It's only relating to the rejection of deities, not ghosts/spirits etc. So, what category is a person that denies anything that isn't scientifically proved until new evidence comes to light called if atheism doesn't cover it?

I don't think anybody denies anything that isn't scientifically proven, I just think they refuse to accept that it is DEFINITELY true until it is proven, as I think everyone should do.

Which is why I don't believe in belief, it seems unnecessary.

I still think there's a difference in saying 'there is a good chance that will turn out to be true' and saying 'I believe that is true'

[oats]

I don't think anybody denies anything that isn't scientifically proven, I just think they refuse to accept that it is DEFINITELY true until it is proven, as I think everyone should do.

Which is why I don't believe in belief, it seems unnecessary.

I still think there's a difference in saying 'there is a good chance that will turn out to be true' and saying 'I believe that is true'

there is a difference, it's in the amount of belief required. if statistics could be applied to things like belief in god and belief in waking up tomorrow, perhaps that spectrum of belief would range from 0.1% and 99.9%, but as long as it's not a statistical certainty (like death, for example), belief is present.

[Witty]

I think we are defining belief differently.

[oats]

so you believe in a different definition, then?

and we really aren't defining them differently, I'm just being more specific in its boundaries. you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief, I'm saying anything less than 100% certain involves belief. There is a greater rationale for my boundaries, but you're free to believe what you want ;)

[Witty]

so you believe in a different definition, then?

and we really aren't defining them differently, I'm just being more specific in its boundaries. you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief, I'm saying anything less than 100% certain involves belief. There is a greater rationale for my boundaries, but you're free to believe what you want ;)

That's not really what I'm saying tho, what I'm saying is that belief is for things for which we have no evidence, anyone saying they believe aliens exist is wrong, they should be saying it is extremely likely that aliens exist, belief is an acceptance of something that can not be proven, I don't accept anything that can not be proven, I don't believe I will wake in the morning, I think it is likely I will wake in the morning, but if I said I believed it I would be saying that in my mind it is true, which would be incorrect. Anybody saying they believe in God is saying that his existence is definitely true, which again is incorrect. If you believe anything you can not see, you are wrong in having that belief, even if it turns out to be true, you shouldn't believe it if you can't see it. Once you see it, it becomes knowledge and you don't need belief anymore. That's what I meant when I said about people who talk about their belief that god exists, they shouldn't believe god exists they should either know he exists or think it is likely he exists, belief is the acceptance of something as truth without any reason or evidence behind it.

[Witty]

but yo - i gotta go to work, I am probably wrong as you are much more intelligent, but I did my best to get my point of view across lol 'twas a pleasure.

[oats]

you say anything greater than 0% certainty does not count as a belief

belief is for things for which we have no evidence

A belief by definition is the acceptance of something that has absolutely no evidence to suggest it is true.

people with beliefs will not do so because they have no evidence in the first place.

believing something is to admit you have nothing to support it.

it kinda seems like that's exactly what you're saying lol. and yes, beliefs can be proven. it rained for the past three days. I believe it will rain tomorrow. I have a good amount of evidence to suggest that this belief (or hypothesis - you can use them interchangeable in this instance) is correct. But the only time I will KNOW it is correct is when it starts raining. think of it like this and tell me where you disagree:

belief and knowledge are opposites.

to know something means that you have 100% statistical certainty IE I know I'm going to die since 100% of humans so far have died, I know the sun exists because we would not be alive without it, I know I woke up this morning because it was experienced and observed (it happened).

if there is no statistical certainty, you cannot know something IE there is a 60% chance it will rain tomorrow based off of previous experience and meteorological data, there is a 99% chance I will wake up tomorrow because I am sheltered from all but the most unlikely causes of death tonight, etc.

BUT - is there any chance, even .00000001% that I could die tonight? Sure - it's bound to happen one day, and until something happens (is experienced and observed), there is not 100% certainty.

Therefore, nothing in the future can be known (with the exception of death). The future is not knowledge.

belief=certainty minus statistical probability.

therefore, belief pervades all things that aren't known with statistical certainty, in varying degrees.

[oats]

but yo - i gotta go to work, I am probably wrong as you are much more intelligent, but I did my best to get my point of view across lol 'twas a pleasure.

hey I'm stoned and getting ready for bed lol, I enjoyed the discussion.

[Witty]

it kinda seems like that's exactly what you're saying lol. and yes, beliefs can be proven. it rained for the past three days. I believe it will rain tomorrow. I have a good amount of evidence to suggest that this belief (or hypothesis - you can use them interchangeable in this instance) is correct. But the only time I will KNOW it is correct is when it starts raining. think of it like this and tell me where you disagree:

belief and knowledge are opposites.

to know something means that you have 100% statistical certainty IE I know I'm going to die since 100% of humans so far have died, I know the sun exists because we would not be alive without it, I know I woke up this morning because it was experienced and observed (it happened).

if there is no statistical certainty, you cannot know something IE there is a 60% chance it will rain tomorrow based off of previous experience and meteorological data, there is a 99% chance I will wake up tomorrow because I am sheltered from all but the most unlikely causes of death tonight, etc.

BUT - is there any chance, even .00000001% that I could die tonight? Sure - it's bound to happen one day, and until something happens (is experienced and observed), there is not 100% certainty.

Therefore, nothing in the future can be known. The future is not knowledge.

belief=certainty minus statistical probability.

therefore, belief pervades all things that aren't known with statistical certainty, in varying degrees.

