How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

thedoc wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:54 pm
ken wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:43 am So, you believe in some thing of which you have no definite knowledge about and which you also have no proof of?
I believe that there are subatomic particles, but I have never seen them nor do I have a particle accelerator to detect them, so I rely on those people who do have access to such machines and trust what they have discovered.

I have never detected the red shift of distant galaxies because I do not have access to a large telescope or the spectrometer equipment to detect it, but I rely on the information of those who do have access to such equipment.

Why is it so difficult to believe one set of information and not another when you have the same level of proof for both?
But do you really have the same level of proof? The only thing I see you have here is you have the 'trust' of the other. You are only believing the other because you the trust in them.
thedoc wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:54 pmScientists report that they have detected traces from various subatomic particles, but I have never seen them. Astronomers claim to have detected the red shift of distant galaxies, but I have never seen the evidence. People report that they have seen evidence of God working in their lives, but I have not seen the evidence in their lives. Who am I to doubt what they are telling me?
You are a 'person', with the freedom to choose. You can either choose to believe or to not believe or to just remain open. That is who 'you' are.

The open person neither believes nor disbelieves. The open person has doubt and thus is able to question. Is there any thing wrong with that? What is wrong with being uncertain about or being questionable about some thing, especially when you do not have first hand experience of it? To Me, it seems rather irrational to just believe (in) whatever another says. Would you believe every thing I say? What seems more rational to you, to believe every thing I say, or to remain open and question, with clarifying questions, what I am saying?

Most human beings trust the person labeled 'scientist', for mostly inexcusable reasons when questioned about why they trust them, but yet most of the same human beings do NOT trust the person labeled 'painter'. Just look at how many human beings will test for themselves the "Wet paint" sign. Why are some people trusted more than others? The reasons become clearly understood when other things are also understood.

By the way the point I have been making here, but obviously some are not, is that there is absolutely NO need at all to believe (in) things. i do not really care what you believe in, and in fact what you believe in is pretty obvious and you do not have to tell us what you believe. What I have been trying to point out that besides the obvious point that it is irrational to believe (in) things that you are not sure about it is just as absurd, to Me anyway, to believe (in) things that you are sure about. Believing or disbelieving (in) any thing, besides what I have said previously, is absurd because there is absolutely no purpose for doing so.

I find that by remaining open always is what allows truth to revealed and/or discovered. The truth can be discovered without the trust in others being needed at all. In fact the more things become clearly understood the easier it is to see the lies and deceptions people tell themselves, and others. If more trust was laid on the real Self when It is discovered, than on others, then Truth is obvious and already known.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

thedoc wrote: Sun Jun 25, 2017 10:56 pm Ken, please excuse me for only answering only one point of your post, but the rest will take more thought.
No problem at all.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:06 pm
ken wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Thu Jun 22, 2017 10:31 am
Indeed; you either believe, or you don't.
I do neither. I remain open.
Well, I think I know what you mean, and would wholeheartedly agree, but do you not think that remaining open is the same as not believing?
To Me, 'not believing' is the exact same as 'believing', in that you can choose to either believe some thing is true or not believe some thing is true. If you do not believe (in) some thing, although opposite of believing (in) some thing it is still the exact same as having a belief, either way. Whereas, remaining open is the exact opposite of having a belief.

To Me, a person having a belief or be believing/disbelieving (in) some thing means that that thing is true, right, and/or correct, for the very fact that a person would not have a belief or be believing some thing if it were false, wrong, and/or incorrect?

People are believing in what is true, to them anyway. People are not believing in what is false. If examples could be provided of when a person is supposed believing and/or not believing some thing is true, then we could take a look at it to see if it is the same as remaining open.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by uwot »

ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, 'not believing' is the exact same as 'believing', in that you can choose to either believe some thing is true or not believe some thing is true. If you do not believe (in) some thing, although opposite of believing (in) some thing it is still the exact same as having a belief, either way. Whereas, remaining open is the exact opposite of having a belief.
Fair enough. I think we have slightly different understandings of belief then. My take on belief is that it is a commitment to a particular point of view; in the current context, one either believes that god exists, or one believes that god doesn't. Insofar as theism/atheism are concerned, my understanding is that it's subtly different; theism is a specific belief-that at least one god exists; whereas atheism, rather than being a commitment to the belief that any particular god does definitely not exist, is simply the absence in belief in that god.
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, a person having a belief or be believing/disbelieving (in) some thing means that that thing is true, right, and/or correct, for the very fact that a person would not have a belief or be believing some thing if it were false, wrong, and/or incorrect?
Well, the way I understand 'belief' is that you can believe in things, or not, regardless of whether they are true. Some scientists, for example, believe that the premise of string theory is true. We simply don't know whether it is a fact or not, but that doesn't stop some people believing it.
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmPeople are believing in what is true, to them anyway. People are not believing in what is false. If examples could be provided of when a person is supposed believing and/or not believing some thing is true, then we could take a look at it to see if it is the same as remaining open.
I don't want to trivialise this, but children believe in Santa Claus. On a more grown up level, until recently, most physicists believed that the force of gravity would slow don the expansion of the universe. In fact, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. Most of us have some theory that underpins the evidence of our own eyes, and most of us believe that theory, but history has a habit of showing all sorts of theories to be wrong. So I agree that it is best to keep your options open.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by Science Fan »

