“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.”

[elocs]

by Stuart Chase, an American engineer and economist. I just heard it last night and I thought it was interesting since it can apply in areas such as both religion or politics.

[NashVegas]

1. I'd Refine It

"To those who disbelieve ..."

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Disbelief is a belief.

[NashVegas]

6. It's a Belief In the Negative

Just because one isn't sold on something doesn't mean they aren't open to persuasion.

[Deep13]

7. And baldness is a hair color.

How come the only people who ever come up with this gem are believers who never have disbelieved? It think it is because as long as they are all "beliefs" every one is on an equal footing. As soon as real nonbelief becomes a recognized option, belief suddenly is put in the untenable position of having to justify itself.

[remoulade]

11. No, it's a disbelief.

...

[laconicsax]

16. Just like how silence is a sound.

:eyes:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Or how black is a color.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

3. We have facts, in politics and economics.

We have facts that show what works to stimulate the economy, and what laws help that.

In religion, we have belief, but not scientific proof.

Some people pray and say that they can tell that it works to change their circumstances.

I, on the other hand, have gone through baptism, church membership, praying, etc. and nothing changed. My life was still terrible. I was more depressed because the church people would not help me find a job. I decided that if God works through his believers on Earth, then God wanted me to starve to death and spiral into a deep depression.

So I stopped going & stopped believing. And people who tell me I did not have enough faith, are insulting me, I believe.

[midnight]

4. Or when prosecuting Don Siegelman. But I suppose that is

why what they ,bush judicial dept., did was so illegal-they politicised the judicial dept.

[county worker]

5. For those who believe no proof is possible and for those who don't it's because no proof is possible

Belief isn't based on proof, it's faith in something you can't prove. If you could prove it you wouldn't need belief, you'd know.

[Deep13]

8. That alone disproves the belief.

If no proof is necessary, then the belief is admittedly based on nothing but a subjective desire not to admit being wrong. If it is not possible to convince a nonbeliever it is because there is no evidence and no reason to believe it in the first place.

[laconicsax]

10. Ha! I just posted your sigline!

[laconicsax]

9. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

"The MMR vaccine causes autism."
"GMO foods will kill us all."
"The WTC towers collapsed as a direct result of controlled demolition."
"The Great Pyramids were landing sites for alien spaceships."
"Protestant Christianity is the only true religion."
"There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger."
"Spending money on infrastructure won't stimulate the economy or create jobs."

[remoulade]

14. That is the default condition for any claim.

Assumed false unless "proven" (preponderance of evidence)

[laconicsax]

17. Welcome to DU

Sadly, many people making claims think that rejecting a claim is in itself a separate claim requiring evidence.

[NashVegas]

27. Rejecting a Claim vs Campaigning Against It

If those who reject a claim could simply leave it at that, we'd never see flame wars.

[laconicsax]

29. If those who making claims without evidence didn't press the issue, we'd never see flame wars.

Works both ways.

[NashVegas]

33. Neat Trick

;0

[laconicsax]

32. Dupe delete

.

[PurityOfEssence]

36. Actually, no; and here's the issue

What bothers many believers is the stance of the militantly atheistic. Those who flatly say "there is no God" are also making an unsubstantiated statement. I've seen no proof of this lack of existence just as I haven't of the contention that there is such a thing.

Believers often feel belittled, and that's understandable.

Militant, proselytizing Atheism is just as much of an abusive crock of shit as evangelical Christianity. It's also not doing the cause of bringing non-religiousness into the mainstream much good. Many believers think that they're being talked down to by people who snottily think they're more intelligent than they are, and that's anathema in America; thou shalt not be an intellectual.

Any rigidly-held assumption that isn't backed by proof is a form of belief. They're all a form of arrogance and a rebellion against accepting one's limitations. Working assumptions are something else, and it's difficult when dealing with the extremely aggressive religious types, because regardless how ridiculous and juvenile the concept of a personal God and an afterlife are, I don't have any proof.

Still, a militant Atheist is just as much of a tiresome blockhead, and what's more annoying to me is that they're making my side look icky. It's like listening to a crazed street person espousing anti-corporate truths: it's embarrassing and fuels the dismissal of any dissent.

[NashVegas]

37. Wonderful Post

+ 11

[laconicsax]

40. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

If I were to flatly say to you, "there are no cyclopes that live at the center of the earth," would you say that I'm making a statement of belief? What about "there is no Poseidon." Dismissal of baseless claims does not constitute a belief. A belief is holding to a claim without the need for evidence. Rejecting a baseless claim on the grounds that it lacks evidence no more a statement of belief than, as Deep13 put, bald is a hair color.

I am certain that there are no cyclopes living at the center of the earth just as I am certain that Poseidon doesn't exist. There is no evidence that either exist, so both claims may not only be safely dismissed, but casually dismissed out of hand. The burden of proof is on the side making a claim without evidence, not the side dismissing a claim for lack of evidence.

