No belief is required when the proof is readably available. So I'll restate belief. Belief is faith in things unmeasurable and or having no obvious effect.
By your previous comment, you have defined belief to exclude anything supported by any kind of evidence. So, why should I see belief as anything other than irrational?
I call my it my religious belief, but do understand that others consider it an irrational belief. It's always been that way.
The point is that anything with any relevance in our world will have a measurable effect, even if it is not visible to the naked eye.
That is pure opinion. It requires that I believe you can measure anything, with current technology, for it to achieve relevance.
Actually, I never said "measurable with today's technology", but if you claim to believe in an X, which never in any way effects anything, then X is irrelevant. If X affects Y, but Y cannot be proven in any way to exist or to affect anything, then X is still irrelevant.
I don't think X has no effect. In fact, the reason people believe in God is because they feel it has a large effect in people's lives.
Consider Newtonian Physics. Newton came up with formulas that, for the first time, modeled orbital bodies. Then we get to the 20th century and go to the moon, but we can't use Newton's equations without the X of Einstein's Space Time Relativity math. The differences are very very small but important. Only recently were we able to create an experiment that physically proved Einstein's theory. There are even smaller things, such as hidden subatomic particles, that may increase our understanding of gravity and even allow us to manipulate it someday. That X, that we don't know about, may have the biggest beneficial effect in all of human history.
Knowledge increases at a linear rate when compared with what we do not know, which increases at an exponential rate. For every new discovery a scientist makes, the finding will generate at least another 10 questions. As civilization advances, humanity becomes less smart as a percentage of knowledge.
Not true. If "the things we don't know" could be quantified, they would not depend on our ability to recognize them. In other words, someone who doesn't know anything about computers may not realize that they also don't know how to write a shell script, how to use microsoft office, or how to check an email. I would say that there are at least five things this person doesn't know.
- What a computer is
- How to write a shell script
- how to use microsoft office
- how to check an email
- This person also doesn't know that these pieces of information exist
-
By learning a little about computers, someone is removing items 1 and 5 from the list. I would say that this person is not adding items 2,3,and 4.
Even if the list was finite, which it is not, the hierarchy is not. Let's add some branches.
_Computers
___Servers
_____Web
_____Disk
_____Database
___Desktops
___Laptops
___Embedded
_Shell
___Bash
_____Builtins
_____Variables
_____Redirection
___Ash
___Zsh
_Office
___Basic Formatting
___Headings
___Tables
_____Merging cells
_____Repeating column heads
___Syles
For each item you remove, N items are added to the unknown knowledge category. This happens as a person traverses the hierarchy and drills down. The branches exist even if we choose to ignore them. An individual may choose to stop learning, but humanity continues onward. The growth of unknown knowledge appears exponential even in this small list. If you graph percentage of what is known and unknown over time it is very discouraging.
It should be noted that, in the real world, there are many invisible branches in the knowledge hierarchy. This occurs at the leading edge of scientific discovery. Scientists believe, with complete certainty, that unknown and currently unobservable knowledge exists. You would probably call that a rational belief as I would.
So, you can ask for evidence all you want. You'll just never get it in some areas, especially where God requires belief. And, if you do get evidence, it will likely come too late.
So far, the story doesn't make sense. I don't see why a god would create people who are capable of dishonesty, and then treasure the inability to defend against that dishonesty?
We have freewill. You can choose to lie or speak the truth. People combat dishonesty by speaking the truth. I do not know anyone who treasures the "inability to defend against that dishonesty."
And why would a god be so worried about whether people believe it exists, while trying so hard to make it appear that it doesn't?
God hopes you believe and is very sad if you don't. He's not hiding, humanity has received a very long document detailing just about every subject. You may have seen His churches in your area or around the world or met some of the millions of followers. But, if you want to meet physically you're options are limited.
What we have is a story that make little sense, is supported by no evidence, and is used to control the behavior of those who believe it.
So God is controlling my behaviour, lol, if only that were true. Ah, the evidence thing again. No proof will be given. If people had proof some will still reject it. Says that in Luke 16:19-31, it's a short read with a great punch line.
To use a bastardized variation of Pascal's wager, I can either wager my freedom on a gamble that seems high risk, or wager an afterlife that may or may not exist. By choosing atheism, I am choosing not to gamble away the freedom I know I have, in hopes of a prize that may or may not exist.
High risk? Lost freedom? Do you live in China or the Middle East? I live in the U.S., where it says our freedoms come from our Creator right in the Declaration on Independence. It also says our rights are inalienable, meaning no one has the right to take them.
Choosing atheism does have several disadvantages. Your rights are not given by God because He doesn't exist. There is no absolute right or wrong so you have relativism. With relativism everyone's values have equal weight. So, if someone thinks you shouldn't have free speech, and they are in power, it is perfectly legitimate to take that right from you. They could kill this very discussion, legalise child molestation, of follow any evil desire. How could we argue against anything without some divine basis for the law? And yet, there's something worse. With no afterlife there's nothing to look forward, no point to doing anything, just suffering and dying. What would happen to society if we take these attitudes to their logical conclusion? If is too frightening to contemplate.
There is a better way and I'm not giving it up even if this place does become like China. I'm amazed by the gift offered and the cost of it. It was, is, more than anyone deserves.
Have the last word if you want it.