Physicists base their beliefs on actual evidence, and the fact that they have refined their theories over time, is not a negative against physics in any way, but a positive sign that physics provides us with an ever increasing understanding of the world around us. In contrast, religion rejects evidence, and does not admit its errors based on evidence. Religion will change due to growing political pressures against its out-dated immoral claims, but that's the best we can expect from religion.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by thedoc »

ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:01 pm Would you believe every thing I say? What seems more rational to you, to believe every thing I say, or to remain open and question, with clarifying questions, what I am saying?
I usually tend to believe what others tell me till I can discover proof one way or the other. Once I find that a person has not been telling me the truth, I question everything that they have told me in the past. Sometimes I will choose to treat what they say as the truth even when I know it is not, just to avoid conflict. So I will accept what you have posted as what you believe to be true till I find out it is not. I really have no reason to doubt what others are posting as being what they actually believe, and I try to do the same, and occasionally I will change my belief when presented with sufficient compelling evidence.

I used to have a problem with believing that God could know our actions in advance, but we still had free will. God's foreknowledge does not determine our actions, our actions determine God's foreknowledge. Another poster had explained how that could be using the rules of logic.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
ken wrote:
You BELIEVE theism is irrational because All manifestations of theism assume the existence of God for which there is no evidence. Well
exact same can be said for atheism. All manifestations of atheism assume God does not exist for which there is no evidence. Therefore
atheism AND theism are BOTH irrational. Any BELIEF in any thing for which there is no evidence IS irrational
I do not believe theism is irrational. I think theism is irrational. I say that because I do not do belief particularly the religious type. All that is necessary to disprove atheism is the existence of God. Which has never been demonstrated. Theism is therefore more irrational than atheism
as the truth value of the proposition God exists has never satisfied a burden of proof. Atheism does not actually state God does not exist only
that the truth claim is rejected because of said burden. Although as I am an apatheist then the question is academic as far as I am concerned
Again whatever label you place on your real self has no real importance here. I also noticed
you changed the label of your self again here. But anyway if as you say here and try to argue

P1 All that is necessary to disprove atheism is the existence of God
P2 The existence of God has never been demonstrated
C Theism is therefore more irrational than atheism

Then it could also be argued
P1 All that is necessary to disprove theism is the proof of no existing God
P2 The none existence of God has never been demonstrated
C Atheism is therefore more irrational than theism
There has never to date been any evidence or proof to demonstrate the existence of God. So till there is then atheism remains a more rational position than theism. But remember that atheism does not state God does not exist. It merely rejects the truth claim that God does exist upon the basis of there being no evidence or proof to support the truth claim. And truth claims with no evidence or proof to support them cannot be accepted as true because they could actually be false. So it is therefore not enough to just assert them. They also have to be shown to be true
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
I also noticed you changed the label of your self again here
Sometimes I describe myself as an agnostic atheist and sometimes as an apatheist and
long as they are not mutually contradictory [ they are not ] then that is not a problem
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
you say one thing can be two separate and distinct things so again could you please provide some examples
of how one thing can be two separate and distinct things where the law of non contradiction is not violated
Object A can have property B and property C where B and C are separate and distinct from each other but not mutually contradictory
This is a hypothetical rather than an actual example but it is sufficient to demonstrate the truth claim that you want clarification for
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by surreptitious57 »

ken wrote:
What I might suggest here is words themselves are not fallible as you suggest I have but it is the meanings human beings have placed on words and
how human beings use words that fallibility can occur quite often. But by the way it is with clarification that through words ALL will be revealed
I certainly think that greater understanding can come from increased clarification even if I am rather sceptical of it ever becoming absolute
One should strive as much as possible to be as precise as one can when communicating with others in order to avoid ambiguity or confusion
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by uwot »

