Apparently you guys missed my point with my last question, so I will ask it in another way:?

Question

When dealing with uncertains, isn't it ridiculous to show absoulte certainty in your prefrence of uncertain therums?

this was the question I am referring to:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoFOtoUdA7Lv8aefFcVZfBrsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20071018095227AATkUdz

Yoda Green,

There have been several documented cases of paranormal and supernatural activity, but scientists dismiss them often stating "the tools that were used to document those cases were not made for that kind of work and are therefor unreliable mechanisms for recording."

Proof has been shown, but denied by the scientific community on several occassions.

incorrect rockin robin,

I assumed most missed my point when they assumed that I was sitting on either side of the fence and took an offense to my question. I don't care if they don't agree.

Answer 1

Smug surety is a sign of lack of spiritual maturity and a weak faith.

Answer 2

You are right when you say it is not logical to be absolutely certain of something that can't be proved. The way I see it, that assumption essentially says that lacking evidence (one way or the other) you shouldn't believe in anything. That means you favor the evidence-based approach to evaluating claims. That is a safe way to approach the world.

Doesn't it also make sense though to employ probability when evaluating the world around you? When an unproved and improbable claim is made, does it make sense to believe it just because it hasn't been disproved, even if disproving it is impossible by definition?

As to your other comments, there has never been a "documented" case of paranormal or supernatural acitivity. If there had been, then that phenomenon would no longer be paranormal or supernatural, it would be normal and natural. I am very eager to hear your specific sources on this, because I have looked for proof of the paranormal far and wide and have come across not one shred of it.

Answer 3

I think it depends on the individual. If that is ones faith, and that person has full certainty, then they should go with that internally, likewise for the uncertain. I don't think it's ridiculous to feel certain about ones belief, but it can become ridiculous when one chooses to shove their personal belief down anothers throat. I think that because we all have free will and freedom of choice, that this is all the more reason, that beliefs are so personal, and can become ridiculous when trying to argue a right or wrong.

Answer 4

Sort of. But we can use logic as a means to derive knowledge of unknown. For example, we don't actually know what happens if you were to go faster then the speed of light. But I can logically know that you wouldn't turn into ice cream if you went this fast. This is because it doesn't make sense, doesn't fit with ANY evidence we have, and would contradict ALL the evidence we currently have. But at the same time, I can't know a single outcome of this event. I can only know some outcomes that won't happen.

Answer 5

absolutely not, it is not for us to prove he doesn't exist, it is up to the theist to prove he does. we as Atheist know he doesn't exist. all religious followers are brainwashed as children or have had a traumatic experience in their lives that they lived through, they then put this down to divine intervention. I can understand why, but I don't understand theists belief in religion, for religion is not God, it is the work of men and most of the time it is in direct opposition to the word of Jesus. God is just a world wide Cult delusion based on the rationality of a bronze age philosophy/myth. I know the point you are trying to make, that if it can't be proven either way why bother, but in my mind there is to much scientific evidence against the theory of creationism, that the idea of creationism, in our modern times, seems very naive. The only thing religion has going for it is faith, but that faith has to be blind, shouldn't that tell you something about the men that instigated the doctrine?. the word of Jesus was lost centuries ago and replaced by a vision. This vision became the founding doctrine of the Catholic church, then the offsprings of Catholicism. don't you have to ask yourself; How credible was Pauls word?, well if you look at history, not very credible at all. The answers to religion are out there, you just have to look with open eyes, this unfortunatly is against the rules of Faith. Faith it answers everything, explains nothing.

Answer 6

Just because most didn't agree with you, you automatically jump to the conclusion that they "missed your point"?

"absoulte certainty in your prefrence of uncertain therums?" This is a poorly miss-spelled oxymoron. Considering a preference and a theorem is not an "absolute certainty".

Answer 7

Even without certainty there is still probability.

Rational people will consider the probabilities and decide accordingly.

There is nothing particularly wrong with being irrational, but to deny that you are going against the odds is asking to be ridiculed.

Answer 8

Nope.
I have to disagree with this and your earlier question.
When it comes to the supernatural, we can DEFINITELY say that it does not exist.
For hundreds of years people have professed to have such powers but so far not ONE has been able to prove it.
The same goes for those that say that god exists. They've said the same thing for millenia. EVERY religion has stood confidently and said "ours is the ONLY way" yet NONE of them can provide one single solitary shred of evidence to support their position.
Gee, I wonder why?

Answer 9

There's no proof either way, so it's up to the individual to go with his/her own beliefs. I get very tired of people in here ridiculing people with opposing beliefs. None of us knows for sure!!!

Answer 10

yes, thats why thinking men are agnostics. sure you could pick a side to randomly believe....but why?