What's the purpose behind believing in something that cannot be proven true?

[bobhikes]

So what ? I hope being agnostic doesn't provide any special right, does it ?

None at all.

 

[chinu]

***MOD EDIT*** Humans believe everything which is unproven on a daily basis. The most obvious one is history.

Josephus, The wars of the Jews: Book 6.2.1
And now Titus gave orders to his soldiers that were with him to dig up the foundations of the tower of Antonia, and make him a ready passage for his army to come up;


Please prove that,
Titus ever existed
he did give such orders
his orders reached the soldiers (prove the existence of these soldiers first)
they did dig up the foundations of the tower (prove that tower ever existed in the first place, which was in Antonia)
they did make a ready passage
whether his army did come up through the passage made


Most important part, how many humans do you think will prove the above before they take Josephus' writings as a historical fact?


At last but not least, more likely your understand of the reality is a joke!
Moreover, ask yourself when is the last time you ever proved anything after every single info in this world being fed to your brain?

Like history, information must be in a form of human testimonies simply because humans lack the capability to get to a truth directly. The majority of them have to rely on someone (or an extremely small amount of humans) who has a direct contact to a truth in order to reach such a truth.

Where is history, and where is belief. No comparison at all.

Why do one need to believe in history ?

Perhaps, in certain cases where one need to prove him/herself as an inheritor in the court for the sake of ancestral property.

As far as I know, people read history just for the sake of historical-information given by someone with the possibility of getting different historical-information from another person at the one same time.

Two books CAN give two different information at the same time. It happen many times.

 

[Hawkins]

Where is history, and where is belief. No comparison at all.

Why do one need to believe in history ?

History requires your faith to believe as it is witnessed by humans and in the form of testimonies. So does the encountering of a God. (encountering God is a piece of history recorded down as witnessed by the prophets)

You can't even figure out the simplest!

 

[ppp]

History requires your faith to believe as it is witnessed by humans and in the form of testimonies. So does the encountering of a God. (encountering God is a piece of history recorded down as witnessed by the prophets)

You can't even figure out the simplest!

History does not require faith. I can accept, reject, or withhold belief for any historical claim, or any portion of a historical claim in proportion to the plausibility or the evidence. That isn't faith.

 

[Hawkins]

History does not require faith. I can accept, reject, or withhold belief for any historical claim, or any portion of a historical claim in proportion to the plausibility or the evidence. That isn't faith.

You simply repeat what I said. Faith is needed to accept a history to be a truth, which is contrary to a proof. You can only choose to accept or reject as it is about a testimony which cannot be proved but relies on faith to stand true.

Another question, how many humans accept (versus how many reject) history as factual without proof in your opinion?

 

[ppp]

You simply repeat what I said. Faith is needed to accept a history to be a truth, which is contrary to a proof.

Cute. But that is in no way what I said.

 

[Hawkins]

Cute. But that is in no way what I said.

So you mean faith is needed to take history as factual, or not. Don't dodge, I ask again. In your opinion, how many (roughly in terms of percentage) humans take history as factual without proof?

 

[ppp]

So you mean faith is needed to take history as factual.

Nope. That is what you said. Not me.

Faith is needed to accept a history to be a truth

Don't dodge

No point in continuing when you cannot understand what I write.

 

[Hawkins]

Nope. That is what you said. Not me.



No point in continuing when you cannot understand what I write.

I don't need to understand what you said in one post, you can clarify.

I ask again. In your opinion, how many (roughly in terms of percentage) humans take history as factual without proof?? You can't answer because the question exposes how you argue against the obvious with all your intellectual dishonesty. Dodging is what you can do!

 

[chinu]

History requires your faith to believe as it is witnessed by humans and in the form of testimonies.

History is just a piece of historical-information provided by someone. No faith required in the witness because the reader is simply a listener (NOT-Judge).

Possibly a different historical-information can be provided by another witness. There's NO reason for the reader to give his/her final judgement by putting faith on just one witness out of two, or many.

Nobody asks the reader to give his/her judgement, even the book.

 

[Hawkins]

History is just a piece of historical-information provided by someone. No faith required in the witness because the reader is simply a listener (NOT-Judge).

Possibly a different historical-information can be provided by another witness. There's NO need for the reader to give his/her final judgement by putting faith on just one witness out of two, or many.

You missed the point. History is so conveyed because humans can't reach a historical truth directly that they need to believe what is said in past human testimonies. The encountering of a God works in the same way.