Science Fan wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:10 pmPhysicists base their beliefs on actual evidence, and the fact that they have refined their theories over time...
Well, as Max Planck said: "A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." I think it is useful to distinguish between the mathematical models that physicists work with, and the philosophical models they may or not believe. The classic example of a failed philosophical model is geocentricism. The fact that it is demonstrably false these days, has no bearing on the fact that the Ptolemaic mathematical model is actually very successful in predicting where the planets will be. Similarly, while the field equations of General Relativity give incredibly accurate results, we simply don't know whether 'spacetime' refers to a substance that physically exists. The evidence that physicists base their philosophical beliefs on, if they have any, is that the mathematical models work.
Science Fan wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:10 pm...is not a negative against physics in any way, but a positive sign that physics provides us with an ever increasing understanding of the world around us.
Up to a point, but physics, as it is practised, is essentially instrumentalist; you can believe and old story about the causes; ultimately physics is about controlling the effects. It can tell you what the world does, with astonishing accuracy. Less impressive are the attempts to explain, or at least communicate, what they think the world is. That is partly because physicists don't agree and partly because it doesn't actually make any difference to the business of doing physics.
Science Fan wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:10 pmIn contrast, religion rejects evidence, and does not admit its errors based on evidence. Religion will change due to growing political pressures against its out-dated immoral claims, but that's the best we can expect from religion.
Religion doesn't necessarily reject evidence; it just makes absurdly inflated claims about that evidence. The universe exists; therefore it must have a creator is about as useless as a logical deduction can be.
If you want a philosophical explanation of relativity, quantum mechanics, the standard model, dark energy and whatnot, try this: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:50 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:19 pmIf, as you suggest, 'atheism' does not actually state 'God does not exist', then what does 'atheism' state exactly?
'I don't believe that god exists.' It's not a claim about truth. An atheist can accept that god might exist, but not believe it. By the same token, a theist can accept that god might not exist, but believe it anyway. In either case, it's a statement about what you believe.
Let us break this down a bit and take a look at it;

"I don't believe that god exists", means 'I do not believe that God exists', which can also be written 'I believe that God does not exist'. I now see what you mean by your previous question about 'remaining open being the same as not believing', which it does has some truth to it. But let us say that you said to Me, "I don't believe what you are saying", are you really open to what I am actually saying or are you not believing what I am saying, and thus believe what I am saying is false?

To Me, there is a fair amount of difference between 'remaining open' and 'not believing', which has huge bearing on how much is actually being heard and listened to. For example if I said to you, "I do not believe what you are saying", then I am more likely, sub-consciously than consciously, not going to listen to what you are saying. I will most likely NOT listen to and hear what you are trying to say and ONLY listen to and hear what I believe is already the truth.

"It's not a claim about truth." True it may not a claim about truth. But to Me, saying "I don't believe that God exists" infers that "I believe that God does not exist", although this is done sub-consciously it can have a huge impact on one's self and thus in how things are looked at AND seen.

"An atheist can accept that god might exist, but not believe it. By the same token, a theist can accept that god might not exist, but believe it anyway." That might be true but by definition what do the words 'atheist' and 'theist' mean? What do the people who are labeled 'atheist' and 'theist' actually believe is true?

This is where the actual definitions of the words need to be discussed, accepted and agreed upon. When I look up 'atheist' one dictionary gives me; a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. and 'theist' as; a person who believes in the existence of God or gods. With wikipedia giving this; Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists. So, if an 'atheist' is a person who disbelieves in God's existence, and thus they are believing God does not exist or they are not believing God exists, then to Me that is NOT the same as remaining open.

"In either case, it's a statement about what you believe." If any statement is about what you believe, then to Me 'you' are NOT open. If there is a belief, or disbelief, then there is not openness. This happens on a subliminal or sub-conscious level that is not easily recognizable, but it is there. Unless of course an example can be given of a time when a person is believing (in) some thing but is still open to the opposite being true at the exact same time.

Can a person really accept one thing while at the very exact same time believe the exact opposite is true? Say that, what you believe is true, to yourself and see if you can at the very exact same time accept the opposite to be true also. If you can do that, then let us know what you believe is true and accept as true at the very exact same time, and then we can discuss. Providing examples of what the person them self thinks and does, instead of providing examples what "others" think and do, makes looking at examples so much easier. There is a transparency that way, which allows a truth to be discovered and seen.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:50 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:19 pmClarify this point then you might be able to argue successfully that theism is more irrational than atheism is.
When it comes to beliefs, they don't require rationalising to remain beliefs. It is only the arguments that are used to promote a belief to a knowledge claim that can be subjected to logical analysis.
I agree this is true.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 2:50 pm There is no argument that can prove that god exists, nor is there one that can prove it doesn't.
How are you so sure there is NO argument that can prove that God exits, AND, that there is not an argument can prove God does not exist? What evidence and/or proof to back up this statement? If you had written some thing like, no sound, valid argument has YET been given for the existence or non-existence of God, then I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. But your statement appears to be a pretty big claim of what the truth actually IS.

