In article <Bkgv3.13043$x04.784720@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Kent Symanzik"

<kent@nospam.vnp.com> wrote:

> Aaron I. Spielman wrote in message ...

> >In article <%b1v3.11726$x04.692682@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>, "Kent Symanzik"

> ><kent@nospam.vnp.com> wrote:

> >

> >> astr0wiz@my-deja.com wrote in message <7phtp0$igv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>...

> >> >In article <tiXu3.11143$x04.651707@typ11.nn.bcandid.com>,

> >> > "Kent Symanzik" <kent@nospam.vnp.com> wrote:

> >> >> Why is it rational to deny the existence of anything due to lack of

> >> >> evidence?

> >> >>

> >> >> Kent

> >> >>

> >> >

> >> >Because it shows the application of reasoning. A rational person does

> >> >not blindly accept something he or she has heard or read. There is a

> >> >thought process, an investigation into the veracity of the thing in

> >> >question, which leads the rational thinker to deny the existence of

> >> >anything without evidence. If one were irrational, not only would the

> >> >existence of a god be believed due to one book and the zealous words of

> >> >another, but the existence of fairies, gnomes, dragons, witches flying

> >> >on brooms, the Olympic gods, astral bodies, and other such mythological

> >> >entities would be just as real and valid.

> >>

> >> The problem is that if you apply the same rule to the rule itself it

> >> doesn't hold.

> >>

> >> Assertion: For something to be true there must be evidence of it being

> >> true.

> >> Now apply that assertion to itself. Where is the evidence that the

> >> assertion is true? In other words, where is the evidence to support the

> >> assertion that for something to exist there must be evidence of its

> >> existence?

> >>

> >> What I'm trying to say is that you have staked your reasoning on that

> >> assertion but the same reasoning can pull the carpet out from under it.

> >

> >Kent, there is real life. Mainly, the assertion "for something to be true

> >there must be evidence of it being true" is used because it simply _works_

> >better, in real life, than does any other.

> >Granted - it could still, possibly, be wrong - but if it was, how could we

> tell?

>

> Ok, I can see that you understand what I'm saying. So, isn't believing in

> an assertion that cannot be proven called faith? Believing it because it

> works isn't any different from believing some kind of religion because it

> works is it?

>

> Kent

Find me a religion that works, and maybe I'll concede the point. The

underlying assumption you are making (as I see it) is that at it's very

lowest level, all input to our minds is "unprovable" - therefore all of us

are "faith-based", and thus atheism is not any different that anything

else.

I think your basic assumption is flawed. As I see it, people need

repeated experiences to learn things - including the real basics like how

to communicate with others. If your assumption were valid, people would

not be able to learn effectively, as they would not be able to reinforce

the things they learn with real experiences (imagine that you had faith

that fire wouldn't hurt you - never depending on the evidence, you would

keep burning yourself). This would then invalidate the evolutionary

pressures that lead humanity's ancestors to develop cognition. Our

species would have died out early.

Basically, I feel that evidentiary learning is essential to cognition, and

_everyone_ does it, theists & atheists alike. Theists just don't do it for

certain specific abstract concepts.