Here's the neat part--there is no evidence to support the conjecture that the god of the Bible exist. To flatly say, "there is no God," is a rejection of that conjecture based on it's merits (or lack thereof). It is no more a statement of belief than, "white people are not inherently superior to black people." Both statements reject claims made in the absence of evidence. The claim "there is a God" has absolutely no supporting evidence and can be dismissed out of hand just as the claim that cyclopes live at the center of the earth.

As I stated at the beginning of this sub-thread, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." There is no evidence that gravity is an electrostatic force, so any assertion to that end can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence that the Marduk killed the serpent Tiamat and created the universe from her entrails, so any assertion to that end can be dismissed without evidence. Finally, there is no evidence that an omnipotent, omnipresent deity exists, so any assertion to that end can be dismissed without evidence.

It might be prudent at this point to state that I (like almost all atheists) will gladly admit that I can never know for sure that I am right, but am reasonably certain. If any evidence supporting the conjecture that any god exists turns up (and remember extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence), I would be willing to reconsider my position. I find that most atheists (including your so-called militant ones) would agree on this point.

Oh, and as for your comparison of 'militant' atheism (whatever that means), and evangelical Christianity, once 'In God We Trust' is replaced with 'We Trust There Is No God,' 'under God' is replaced with 'under no God,' Christians are force to work on Sunday, and all religious groups are marked as un-American, their adherents legally discriminated against, and their philosophies labeled immoral and dangerous, then you might have a point.

By the way, what is "your side" that you say is made to "look icky" by militant atheists?

[PurityOfEssence]

41. Agnostics

Militant Atheists consider us namby-pamby appeasers.

My working theory is that there is no god, no afterlife, no predestination, and that all such beliefs are wishful thinking and clever political tools to keep the masses in line.

I simply disagree. Saying that there is no God is a claim with no proof. The fact that someone came up with the concept that one is flatly denying doesn't give anybody any leverage, it's still making a baseless claim.

As for whether it's "just as bad" or not, it's so close that quibbling just doesn't make much sense to me. The militants who use ridicule don't help the cause and aren't of any more moral a stance than the religionists who use fear and emotional ploys to prey upon the weak.

Let's back up a second. I don't think that Newdow and others who litigate to keep government out of the religion business are "militant atheists". Nowhere do I see anyone demanding the converse of theocracy, which would be mandated anti-theism. I see these people trying to hold the line with "religion-neutral" policies, which I completely support.

The equivalent anti-religious endorsement of the Ten Commandments being on the courthouse lawn would be a crucifix surrounded by a red circle and with a red slash through it. Nowhere do I see this being proposed; people just want there to be no religious symbols.

The Militant Atheists of whom I speak are the snide drive-by loudmouths who sneeringly insult any believers as being infantile or whatever. They just reinforce the bad stereotype of the ill-mannered, egocentric dick non-believer that is promulgated by militant theists.

Even if you're flatly stating that someone else's fantastical construct doesn't exist, you're still stating something without facts unless you dredge up some. It is effectively just as bad.

You seem to be able to live with some complexity and shadings, just accept that: it's frustrating that such absurd and dangerous bits of supernatural fantasy can hold sway, but even if it's completely ridiculous for them to be true, in absense of proof, they can't be conclusively denied.

The important point is whether these beliefs can be allowed as justification for policy or full membership in society, and that CAN be fought with logic and proof.

People who want to believe WANT to believe, and there's a corresponding need among many of the militant atheists to be CORRECT and SUPERIOR for being so. This doesn't help the cause any.

Extremist Atheists tend to despise Agnostics. It messes with their worldview. It's sort of like militant gays dismissing the existence of bisexuals, but that's another flaming kind of topic to bring up, pun intended...

[laconicsax]

42. I'm curious about something you said.

You said,

The fact that someone came up with the concept that one is flatly denying doesn't give anybody any leverage, it's still making a baseless claim.

and

Even if you're flatly stating that someone else's fantastical construct doesn't exist, you're still stating something without facts unless you dredge up some. It is effectively just as bad.

There exists a race of extremely intelligent cyborgs maintaining a small fleet of seven spaceships in the Kupier belt for the express purpose of observing humanity. Three of the ships contain specialized telescopes and other advanced equipment that can observe the events on our planet with a high degree of detail. One ship is a patrol craft safeguarding the each observatory and the final ship is a transport used to maintain a crew rotation with their home base. These ships are no more than 10 meters in any dimension and have special technology that prevents the electromagnetic fields generated by their equipment from radiating beyond the hull.

Do you deny the existence of these ships, the race of cyborgs (let's call them Kupier belt cyborgs), and/or their mission? What evidence do you offer to support your claim? Remember that by your own criteria, if you deny this on the grounds that I made it up, you're making a baseless claim.