In that respect, neither view is 'rational'.

I have been suggesting that most views generally based on a belief are not 'rational'. This is because having and holding beliefs, besides the beliefs in one's Self, is an irrational way to view the world. Truth is not found, discovered, seen, nor understood if a belief exists that stipulates that the truth is already known. Human beings neither have to have a belief nor a disbelief in anything. Once that is completely and fully understood, then they can start to open up a bit more.
seeds
Posts: 2143
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by seeds »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:22 pm Religion doesn't necessarily reject evidence; it just makes absurdly inflated claims about that evidence. The universe exists; therefore it must have a creator is about as useless as a logical deduction can be.
I don’t think that the religious (spiritual/metaphysical) deducing of the possibility of there being a creator is based on the mere “existence” of the universe, but more on the unfathomable order of its workings.
_______
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by Dubious »

ken wrote: Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:50 am
How are you so sure there is NO argument that can prove that God exits, AND, that there is not an argument can prove God does not exist? What evidence and/or proof to back up this statement? If you had written some thing like, no sound, valid argument has YET been given for the existence or non-existence of God, then I would have wholeheartedly agreed with you. But your statement appears to be a pretty big claim of what the truth actually IS.
With arguments one can prove virtually anything which only requires logic to prove "itself" without having proved anything beyond it, namely the actual object of its proof. Human ingenuity can devise any number of these perfect logic crystals without having ascertained anything which amounts to substance. Do you imagine god can ever be extracted or de-quarantined with any arguments of human manufacture? If that were possible it should be likewise credible to understand everything there is know about the universe simply by formulating the right arguments. If god exists and wishes to remain incognito there's no amount of flawlessly contrived arguments going to flush him out. The best logic can accomplish regarding god and such-like entities are presuppositions which end then repeat the same presuppositions. Such arguments are clearly doomed to become endlessly recursive.
ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

Post by ken »

uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, 'not believing' is the exact same as 'believing', in that you can choose to either believe some thing is true or not believe some thing is true. If you do not believe (in) some thing, although opposite of believing (in) some thing it is still the exact same as having a belief, either way. Whereas, remaining open is the exact opposite of having a belief.
Fair enough. I think we have slightly different understandings of belief then. My take on belief is that it is a commitment to a particular point of view; in the current context, one either believes that god exists, or one believes that god doesn't. Insofar as theism/atheism are concerned, my understanding is that it's subtly different; theism is a specific belief-that at least one god exists; whereas atheism, rather than being a commitment to the belief that any particular god does definitely not exist, is simply the absence in belief in that god.
What you wrote here is completely fair enough also. Your understanding of what 'atheism' means shows exactly how subtle differences can cause disagreements, disputes, and confusion. I actually thought/presumed, and worse still assumed, that 'agnostic' was closer to what you were referring to about "not believing" and 'remaining open' to whether God exists or not but I just looked up one dictionary and it states, 'agnostic'; "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.", which is much different from what i was thinking. Your understanding of 'atheism' is closer to an open person and without 'belief' either way, then I would say that surreptitious57 is more correct about 'atheism' being less irrational than 'theism' is, but only on the proviso that 'atheism' itself neither has nor holds a belief in any thing.

This discussing, accepting, and coming to an agreement peacefully of what words are to be used and what their definitions/meanings are, before a discussion takes place, is how disagreements, disputes, and confusion can be and is minimized to the most possible.

Your words, "my understanding is ..." works perfectly also for My further replies.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmTo Me, a person having a belief or be believing/disbelieving (in) some thing means that that thing is true, right, and/or correct, for the very fact that a person would not have a belief or be believing some thing if it were false, wrong, and/or incorrect?
Well, the way I understand 'belief' is that you can believe in things, or not, regardless of whether they are true.
Of course you can. You are free to choose absolutely any thing you want to. If you choose to believe (in) some thing, even if it may not be true at all, then that is fine. I am certainly not going to tell any person what they should or should not do.

Some scientists, for example, believe that the premise of string theory is true. We simply don't know whether it is a fact or not, but that doesn't stop some people believing it.

