I let go of representing it as truth and I let go of the notion any one else should take it seriously. It seems the only honest approach.
This would include memories you have also. If you cannot prove it happened you do not mention it to others as if it can?
And political beliefs you have. If you cannot prove they are correct - and note this is different from presenting arguments to back it up - you don't share political ideas with others.
You act like there is some difference between proving something to myself and proving it to others. If I cannot prove something to others it is unlikely I can prove it to myself.
Of course there's a difference. You have your own experiences. Which you cannot share directly with others. If I have seen a burglar in my house, even if I cannot prove he was there, I will, speak of this as having happened, even long after the police have stopped investigating for lack of evidence. 'Remember that time, honey, there was a burglar, and I was so scared for a couple of days.'
Useful and working are a form of proof, even if they don't necessitate equivelant understanding.
If you do take 'working' as a form of proof, then this relates directly to the respect I mentioned earlier. It is very hard to judge, often, how a belief is working for another person - I mean judge in a way that can be backed up by proof - so I think it is often best not to assume we know it is not or that they 'should' have another belief - also somethign very hard to prove - since proof is the criterion we demand of them. If they feel that belief in God is working for them - keeps them moral, connects them to the ground of things, helps them express their essential self or whatever else they might consider working, I think it makes sense, especially with this criterion of 'proof' we are ready to aim at them, to respect them there. If their actions are immoral, well that is always open to criticism. And by 'repect' them their, I do not mean that we must assume they are correct in their interpretation of experience. That is outside our scope.
Pleasant? Is pleasnt ignorance really your goal? You don't really seem the type.
I was speaking in general. Also you jump to the assumption that we can immediately tell whether their belief is true or false. Often we cannot. Pleasance is a form of working. If my neighbor thinks that talking to plants helps the plants grow and talks in her garden to her plants and enjoyes this, I have no reason to leap in and demand research backing up her claim.
It depends on the circumstances.
Correct. It depends on the cirumstances. And in many circumstances I have beliefs that I cannot prove to others, but most skeptics and atheists seem to assume that they live up to this criterion for all their beliefs. It is implicit in their arguments with theists and others. This is dishonest or these people are so different from me they might as well be a different species. They seem to have all sorts of intuitive opinions about people and the world - on which they base actions, for example like voting, that have real, important effects on the lives and deaths of others. They cannot prove that their opinions are correct, and yet they act on them. Of course, impossible to avoid unless one becomes a hermit, which, in the end, is also an act based on intuition (or desire).
An unverified intuitive grasp of the situation is sufficient for deciding who to hang out with because it is really about you liking them more than it is about you correctly assessing them.
Oh, but it affects workplaces relationships as well, political stances, etc. Many situations demand that we form intuitive conclusions because of the vastness of potential evidence or the dearth of it or mixtures of the two. Or no scientific way of doing complete research. And yet, here we are, living in the world and so we make decisions. And they are much more important that simply who we hand out with, though this also is true. And what we say to others about someone 'oh, he is an asshole' 'oh, he is manipulative'. Perhaps atheists adhere to the same rigor they expect of theists in their beliefs but I doubt it.
And careful: I am talking about belief. I am not talking about proselytizing. If you are trying to convince others that they should take on your belief, that is a specific situation. But it does get hazy. When an atheist or a theist says that Bush was really doing ___________ are they proselytizing, expressing their own opinion but not expecting others to necessarily join them in this belief, something else? Do they really have the 'proof' or simply some arguments. If the latter, do they couch their claims carefully and qualified? Not that I have noticed.
But you should consider... real con artists wouldn't last long if they seemed like con artists. Also intuition is by no means 100% accurate. I've known people who seemed rough on the outside that turned out to actually be really good people.
Of course. But then we are in situations that demand we use intuition. We cannot sit around waiting for proof of everything. A good chunk of it will never come. And if you examine your life philosophically, you will see that one must, in everyday life, assume that memory is correct in general, and many other fundamental starting points or each day would be an impossible task of proof.
when and to the degree that I can, particularly when they concern something important or are for public consumption. Don't you?
'Something important'is very vague. Public consumption - hm, does that include what you say to those you know personally? And no, it is should be clear that I consider trying to verify everything worse than a sisyphusian task and not something that anyone does.
I work in a field where my hands are free and my inet access is unlimited. Plus I'm a geek.
Sure. But if you are really finding proof for all your beliefs, even 24 hours a day is not enough.
I've as much or more as any one else.
This was disingenous. You understood my point. But instead of acknowledging that you also use your intuition in such situations, you said this.
And this continues being disingenous. Of course you were being wry when you presented your offer. But I used it as an example of how one does use intution, rather than checking out every damn offer to see if it might help or be true.
I do not respect this kind of arguing, where one is so concerned about what might look like a concession one uses a quip or does not really respond.
I will not read your posts in the future. Including, of course, the quip you'll have in response to this.
To speak of the thing itself is the ultimate hubris to me, glorious really - the humanity of it.