Why do atheists talk to believers so much?

[Trailblazer]

Yes, my point exactly. This is why I don't believe revealed knowledge is trustworthy, because only science in its proper domain using the scientific method can provide provable truth. Anything apart from that is speculation, best understood via philosophy (but not via revealed religions or revealed spiritual paths).

Why does truth have to be provable to be true? It can still be true even if it cannot be proven.
God cannot be proven to exist. Does that mean that God cannot exist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

@Trailblazer

Regardless whether it is important to you, what does the attributes/adjectives/(i.e. merciful and just) describe when you cannot define the nature of the thing you are describing?

In other words, how are the attributes useful and important when the thing they describe is not the definition of the Thing or Persons its describing?

 

[tayla]

Why does truth have to be provable to be true? It can still be true even if it cannot be proven.
God cannot be proven to exist. Does that mean that God cannot exist?

As you point out, the truth is true whether or not we can prove it. But this doesn't mean that every wild story is true.

If a truth claim can be disproven, we should reject it as truth and knowledge. Many so-called "facts" presented as truth by revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths fall in this category.

For everything not provable and not disprovable, we can believe whatever we want to, and this is the category in which God and spirituality lands. But I think it is wise to use sound philosophy in assessing truth claims in this category, and always being open to the idea that these truth claims simply might not be true (since they are not provable).

 

[Trailblazer]

As you point out, the truth is true whether or not we can prove it. But this doesn't mean that every wild story is true.

Well, obviously not.

If a truth claim can be disproven, we should reject it as truth and knowledge. Many so-called "facts" presented as truth by revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths fall in this category.

I fully agree.

For everything not provable and not disprovable, we can believe whatever we want to, and this is the category in which God and spirituality lands. But I think it is wise to use sound philosophy in assessing truth claims in this category, and always being open to the idea that these truth claims simply might not be true (since they are not provable).

God can spirituality truths cannot be proven objectively such that they become facts, but we can prove them to ourselves such that we know they are true. However, I think we should always be open to other possibilities... Once we have settled upon a belief, if new information were to come in that disproves it, then we should be willing to look at it and give it due consideration. Otherwise we are just being dogmatic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For everything not provable and not disprovable, we can believe whatever we want to, and this is the category in which God and spirituality lands. But I think it is wise to use sound philosophy in assessing truth claims in this category, and always being open to the idea that these truth claims simply might not be true (since they are not provable).

And there's where religion - and personal faith - typically fails, since making God the central focus of one's life is the opposite of how a person would behave if they were actually "always being open to the idea that these truth claims might not be true."

 

[tayla]

And there's where religion - and personal faith - typically fails, since making God the central focus of one's life is the opposite of how a person would behave if they were actually "always being open to the idea that these truth claims might not be true."

Exactly. But atheists should be open to the possibility that there might be a God. That is my objection to materialism; the assumption that it *is* true, and often condemning others who reject it.

 

[tayla]

God can spirituality truths cannot be proven objectively such that they become facts, but we can prove them to ourselves such that we know they are true.

Yes. Seems to me that the philosophical arguments for the existence of God and of the spiritual realm is sufficiently strong to warrant having "faith" in these.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Exactly. But atheists should be open to the possibility that there might be a God.

Kinda sorta. We should be open to a god that fits the facts at hand (i.e. that God is indistinguishable in every way we can measure from a god that doesn't exist) and consider how god-claims even ended up developing and coming forward. We don't need to be open to any god that comes with testable claims that we can determine are false.

And in practical terms, "being open to something" only translates into real changes in action when the reach a reasonable level of likelihood. Am I open to the possibility that a tiger has gotten loose from the zoo? Sure - things like that have happened before. Am I going to run instead of walk from my house to my car to minimize the time I could be pounced on by a tiger? No.

That is my objection to materialism; the assumption that it *is* true, and often condemning others who reject it.

I think that calling out materialism is generally a red herring. Acceptance versus rejection of materialism or the supernatural really has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of a claim; all that it should affect is whether a person has one category to put stuff in or two.

