A confusion both athiests and believers have.

[Grantywanty]

A person can rationally believe in something they cannot prove to someone else. I can rationally believe that my dreams last night related to events during the day, though I would have a hard time proving that to certain neuroscientists. 1) for all they know I am lying or remembering incorrectly 2) they could easily dismiss it as anectdotal evidence or not fitting their theories of random synapse firings or whatever. Neither means I am wrong.
In arguements between athiests and believers I often see on both sides this assumption that it is not rational to believe something if you cannot prove it to others. This is hardly the case. Many people have believed things based on experience that only years, decades and even sometimes centuries later science was able to verify. And these beliefs were not therefore irrational. Also the fact that some, even many, or even most, believers in a certain phenomenon or essence believe because they were told to as children, because they seeking solace, or any other reason not based on experience, does not mean that all believers believe for these reasons.

Athiests are quite right to knock down logical arugments for the existence of God that are nto logical and are meant to convince. That is a whole other kettle of fish. Now the believer is claiming it CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO OTHERS. This requires a different kind of burden of proof.

But to simply believe is not necessarily irrational, however confident the rationalist or athiest is about the liklihood of this or that phenomenon or essence (eg. ghosts, God, rogue waves, etc.)

 

[Sarkus]

But to simply believe is not necessarily irrational, however confident the rationalist or athiest is about the liklihood of this or that phenomenon or essence (eg. ghosts, God, rogue waves, etc.)

Do not confuse the idea that just because something is irrational that it can not be correct:

If I draw one card from a pack - face down - and believe it to be the Ace of Spades - then this belief is irrational in the absence of any evidence.
At best I would rationally expect to have a 1 in 52 chance of it being the Ace of Spades.

But I could well have this religious-style belief that the card chosen is indeed the Ace of Spades.

The belief is irrational - you agree?
But it could be correct.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Not as irrational as you think. At least you have a nearly 2% chance of being correct. You also have proof that the Ace of Spades exists.

 

[VitalOne]

I agree, atheists seem to believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without evidence something must be false....instead of "evidence reveals what is true"....therefore if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility...

 

[NDS]

Why did Jesus perform miracles, and why do the gospels tell us about them? Are supernatural miracles not proof that Jesus is God? Therefore, belief in Jesus relies partially on belief in the credibility of Mathew and John which talk about his miracles, and which are not backed up by any other sources. This makes it tough.

 

[VitalOne]

Why did Jesus perform miracles?

Usually because there was a need, a need to solve problems, healing the sick, raising the dead, calming the storm, etc....

According to Gautama Buddha, who also performed many miracles, if you perform miracles the skeptical no matter what will insist that you are performing magic tricks, and the faithful will remain faithful, therefore it will create a division among others and is ultimately useless for converting others...

 

[NDS]

According to Gautama Buddha, who also performed many miracles, if you perform miracles the skeptical no matter what will insist that you are performing magic tricks, and the faithful will remain faithful, therefore it will create a division among others and is ultimately useless for converting others...

I'm going to have to disagree with this.

If I was born blind, and some guy came up to me, touched my eyes, and I could see for the first time, I would be very inclined to believe whatever that man said to me. Do you agree?

 

[VitalOne]

I'm going to have to disagree with this.

If I was born blind, and some guy came up to me, touched my eyes, and I could see for the first time, I would be very inclined to believe whatever that man said to me. Do you agree?

Yes, I would agree that the actual blind person would believe this, but skeptics, like say James Randi would insist that no matter what it didn't happen through a miraculous cause....

 

[NDS]

Yes, I would agree that the actual blind person would believe this, but skeptics, like say James Randi would insist that no matter what it didn't happen through a miraculous cause....

Miracle Turning water into Wine
John 2:11
11 This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
NKJV

Miracle: Miscellaneous
John 2:23
23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.
KJV

Miracle: Feeding of the 5,000
John 6:14
14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.
KJV

Miracle: Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead
John 11:45
45 Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him.
KJV

John 20:30-31
30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
KJV

John 1:45-49
45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, "We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote--Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph." 46 And Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see." 47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!" 48 Nathanael said to Him, "How do You know me?" Jesus answered and said to him, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." 49 Nathanael answered and said to Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!"

John 2:18-22
18 So the Jews answered and said to Him, "What sign do You show to us, since You do these things?" 19 Jesus answered and said to them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 20 Then the Jews said, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said."

Here, it seems that the disciples needed this prophesy of Jesus to come true in order to fully believe the Scripture and Jesus' word. Your thoughts?