Yes I am aware that does not stop people believing in things. I observe and witness this every day. This has been going on for centuries and longer now. All I do is question, If it is not necessary, then why believe (in) some thing, especially if it might not even be a fact?

The people labeled 'detectives' is another example of when they believe some thing may be true but they have no actual evidence for. They can be heard such things such as, "I/we believe ... (to be the case)" but really they are only thinking or guessing it to be true.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pm
ken wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:12 pmPeople are believing in what is true, to them anyway. People are not believing in what is false. If examples could be provided of when a person is supposed believing and/or not believing some thing is true, then we could take a look at it to see if it is the same as remaining open.
I don't want to trivialise this, but children believe in Santa Claus.
Children, like a lot of adults, will believe things that they are told are true, but which are totally false or there is absolutely no evidence for. But I thought this would be more evidence of why it is better to remain open, then it is to believe (in) things. I found teaching children to remain open always, instead of believing what is told to you, allows them to grow up being more able to distinguish truth from falsehoods. Unfortunately though I have a whole 'education system' to compete with as that system is teaching the exact opposite from this.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmOn a more grown up level, until recently, most physicists believed that the force of gravity would slow don the expansion of the universe.
Personally I do not care how old or "grown up" a person is, if they are still believing in things, which actually could be not true at all, then they are being just like the children do who believe (in) santa claus is real.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmIn fact, the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating.
I am not really interested in what "appears" to be true. I am more interested in what IS actually true. What is actually true is some human being still believe that the Universe began, of which there is absolutely no evidence for.
uwot wrote: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:46 pmMost of us have some theory that underpins the evidence of our own eyes, and most of us believe that theory, but history has a habit of showing all sorts of theories to be wrong. So I agree that it is best to keep your options open.
The very reason I remain open always is because I do NOT know the truth of some things yet, and even if I do know the truth of some thing already I still do NOT have to believe (in) it. The Universe is always in a state of constant-creation. The Universe was never created, and just stopped. The Universe is always constantly-changing and evolving, so what 'appears' to be true one day may not be the next, which has been proven countless times already. So, one option I choose is to remain open always, than to believe/disbelieve (in) any thing.

We, human beings, gain evidence with our own eyes, BUT we do NOT need to believe nor disbelieve any thing. We can just look and have views. We can and do gain viewpoints and have points of view. We can look, we can see, and we can understand, and we can express our views and understandings as being just that, "My view is ..." or as you so eloquently put it, "my understanding is ...". We do NOT have to express any thing as though it is absolutely true, which is unfortunately exactly what happens mostly when beliefs and/or what is believed to be true is expressed. If you are ever in a discussion with another person and you happen to notice when either of you uses the words "I believe ..." or similar then take notice of just how much this influences the discussion either way.

Obviously when it is sometimes stated, "I/we believe ..." it is obvious that the person is not sure about that in which they are "believing" like with the "detectives", but why confuse the issue by saying some thing that is not meant? Why not just state what is actually meant and which is true, "I/we do not know ..." or "I/we think ... (this to be the case) instead? If "detectives" believe they know what happened, prior to having actual evidence and facts, then this can, sub-consciously, lead them to looking for and/or finding "evidence" that is actually not real evidence.

The reason I find having beliefs or believing (in) some thing, without having the actual facts, is unnecessary and at times can be completely harmful can be well exampled in court rooms. Depending on the country one is in some courts allow the human beings labeled "prosecutors" to open with and present the "facts". Calling some thing "facts" can instantly instill a belief, subliminally or sub-consciously, within a person. If a prosecutor believes they have the "facts" then they could not possibly listen to any other contrary thing. They are only going to look for and be expressing what they already believe is true, which can be very far from what the reality is. This can distort the true facts terribly. This same thing can equally happen with and to the people labeled "defence" also.

The same principle of believing BEFORE acquiring actual truth and facts distorting reality also happens with the people labeled "scientists" or "physicists". If they believe such things like "the force of gravity would slow down the expansion of the Universe", then they are not open to what the actual and true facts really are. These people sub-consciously tend to look for what they already believe is true, even though others do not want to believe that is what "scientists" would do. ALL people to some degree look for, and want to find and see, what they already believe is true. It is usually other people who look for and find the opposite, unless of course when people openly admit that they found the exact opposite of what they believed to be true. But then they some times start believing the opposite is true. As is the case with some people who actually believe that the expansion of Universe is accelerating. Besides the fact that they are believing that the Universe is accelerating they also start believing that that believed expansion is accelerating.

On a completely other matter, the truth is already obvious and known if and when a person remains completely open always. But do not assume that this means what you think it means.
Post Reply