I think that’s debatable for certain people. Believing in unproven entities can be a powerful form of coping with tragedy.
Take for instance a mother who grieves the loss of a child. An unproven belief that the child is in a “heaven” and she may one day be reunited with them may be something she needs to keep her sanity and move on with her life.
Without her security-blanket/teddy-bear/god life may become unbearable to the point of clinical depression or suicide.
Okay. I should have said “They add nothing **necessary ** to the model.” I will grant you that believing in unnecessary entities can be entertaining, charming, and/or aesthetically or emotionally pleasing.
You two have such a drama running that you can’t see that you are saying the same thing.
“my experience” and “ know in my heart” is saying the same thing.
“will accept none of it.” and “isn’t that good enough for you?” is the same thing.
I cherish both of you for your uniqueness. Both of you are good enough!.
Belief my ass, the first set of statements is the foundation of scientific thought, the second set is meaningless. They are not equal.
My only suggestion would be to change the atheist view to the following:
Atheist- You have done nothing to show or prove you have it, therefore you have no way of knowing if you have it.
The difference is pretty significant (and is the topic of this thread by Lobsang).
That dodges the question, though. How do I prove to you that I dreamed specifically about where I used to work?
Believe it or not, you can contradict a claim without calling someone a liar. You could cite, for example, false memory.
Whose word are you taking about their accuracy? What scientific tests have you conducted for yourself in everything from physics to biology?
So maybe you’re a bot. We don’t need you as a human entity to explain the appearance of text on the screen.
Uh. Duh. :rolleyes:
I was intentionally tweaking Liberal’s concept of “no evidence that satisfies”. Sauce, goose, gander, etc.
An unreasonable assumption. Der Trihs’s postings are far too sophisticated for any current A.I. technology. To believe that he’s a bot you must postulate a vast secret research program that has achieved a level of A.I. far beyond that which is known to the general public. Even if such a program existed, why would it be used to post to this message board?
While we can’t PROVE that he isn’t a bot, it’s an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
And that’s the atheist position on God. We can’t prove he doesn’t exist. He’s just an extremely unlikely hypothesis.
The existence of god cannot be proved or disproved, so the only truth which can can be arrived at is that there is a difference in beliefs. Since their exists a difference then we should be more fruitful in determining how we can coexist.
Odd that all debating theists had a moment in the past where they didn’t need proof of how the world works.
Liberal, did you ask for proof when you first learned about the Immaculate Conception?
NOTHING about the real world can be proved or disproved. You can’t prove that the sun rose this morning. You can’t prove that you’re not a brain in a jar. So according to your logic we should treat ALL beliefs equally.
Are you really sure you want to construct a metaphysical system that puts crystals and vaccines on equal footing? After all we can’t PROVE that crystals don’t prevent diseases, and we can’t PROVE that vaccines do … .
No. But I’m not Catholic.
Theories are not equal by virtue of the fact they exist. The Ku Klux Klan’s opinion is not valid and I feel no compulsion to coexist with them.
Excellent, The teaming masses are equally ignorant. Ignorance has been fought! And that is the “Straight Dope”
Now who’s dodging.
Sure. I understand. As I’ve told many atheists, I wouldn’t believe if I were in your shoes either. I used to be an atheist myself.
But I don’t need to resort to bots to doubt Der Trihs. Maybe he simply isn’t who he says he is. His arguments are so weak, so extreme, and often so insulting that the impression I get isn’t that he doesn’t believe in God, but rather that he does believe in God but hates Him.
What? What are you talking about? You asked me whether I demanded proof that the mother of Jesus was born without sin. And I’m saying that I don’t even care about it.
But let’s say that the question wasn’t about your deity-of-choice, but rather, Santa Claus. 
Let’s say that the majority of people in the “West” believed in Santa Claus and only a minority were clear aSANTA-ists. Belief in Mr. Claus provided much good feeling and only a handful of killjoys wanted to “advance society” past such wonderful piety and into the real world.
Would you still advocate for your pluralistic detente, based on the argument that there is no proof 
that such a man could not be immortal, possess super-speed and an animal-propelled vehicle to match, have a practical omniscience, and so on?
(Just another post-SANTA-ist in a bitter, cynical world.)
And frankly, I have no quarrel with theists who are willing to acknowledge the unreasonableness of their position: “I have no REASON to believe, and yet I still do.”
The world is an imperfect place and we all have imperfect knowledge of it. I’m an atheist but I’m willing to acknowlege that I believe many things that I only have a gut feeling are true. It would be unfair to fail to extend the same courtesy to theists.
In your mothers womb you didn’t believe in a god, now you do, there was a moment in your life when you made that change and at that moment you didn’t need proof. I don’t really care what particular space genie my question applies to.