Surely by definition belief is saying something is true when you can not prove it though, that is different than making a prediction, that's what I don't get with what ur saying....it has rained the last 3 days, so I can say it is likely to rain tomorrow, but if I said I believe it will rain tomorrow I am saying it is definitely true, that is the definition of belief, an acceptance of truth, rather than an acceptance of likelihood. Belief and hypothesis can not be used interchangeably because they mean two completely different things, an hypothesis is based on likelihood and belief is based on a perceived truth.

[Mael]

believe
biˈlēv/
verb

-- hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.

I think we are defining belief differently.

I think it is likely I will wake in the morning

belief
biˈlēf/
noun

-- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Once you see it, it becomes knowledge and you don't need belief anymore.

My God, there is so much wrong with this statement. You're either ill-informed or stupid. Obviously, you haven't heard of illusions - that the senses are fallible.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/infallibility-of-sense-perception-29558.html

Once you get past the problems of qualia, consider the statement "the color red is red is true." Well, not it's not. You have this problem;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum

If you're some sort of genius and figure that one out, then tackle the Hard Problem of consciousness. The complexity of this subject knows no end.

But keep spewing nonsense if it makes you feel better.

[Witty]

And word, enjoy being stoned...I'm off it for a while :( gotta get the lungs back in working order lol peace brah

[oats]

in that instance they can be, and we agree - belief is accepting something as true without absolute certainty. clearly, some things are more certain than others, but as long as there is some uncertainty, a degree of belief is involved.

as far as prediction vs. belief goes, I'd say a prediction is a type of belief, one that uses multiple tools to develop a numerical probability to something happening or existing, whereas a blind belief would be a belief that has no rationale or numerical probability. it may sound semantic, but you believe in the likelihood of something.

I think the obstacle here is the common associations of belief/believing are usually that specific genre of belief (blind). I'm thinking in strict terms of, if you don't/can't know something, you must believe some aspect about it.

[Witty]

believe
biˈlēv/
verb

-- hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.

believe
verb [T] /bɪˈliːv/
A2 to think that something is true, correct, or real: Strangely, no one believed us when we told them we'd been visited by a creature from Mars.
[+ that] He believes that all children are born with equal intelligence.
She's arriving tomorrow, I believe. "Is she coming alone?" "We believe not/so (= we think she is not/is)." [+ obj + to infinitive ] I believe her to be the finest violinist in the world. [+ obj + adj ] All the crew are missing, believed dead.

^All examples of the verb to believe, all examples of something that is not factual




belief
biˈlēf/
noun

-- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

Exactly 'an acceptance' if you have to accept something is true you don't have infallibale proof and therefore should not be accepting it in the first place



My God, there is so much wrong with this statement. You're either ill-informed or stupid. Obviously, you haven't heard of illusions - that the senses are fallible.
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/infallibility-of-sense-perception-29558.html

Once you get past the problems of qualia, consider the statement "the color red is red is true." Well, not it's not. You have this problem;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_spectrum

If you're some sort of genius and figure that one out, then tackle the Hard Problem of consciousness. The complexity of this subject knows no end.

But keep spewing nonsense if it makes you feel better.


Your second point is not really relevant to the discussion, I understand entirely that the senses are fallible, and that our truth is based on our perception of the world, but but that does mean we should blindly accept things that we can not prove, we should not accept anything as truth if there is no evidence for it, which is what we are discussing. I am not saying ghosts don't exist, or that red is definitely red, I am saying that until something is proven it should not be accepted as truth, and to believe something is to accept it as truth. I'm not saying there are not things we can not see or feel, I am saying that until they are discovered why would we believe them?...because they might exist? It's like light....in the spectrum of light we see very litte, but we have discovered other light that our senses don't pick up, so we accept this as truth....however, that could not be accepted as truth or 'believed' until it was discovered. So I don't know where you are going with that.

I don't think you are as intelligent as you think you are, most who resort to insults are not.

[Mael]

1. Never claimed I was intelligent. But I do research these things and visit philosophy and physics forums daily, viewing endless arguments on exactly this
2. You're the one who is usually condescending, and I even told you to stop being that way before
3. lol @ that not being relevant to the conversation. If you knew anything about belief systems, you'd know it starts at the sentience level

[Witty]

1. Never claimed I was intelligent. But I do research these things and visit philosophy and physics forums daily, viewing endless arguments on exactly this
2. You're the one who is usually condescending, and I even told you to stop being that way before
3. lol @ that not being relevant to the conversation. If you knew anything about belief systems, you'd know it starts at the sentience level


1. As do I
2. My condescension is tongue in cheek as is most of what I say on here
3. Ok, but how is that relevant? Why does that mean we should believe what we do not know to be true? There are things we do not know, for sure, but even if I believe something and it turns out to be true, I was still wrong to believe it before it had been proven, was I not?

[Mael]

"I was still wrong to believe it before it had been proven"

Search for David Hume and read up on his Problem of induction. Once you grasp the concept that there are things that cannot be proven or justified, you might finally understand why faith and belief are necessary, if not, inherent to sentient beings and crucial to a healthy human mind. Logic limits men, but that doesn't mean we dispose of it completely. Its more logical and reasonable to think some guy in the desert has a 1% chance of living and is going to die out there - but he'll take that 1% against all odds because logic can suck dick.

Belief is very important. Humans are more emotional beings than logical. And it helps -

http://www.newswise.com/articles/new-study-finds-spirituality-and-religion-may-protect-against-major-depression-by-thickening-brain-cortex

Believe in something, preferably positive.