What I see happening a lot is that credulous people will label the things they want to believe in but can't justify "supernatural," and then claim that this exempts them from needing a rational justification.

If the issue really was just materalism vs. supernatural dualism, here's how the discussion would go:

- dualist: "I have good reason to believe that X, which I consider supernatural, exists."

- materialist: "I agree that we have good reason to believe that X exists, but I consider it to be material."

Any time we have a disagreement about whether something exists at all, it's about either standards of evidence or the facts at hand. It isn't about materialism vs. dualism.

 

[paarsurrey]

Oh, I for one have a lot of interest in theism.

Not that I have the choice, mind you. It is difficult to be oblivious to fantastic claims with no factual support that are nonetheless continually presented as justification for various actions that affect us as well.

Sorry.
The same way I have observed that Atheism/Agnosticism people have no positive evidence for the truth of their position/no-position.

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Sorry.
The same way I have observed that Atheism/Agnosticism people have no positive evidence for the truth of their position/no-position.

Regards

To this day I do not understand why you would expect evidence for atheism.

How, if at all, would that evidence be different from our testimonials that we do in fact disbelieve?

Why, if at all, would a need or even a convenience for any such difference to exist?

 

[tayla]

God is indistinguishable in every way we can measure from a god that doesn't exist

Yes, so true. At issue is the stuff we know (suspect) to be true that can't be measured via science using the scientific method. For example, the subjective experience of consciousness which has no equations of physics describing it.

 

[tayla]

We don't need to be open to any god that comes with testable claims that we can determine are false.

Yes. If something is provably false, we should reject it.

 

[tayla]

all that it should affect is whether a person has one category to put stuff in or two.

I would agree if science agreed that such things as subjective consciousness are part of the real universe, not merely an illusion of the neural network of the brain. But this idea is rare among Ph.D.'s as near as I can tell.

 

[tayla]

What I see happening a lot is that credulous people will label the things they want to believe in but can't justify "supernatural," and then claim that this exempts them from needing a rational justification.

Certain ideas of philosophy seem to point to non-scientific truths. I realize these can't be proved with the rigor of the scientific method, but the arguments seem strong enough to justify belief.

 

[tayla]

materialist: "I agree that we have good reason to believe that X exists, but I consider it to be material."

I would love for the Ph.D. scientists to admit that the subjective experience of consciousness exists as a thing unto itself and is, therefore, something that science can study. But instead, they prefer to make it not exist by calling it an illusion or an emergent property (whatever that is) of the neural network of the brain.

 

[tayla]

Any time we have a disagreement about whether something exists at all, it's about either standards of evidence or the facts at hand. It isn't about materialism vs. dualism.

I think the definition of what is and what isn't material is key. If the subjective experience of consciousness is material, then I would agree. But I have not encountered this admission by Ph.D. scientists.

 

[tayla]

And there's where religion - and personal faith - typically fails, since making God the central focus of one's life is the opposite of how a person would behave if they were actually "always being open to the idea that these truth claims might not be true."

Yes, I agree. But you can commune with God without knowing much about him/her other than the philosophical understanding that he/she probably exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would love for the Ph.D. scientists to admit that the subjective experience of consciousness exists as a thing unto itself and is, therefore, something that science can study. But instead, they prefer to make it not exist by calling it an illusion or an emergent property (whatever that is) of the neural network of the brain.

The fact that they don't accept your position isn't because they're materialists; it's because they don't find your position convincing.

 

[tayla]

The fact that they don't accept your position isn't because they're materialists; it's because they don't find your position convincing.

In the universe there is energy, matter, forces (electrostatic, gravity, F=MA, etc), entropy, the standard model of particles, space, time, etc. But there is no such thing as the subjective experience of conscious, yet it is clearly perceivable. What gives?

 

[Trailblazer]

The fact that they don't accept your position isn't because they're materialists; it's because they don't find your position convincing.

“because they don't find your position convincing.”

Why should it matter what is convincing? That has no correlation to what is actually true.