Fate

[leo9]

Like many other believers, you can't, or won't, accept the possibility that anyone can exist without some form of belief system.

Not at all, I know plenty of people who get along just fine with no belief system, but they wouldn't be having this discussion: they'd just go "Yeah, OK, whatever."

You seem to be able to accept as facts that there are no leprechauns, there are no unicorns, there are no magical fairies drifting along in the garden, there is no Easter bunny. But let someone declare that there are no gods and that goes from a statement of fact to a statement of belief? Seems just a touch hypocritical to me.

Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.

But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.

[Thorne]

Not at all, all of the above are statements of belief. I believe there is no Easter Bunny, but I can't see any way I could be justified in calling that belief a fact: what would I evidence as proof? The fact that most known rabbits don't distribute chocolate eggs makes my belief well founded, but it doesn't prove that there never was and never could be such a creature: it just makes it unlikely enough that I feel justified in disbelieving it.

So then you TRUST the evidence that there is no Easter Bunny. Not the same thing as "believing" that there is no Easter Bunny. How is that different from trusting the evidence that there are no gods?

But since you feel that this is just a quibble over the meaning of words, while I feel it's an important point, we'd better let it go.

It's not just a quibble, though, it's a real problem. The word "belief" can be used in at least two different ways (as far as this discussion is concerned). You can "believe" something is true despite a lack of tangible evidence (a matter of faith) or you can "believe" something is NOT true BECAUSE their is no tangible evidence (a matter of TRUST). But declaring that the latter is just as much an article of faith as the former is absolutely wrong. You would be most likely to maintain your faith despite the lack of evidence, right? While I would have to change my "belief" if actual evidence for gods were to be found.