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Maybe they exist; maybe they don't

My working assumption, although I haven't spent much energy on the contention, is that it sounds like human-created fiction, but not knowing anything about those who contend this, I just view it as a bit of hyperbole.

I don't see much urgency or import to sparring with someone advancing this supposition, but if people tacked on a "therefore" of the usual "religious" sort, like "and they're out to get us, so you have to give us all your money", I'd respond with appropriate energy.

There are SO MANY ridiculous things that people believe in that it's hard to keep track. Unless they're an active danger, I let them be, ESPECIALLY since believers often seem to be so insistent and energetic about it. Astrology's an absolute crock of shit, but people swear by it. Science can prove that the magnetic pull of the various constellations are virtually nil, but perhaps there's some "other" energy of which we don't know. Whatever.

I don't have a particular need to "prove" that supernatural entities don't exist. I don't think that ghosts exist, but I don't lose any sleep over it, don't think that the believers are all that swayable, and I really don't give a damn. I don't have a need to prove that God doesn't exist. My working contention is that there's no such thing, and I don't think it matters. What DOES matter is people requiring this belief for one to be a full member of society or have a voice in government. THIS is dangerous, especially since it is so easily used to justify all sorts of mischief. It's the handiest tool for getting people to kill there's ever been, and organized mass-murder is almost impossible without it.

I'm seriously on the record for tussling with religion here, and have been doing so since first joining the board 7 1/2 years ago. I don't like it one whit. It's one of my chief problems with our current President. I consider this kind of unsubstantiated belief to be extremely dangerous and personally very mean to the weak: it gets them to tolerate things they shouldn't, and it fosters, promotes, and enhances mental illness in a SERIOUS way.

No, I don't deny your little robot friends, but if swearing allegiance to them becomes necessary for me to have a voice in the community, I'm going to be demanding some proof.

[Deep13]

23. Sounds familiar.

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Ummm

That which is proven does not require belief. Words mean things.

[foxfeet]

13. For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like.

:P

[anonymous171]

15. People will believe in whatever helps them cope with the world.

When religion becomes too restrictive, the people will abandon it. When Naturalism becomes too tiresome or inhumane, the people will flock back to Theist worldviews.

[Ichingcarpenter]

18. Except in a mathematical theorem?

The word Proof comes from the Latin probare meaning "to test".

Interesting statement by Mr. Chase

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. I don't believe, but pleny of proof is possible.

If God, for example, manifested himself in front of me and told me he was real, I'd consider that proof.

In fact, I'd be willing to consider any evidence whatsoever.

[Greyhound]

21. Tired cliche first heard by me from a Jessie, unless Stuart Chase

is over 400 years old, the Catholics started it. Secondly, what the hell does belief have to do with politics?

[elocs]

26. Think outside the box: think "Republicans". n/t

[tkmorris]

22. If everyone had a closed mind, that would be true

It is unfortunate that all too many people DO have such closed minds, but it is a character flaw that can be avoided with effort.

Nothing in life worth contemplating can ever be boiled down to a single pithy remark. They make nice bumperstickers but that is all. I suspect even Mr. Chase knew this.

[elocs]

25. It's a good thing that there are absolutely no closed minds here at DU. n/t

[Kaleva]

30. None at all and i believe that with no proof.

[tkmorris]

35. Of course there are, who said otherwise?

You seem like you are really spoiling for an argument. Those are just down the hall.

[Birthmark]

24. Tripe. Self-serving tripe at that.

Fairly often the non-believer is quite open to proof or evidence. Chase's comment is merely cover for those who can produce no unambiguous evidence, let alone proof.

[johnnie]

28. I watched that episode last night

It was interesting because the "psychic" pointed out that not everyone believes in the forensic profiler mumbo jumbo either. Personally, I think a lot of psychology is a load of crap, but many people believe in it because they consider it "science".

I think a lot of people on this thread are just thinking about this quote in terms of religion, but it can apply to many other things as well.

[NashVegas]

34. Many "Psychics" Are Just Profilers Who Didn't Get a Degree

IMO.

[AngryAmish]

38. Episode of what?

A year or two back there was an article in the New Yorker that pointed out that being a profiling does not help solve crimes, but makes for good PR.

[Lyric]

31. I don't believe, and plenty of proof is possible with me.

A big-ass fucking voice from the sky that everybody around me hears at the same time that I do would definitely be proof enough for me, in terms of religion. But "belief" in God is not the same thing as "worship" of God. Even if God proved to me that he/she existed, I'll be damned if I'm going to worship him/her without said deity doing something to EARN my reverence. Get rid of poverty and violence. Then we'll talk about worship.

[Stellabella]

39. Hey, I'll believe if God speaks to us from the sky.

Or if an amputee grows back a severed limb after being prayed over.

There's plenty of 'proof' that could make me believe, but there's just no real evidence.