Why would you have to believe something is true, if it was true?

[TheSupremeAtheist]

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

 

[HonestJoe]

Because what we actually know is true and what we treat as true for practical purposes are two different things and because the English language is messed up.

At least, that’s what I believe is the case.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

People believe in God because it comforts them.

 

[Laika]

Not 100% clear on the question to answer it, but I think I know what your getting at. As a rule of thumb, if something is true you have a responsibility to believe it. The problem is not necessarily what someones believes- it's what actions those beliefs lead to.

For example, some people have argued that Jesus Christ did not exist- it would undermine Christianity, perhaps fatally and will affect how they behave around Chistians. Will they be hostile for instance to Christianity or to religion in general? If someone says that Jesus was White, does that affect how we percieve white people as having a civilising mission on behalf of Christiainity? If someone says that the Confederacy fought for states rights, it ignores or diminishes the role of slavery and white supremacy in the US civil war. Or that the US was founded as a Christian nation, in relation to how a person reads the First Amendment seperation of Church and State.

If someone denies the Holocaust took place (or it's Soviet eqivilent, the Ukranian Terror-Famine or Holomodor), it dramatically changes how a person evalutes Nazism (and Communism) and -thought admittedly unlikely- increases the chance that they will play a role in perpetuating any future atrocities. If someone denies climate change, they may continue to support putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

On a less political area, think of what happens if someone doesn't accept the law of gravity, or a ships navigator doesn't believe the earth is round, or that a magnetised compass points to the magnetic north pole.

In so far as knowledge is common property, it is a general "loss" to mankind if we selectively ignore our ancestors experiences and the lessons we can learn from them. what we ignore, what we deliberately try to forget can have much bigger influence on how we see ourselves, what actions we can justify and the consequences we have.

Ignorance has consequences as does our Knowledge. In particular, propaganadists know this and can exploit our ignorance to unwittingly serve their cause and this is why "historical revisionism" and "Anti-Science" are such a powerful weapon in their ideological arsenal. By attacking the truth they can affect people's perception of "reality" and therefore their behaviour. By being informed, we can improve the chances that our consequences will be good.

 

[allfoak]

Belief is a deadly game.
It is deadly for all no matter what the belief.
Atheist, or otherwise.
Those that proclaim to know anything based upon belief are delusional.

It seems much of what we think we know is based upon belief.
Which would mean that we really don't know much.

 

[Altfish]

Belief is a deadly game.
It is deadly for all no matter what the belief.
Atheist, or otherwise.
Those that proclaim to know anything based upon belief are delusional.

It seems much of what we think we know is based upon belief.
Which would mean that we really don't know much.

Atheism isn't a belief, it is a statement on non-belief.

 

[allfoak]

Atheists believe they are correct based upon the idea that the belief of others is false.
They have nothing to back up their claims that religious beliefs are not provable.
If either one was able to show with certainty that the other was wrong this conversation would be over.

I understand that those that call themselves atheists are smart enough to see that belief does not stand alone.
Belief without action is peter pan (magical) thinking.

The flaw in the atheist way of thinking is that by dismissing all of religion they have also dismissed an entire aspect of themselves.
To dismiss all of religion because of belief however is also peter pan (magical) thinking.
Religion is not going to go away no matter how much atheists "believe" it should.
The reason that religion is not going away seems to be an issue that atheists have yet to fully address.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

Good question. We dont have to believe in something for it to be true. Are you getting at, god is only true because people believe in him?

If so, makes god a figment of our mind. I know thats true, but wont claim it as true-fact. Just a belief.

I wish believers particpated in questions like this.

Doesnt change their belief to really think about the nature of it from being mythology kept from our pass to a product of our minds.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

Universe creators like God?

or multiverses, M theory, or any naturalistic mechanism?

Same applies, we have no empirical evidence either way.

One big difference being;

One side acknowledges their faith.

 

[BSM1]

Truth is objective, belief is subjective. Although I have read your post there is no requirement for me to even believe you exist. You see people every day denying irrefutable truth when it comes to their beliefs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

Err...I'm not 100% clear on the point you're trying to make. I'm gonna assume you're comparing 'reality' to 'belief', but there are some obvious counterpoints. What's your opinion about Julius Caesar?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

You're operating from a bizarre interpretation of the word "belief". Evidence serves as justification for a belief.

If you accept a premise as true, you believe it.
If you accept a premise as true and have "proof and evidence" that the premise is true, then you believe it for good reasons.

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

 

[Augustus]

Atheism isn't a belief, it is a statement on non-belief.

It is a belief that no gods exist; a belief the statement 'god exists' is false

If you understand the word god, you can't not hold a belief about god.

For an example. Do people have to believe that George Washington existed? No cause there is proof and evidence that he did. So there's no need to believe that he did. Plus he was just a president (Something we created) of one country, Not a creator of the universe.

Do you have to believe something that is true? Well unless it does you some kind of harm then, not really.

If not believing something that was true benefitted you in some way then why should you have to believe it? I personally couldn't not believe something I knew was true, but if you could and it benefitted you while causing no harms then why not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a belief that no gods exist; a belief the statement 'god exists' is false

No, that's anti-theism.

If you understand the word god, you can't not hold a belief about god.

I'm not sure anyone understands the word "god". It's a very slippery word.

 

[Augustus]

No, that's anti-theism.

No it isn't. That's an opposition to or hostility to theism.

An atheist believes that no gods exist or that 'god exists' is false. This doesn't mean they can prove it or don't accept that it is possible, just that, given present evidence, they believe it.

Still can't understand why it is such a problem to say it is a belief. It's not belief system, just a belief.

I'm not sure anyone understands the word "god". It's a very slippery word.

No doubt. But you have a belief about the word god still.

You can't have an absence of belief about words you know.

From experience, this topic seems intractable here though

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No it isn't. That's an opposition to or hostility to theism.

... such as because the person believes theism to be false.

An atheist believes that no gods exist or that 'god exists' is false.

Not necessarily.

Setting aside the "babies are atheists" sort of issues, many adult, aware, intelligent atheists take a position like this:

- claims of gods are unjustified.
- whether any gods exist is an open question.
- claims should be justified before they're accepted as true.

This position can be described as lack of belief in gods, but it can't be described as belief that gods don't exist. The beliefs that these atheists hold are about the quality of theistic claims and arguments... but the fact that someone has made a bad argument for a thing doesn't imply that there can't be a good argument for it out there somewhere.

This doesn't mean they can prove it or don't accept that it is possible, just that, given present evidence, they believe it.

Still can't understand why it is such a problem to say it is a belief. It's not belief system, just a belief.

Because it's not a belief. It also implies that atheists are necessarily irrational and closed-minded.

(Not to say that no atheists are irrational or closed-minded; it's just not a requirement for atheism)

Also, when someone tells you what they mean when they describe themselves as an atheist, it's impudent and presumptive to tell them, effectively, "I know you SAY that you mean THIS, but what you really mean is THAT."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No doubt. But you have a belief about the word god still.

You can't have an absence of belief about words you know.

From experience, this topic seems intractable here though

Let me get this straight: you think that if we understand all the words in the claim "a god exists", we can't be undecided on the claim; we MUST believe it to be true or false?

Does this work for other claims? Take this claim: the world's shortest man lives in Warsaw. You understand all the words that make up this claim, right? Without googling it (and assuming you aren't some world record junkie), you are either convinced that it's false or convinced that it's true?