 

[ppp]

I don't need to understand what you said in one post, you can clarify.

I do not see how when you think that the following two directly contradictory statements mean the same thing.

History requires your faith

History does not require faith.

 

[chinu]

You missed the point. History is so conveyed because humans can't reach a historical truth directly that they need to believe what is said in past human testimonies.

Question here is.. why to reach a historical truth ? No reason. No need of any kind.

Suppose reader reads two books having contrary historical statements. Why to judge which book is true ?

When, any reader start making judgements, he/she is no more a reader. That person immediately turns into judge. And, when there's a judgement of any kind, there's always a purpose hided behind.

The encountering of a God works in the same way.

This is NOT the case theist.

Yes, sometimes a general person start making judgements to become a theist. The purpose behind doing so is.. to become a theist.

But, once become a theist. No purpose thereafter. But, people unnecessarily start dishonouring theist by saying.. that theists have some purpose behind.

 

[Nakosis]

Friend, there's a big difference between "Hopeful" and a "Theist"

YOU are telling about a "Hopeful" person.
Whereas, am asking about a "Theist"

There's no real benefit in asking this question of an atheist then, as an atheist can only answer from the perspective of an atheist.

I'll have to await your correct answer from an actual theist.

 

[exchemist]

My answer is: No profit/benefit.
Hence, nobody believe something that cannot be proven to be true.

Actually, this is a very good question that often arise in the mind of an atheists. A very good question because.. Often, atheists get lost into thinkings finding answer to this question.

I really like this question because there's certainly something to be gained by NOT believing in claims until any evidence supports that belief.

BUT, what's the purpose behind believing in something that cannot be proven to be true? People unnecessarily dishonor theists.

You seem to to be making up silly untruths about atheists. I don't know why.

For a start, no theory in science can be proven true. And yet we place a good deal of faith in most of them. In fact, when you think about it, we rely all the time, in everyday life, on working assumptions of what we think is likely to be true. Only in fairly trivial instances can we actually prove it.

So it's a fairly useless yardstick for anything and in fact I don't believe anyone intelligent uses it, atheist or not.

What you say about believing things for which there is evidence is much nearer the mark, I think. That is true for science, for which a particular sort of evidence is required (reproducible evidence- the closest we can get to objective evidence). But that is nothing to do with proof.

 

[chinu]

There's no real benefit in asking this question of an atheist then, as an atheist can only answer from the perspective of an atheist.

No need to ask question even from any perspective.

Asking question is dishonouring theists because there’s No purpose hidden behind being theist.

I'll have to await your correct answer from an actual theist.

Why to await for any answer when No question can be asked ? Relax.

 

[Nakosis]

No need to ask question even from any perspective.

Asking question is dishonouring theists because there’s No purpose hidden behind being theist.


Why to await for any answer when No question can be asked ? Relax.

So why did you ask?

 

[chinu]

You seem to to be making up silly untruths about atheists. I don't know why.

Friend don’t get angry.

For a start, no theory in science can be proven true. And yet we place a good deal of faith in most of them. In fact, when you think about it, we rely all the time, in everyday life, on working assumptions of what we think is likely to be true. Only in fairly trivial instances can we actually prove it.

So it's a fairly useless yardstick for anything and in fact I don't believe anyone intelligent uses it, atheist or not.

What you say about believing things for which there is evidence is much nearer the mark, I think. That is true for science, for which a particular sort of evidence is required (reproducible evidence- the closest we can get to objective evidence). But that is nothing to do with proof.

Friend, there's a big difference between "Trapper" and a "Theist"

YOU are telling about a "Trapper” who has some hidden purpose.
Whereas, am asking about a "Theist" who has NO purpose behind being a theist.

 

[Spirit of Light]

My answer is: No profit/benefit.
Hence, nobody believe something that cannot be proven to be true.

Actually, this is a very good question that often arise in the mind of an atheists. A very good question because.. Often, atheists get lost into thinkings finding answer to this question.

I really like this question because there's certainly something to be gained by NOT believing in claims until any evidence supports that belief.

BUT, what's the purpose behind believing in something that cannot be proven to be true? People unnecessarily dishonor theists.

Proven to your self or to others?

 

[chinu]

So why did you ask?

Because atheists think that theists are NOT genuine people, and they dishonour them by saying so.

I don’t like this dishonour.