Who Cares About Evidence?

To paraphrase the OP, the limited amount that pertains to this forum reads: "It's ridiculous for atheists to reject an entity that doesn't meet the veracity of perhaps the most powerful method(s) of understanding reality that mankind has ever developed."

Everything else they wrote seems more appropriate in a different forum.

 

Let me make sure I understand. Are you saying that if I decide to believe in, say, alien visitations, then I'm not in error as long as it can be neither proven nor disproved? Even though there is no evidence of alien visitations? Is this correct?

This is an intriguing way of thought. I must admit it had never occurred to me.

 

I'm asking you "What is the error in believing in something that can neither be proven or disproved?" I only asked a question. I haven't stated anything. And the question still hasn't been answered. If you do not wish to answer that is fine, i'll drop the question.

 

There may be a succinct answer to your question but I don't have it. The important question to me is "am I in error". And to answer that I have to look for evidence.

 

One problem here is that we're running into an equivalence between evidence and proof. Would there be "error" for an adult to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or wood sprites? Of course. Only the most hard core irrationalist would argue that there is any possibility that such creatures exist. Such beliefs may be harmless, and as a matter of policy we might want to let these folks enjoy their delusions, as long as they don't seem to be a danger to themselves or others. But delusion it is. On the other hand, when we bring in "proof", we're talking not just about evidence. Evidence is some observation or sign that supports a belief that something is really true, e.g., I know that Santa exists because there are presents under the tree on Christmas day and he always answers the letters I leave him. If my parents fess up that they left the presents and wrote the letters, that would be counter-evidence, and I'd have to decide whether or not to retain my belief. If atheists think there is no evidence at all to support a belief in God, it would not be ridiculous for them not to believe.(and whether or not Christians believe evidence is needed for their own beliefs would seem to be irrelevant,) As others have said, though, I don't know of many Christians who think faith is completely blind and that they don't need any evidence at all for their belief--if only the "evidence" of Scripture. No evidence at all would be, by definition, irrationalism.

On the other hand, when we bring in "proof", we're talking not just about evidence. Proof has to do with sufficiency of evidence. Proof is enough evidence to convince not only oneself but other reasonable persons that something is true. Just how much evidence is needed depends on the decision-making context. In criminal law, it is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; in science, it's something like that, except that the "jurors" are other experts in the field. In civil trials, it's a "preponderance of the evidence"--i.e., "more likely than not", or as some prefer over a 50% probability. In most everyday situations, however, administrators use more practical, though less reliable, standards: substantial evidence (enough to convince a reasonable person even though other reasonable persons may be convinced otherwise); probable cause (more likely than not in the judgment of an experienced officer), and even, in some circumstances, reasonable suspicion. There's also the question of what constitutes "evidence". In most of my decisions, I'm willing to allow intuition, experience and "street smarts' into the process of supporting my decisions. I try to go by the substantial evidence test in forming opinions, since it's simply impractical to use a more rigorous standard in deciding on, say, who to vote for in the coming election. Set the standard any higher, and the person won't be voting at all. I'm convinced that there's substantial evidence that one of the candidates would potentially be a "disaster" (to use his favorite word) to the country, while the other would be "same old, same old" and conventionally corrupt. As the bumper stickers used to say in the Louisiana contest between KKK leader David Duke and corrupt Edwin Edwards, "I'm Voting for the Crook". Is that a rational decision? I use the same standard in making decisions on religion, accepting the risk of being wrong.

 

The dangerous part about religion is people are so convinced what they believed for so long was the only truth, that they would do the same thing that happened to Jesus all over again. Swedenborg spoke of the schizophrenia of Christianity. Beliefs are dangerous, holding on to a belief and not remaining flexable is not intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to navigate new experiences.

 

in and of itself, there is no error in such a belief.
the error arises if/when an individual allows such belief to dictate every decision or aspect of their life.

adhering to a stance dogmatically and stubbornly on either side of such a belief is a far greater error.

 

Yes, good point.

 

So the only error is that its wrong?

 

it is an honest inquiry .
Haven't read any post of his yet that can't be found in a fortune cookie.
I'm calling pretentious bullshit facade.

 

It isn't an error to believe in anything if it engenders something positive in you. If I believe in the Easter Bunny just because it puts me in a good mood every day, I don't see how it's an error.

Similarly with God, you're talking about something that knows your every whim. So what can belief in such a thing do for you? Well, maybe it can help you to be honest with yourself, as you couldn't possibly lie to God. Maybe it helps you to see the big picture, if you're trying to see things from God's point of view. There could be any number of positive consequences. It doesn't always have to be negative.

Man you are one tough cookie.

 

I gave thedope the same ration of shit when we first encountered each other, then he started conversing with me like a human, at least up until the last few weeks he was here....LOL

Last I heard from thedope he had just become a grandfather.

 

Exactly. I don't believe in a God but i know many people who do and it benefits them in many ways. They've said their lives changed for the better. I don't believe in Santa Claus but children do and it makes their Christmas a magical experience.

 

I can't formulate the best argument for proving that there are errors in taking something on faith alone, but I can point out at least a few possible consequences...

 

Well, yes, That's what "error" means. It comes from the Latin word meaning "wandering" (from the truth) and Webster's says it means: "something that is not correct : a wrong action or statement." Belief in Santa may be charming in kids, but probably not for adults, and it's factually false. I think it's useful in preserving clarity of thought and speech to say so. The fact that Christianity has turned many lives around (mine being one) is certainly something to be said in its favor, but if it were false (which I believe is not the case) I think it's useful to know that. I'm a Christian mainly because I think core teachings attributed to Jesus are self-evidently true, but there are a lot of beliefs that many people consider fundamental to Christianity that I regard as either false or not literally true.e.g., the virgin birth. One problem with believing falsehoods is that it clouds critical thought, which could be a problem in other areas: e.g., thinking that Donald Trump will make America great again.

 

To judge is human, even the blind find the path with effort. Only fools speak, but at least theirs is an honest speech. When the wise speak is it not as muddied water and are they not then fools as well. Truth cannot be spoken only known. For it is as a whisper on the wind, snatched away before it is ever heard.

 

That is already often the case regardless of beliefs. The error would be using those beliefs as an excuse to create havoc for yourself or others. I think there is an equal balance of positive and negative results in believing in something that can not be proven. The belief in the unknown can also have the opposite affect of what you stated. But of course that would rarely make the news.

I wouldn't see it as an error if i believed in God and it benefited me in the long run even if I was wrong. Especially if it leads you to make the right decisions in life. The rights would outweigh the wrong. You can not believe in God, be "right" and make all the wrong decisions in life. There would be more error in the later despite being right.

 

Humans say obliviousness is bliss
People like to use their senses to know if something is real or not. How can you just take everything in faith. That is naive and is more than likely to lead to your early demise.
Look at how Jesus himself died. He put faith in the wrong people and gambled using his life. Betrayed by his own.

 

Listen, Santa is based on a real person, who is probably more historical than Jesus, so get off of my back for believing in Santa Claus. My belief doesn't revolve around a guy who flies around the world giving gifts to children, although I believe in the basic premise of that as well. Santa is all around a force for good in this weary world.