 

[spidergoat]

A person can rationally believe in something they cannot prove to someone else. I can rationally believe that my dreams last night related to events during the day, though I would have a hard time proving that to certain neuroscientists.

I agree with this. Something might make perfect sense to you, but in the absence of evidence it is difficult to convince others of it.

 

[Pete]

Rationality isn't about being able to prove something to others... it's about being able to show that your belief is based on sound principles. If you can articulate reasonable premises, and show that those premises lead logically to your beliefs, then you are being rational.

To be irrational means to either rely on unreasonable premises, or to use faulty logic to reach conclusions.


Often, the difference between a given atheist and a given theist is in their premises, but unfortunately it is often the case that they never learn enough about each other to discover what those premises are, and therefore are unable to judge whether the other is rational or not.

 

[Pete]

I agree, atheists seem to believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without evidence something must be false

Only the stupid ones. Stupid theists, on the other hand, hold that faith trumps evidence... they believe that they should stick to their faith, no matter what evidence they see to the contrary.

 

[Pete]

According to Gautama Buddha, who also performed many miracles, if you perform miracles the skeptical no matter what will insist that you are performing magic tricks, and the faithful will remain faithful

That's a common assertion of "miracle workers"... and leads to the key religious notion that "being faithful" is a good thing.
Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe??? How about Gullible are those who have not seen and yet believe.

 

[KennyJC]

I agree, atheists seem to believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without evidence something must be false....instead of "evidence reveals what is true"....therefore if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility...

I wouldn't go lecturing atheists on what evidence & belief means. Perhaps you should read up on a certain court case in Dover :roflmao:

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I agree, atheists seem to believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without evidence something must be false....instead of "evidence reveals what is true"....therefore if there is no evidence for nor against something then it exists as a distinct possibility...

*************
M*W: Let's use the example of UFOs, aliens and other paranormal 'evidence.' There have been sightings of UFOs by prominent and well-respected people. There have been those people who can give detailed accounts of their abductions under hypnosis. There allegedly are some physical artifacts from the Roswell Incident. There are crop circles, night lights, and other visual 'evidences.' Much has been written about such phenomena, and many people believe there is adequate evidence to support a positive conclusion to UFOs and ETs. Yet, we still don't have absolute proof of their existence. So, evidence does not always offer proof of the existence of something.

When there is no evidence for or against something, it doesn't exist, at least in our current methods of challenging the evidence.

 

[Pete]

When there is no evidence for or against something, it doesn't exist, at least in our current methods of challenging the evidence.

That seems rather bizarre.
If there is no evidence for or against something, why would you try to draw a conclusion? If it matters, then you withhold judgement while seeking evidence. If it doesn't matter, then you don't bother to draw a conclusion at all.

 

[Sarkus]

When there is no evidence for or against something, it doesn't exist, at least in our current methods of challenging the evidence.

I wouldn't say "it doesn't exist" but I would say that, in the absence of evidence (either for or against) then that thing is logically consistent with something that does not exist - i.e. in every respect it behaves logically equal to non-existence - but could still actually exist - there's just no evidence.

 

[SnakeLord]

Usually because there was a need, a need to solve problems, healing the sick, raising the dead, calming the storm, etc....

Well, I don't know where you live but over here there is still that very same need. If it had anything to do with need, he'd still be there.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

That seems rather bizarre. If there is no evidence for or against something, why would you try to draw a conclusion? If it matters, then you withhold judgement while seeking evidence. If it doesn't matter, then you don't bother to draw a conclusion at all.

*************
M*W: Thanks for your reply, Pete. I shall attempt to elaborate on my earlier post. If there is no evidence for or against something, it would be quite difficult to come up with any kind of conclusion (i.e. as to the existence of god).

If it matters, one would continue to look for evidence--either way, for or against. That is what would help one to come to a conclusion. Until there is enough evidence offering the ability to test that evidence, there is a conclusion of sorts... we cannot prove it exists or not.

A judgment doesn't have to be etched in stone, it could just remain a doubtful hypothesis. A judgment could be temporary until evidence and methods could be assayed.

In science, a conclusion is drawn with every experiment. It would be a positive conclusion, a negative conclusion, or inconclusive according to application of materials and methods.

I don't like to think of it as a 'judgment.' That's a bit negative, when all it is is a conclusion to that specific experiment. The hypothesis can be tested and retested with each new item of evidence.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I wouldn't say "it doesn't exist" but I would say that, in the absence of evidence (either for or against) then that thing is logically consistent with something that does not exist - i.e. in every respect it behaves logically equal to non-existence - but could still actually exist - there's just no evidence.

*************
M*W: I agree. See my reply to Pete.