messiestobjects

Philosophy Needs Science The Way That Blogs Need Pictures

    It's been a slow end-of-year for work... nothing since Portland. I'm in Dallas Texas right now, but trust me, there won't be any exciting photos from here. I'm stuck right next to 6 Flags. What a horrible place. So I'm going to intersperse some really old photos I took while living in Europe, and have never posted. Hover over them for a brief description and as always, if you click on them you can see a larger version for all those little details.

    I have a ton of old photojunk like that, so I figure I ought to use them for these wordy posts... and this is going to be a wordy post because: I'm finished with another semester, hoo-rah! And I've got more accolades under my belt. My Philosophy professor loved my final paper. So guess what? Here it is. We had to make up our own topic, based on what we got out of the material we covered in class, and so mine was "Why Philosophy needs science." There's a little bit of bullshit in there—I have trouble both getting started and wrapping things up in my writing—and by the time I got to the end, I realized that this subject is much bigger than an 8 page assignment.

_________________________________________________________________

From Philosophy To Philoscientia: Escape From Aether Mountain

    Though the literal definition of Philosophy is ‘the love of wisdom,’ that is no longer what Philosophy represents to people. It has come to signify man’s search for meaning in the Universe, which is not always the same thing as wisdom. It is a discipline of thought where the natures of things are pondered, values are ascribed to ideas, and those ideas are then used to ask bigger questions. In this historical hunt for truth and meaning, there is often an essential component missing; the critical evaluation of evidence. Assuredly, the great philosophers do not usually ignore evidence—and here I will use bow hunting as an analogy—but in the pursuit of knowledge, it has not always been deemed necessary for them to be one hundred percent sure of their footing or the current wind speed before aiming at a truth. When Aristotle posited the existence of a fifth element, which he named the aether, the only evidence he had to back up his claim was a personal conviction that there needed to be a substance which made possible the movement of atoms in a void, otherwise nature would have made no sense to him. The aether became a part of man’s understanding of nature for two thousand years and became the root of all manner of chicanery from alchemy to all-purpose elixirs. As Professor Smoot of UC Berkeley puts it:

Although there was some degree of experience and observation in the physics of Aristotle, at its heart was a philosophical approach to science where the laws of nature are constructed to conform to a particular philosophical outlook. This basis for the investigation of nature led to some strange statements by Aristotle - for instance, that women have fewer teeth than men. Either Aristotle was not a very accurate observer, he couldn't count, or he had odd taste in women.  (Smoot, 1996) 

So if Philosophy is the bow hunt, then Science is the act of observing the arrow. If your shots are missing the target, figure out why, adjust your aim, and shoot again. Philosophy needs Science.   

    In a very real sense, Philosophy is the evolutionary forerunner of Science. “The word ‘Physics’ derives from the Greek word for natural philosophy, physikos, and the early physicists were, in fact, often called natural philosophers” (The Ultimate Visual Dictionary of Science, p. 14). According to Reference.com, “natural philosophy (from Latin philosophia naturalis) is a term applied to the objective study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.” Additionally, “the word ‘science’ comes from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge” (The Ultimate Visual Dictionary of Science, p. 8) .

    Therefore it seems that the definition and purpose of Philosophy had evolved, from the mere asking of rational questions about the nature of the world, into the collection of knowledge gained from testing the validity of such questions through physical experimentation. In other words, the early philosophers were simply scientists who hadn’t yet figured out scientific principles. Once those were better understood—for example that in order to propose an explanation for a natural phenomenon (make a hypothesis), you had to fully understand your starting assumptions and whether they were valid—the discipline of Science split off from Philosophy and became something new and more powerful. Philosophy, for better or worse, was left behind.

    So now it would seem that Philosophy, in the minds of most people, is something completely other than what it was when it began. Statements that begin “My own philosophy is…” indicate that in common usage, a philosophy is a personal belief system. Even in modern Philosophy classes, students discuss different philosophical ideas as though they are a matter of opinion, or personal taste. But this forgets the fact that as a branch of study, Philosophy originated as a search for truth, a method of rational investigation for understanding the Universe and one’s place in it. When people became so good at it that they were using it to invent telescopes and predict natural events such as eclipses, they had to rename it and relegate philosophical query to strictly humanistic concerns. Is life a dream? What happens after death? What is the meaning of life? And other objectively unanswerable questions. But it shares deep roots with the scientific method, and perhaps the most important aspect of Philosophy is that it is all about asking questions.

    The Greek Philosopher Thales made a claim that exemplifies both the strongest and weakest aspects of Philosophy and in the process invented Natural Philosophy:

Thales believed that the Earth floats on water and all things come to be from water. For him the Earth was a flat disc floating on an infinite ocean. It has also been claimed that Thales explained earthquakes from the fact that the Earth floats on water. Again the importance of Thales' idea is that he is the first recorded person who tried to explain such phenomena by rational rather than by supernatural means. (O'Connor & Robertson, 1999)

The weakest part of his earthquake explanation is of course that he is dead wrong. It illustrates the dangers of stating a philosophical belief without having any evidence for it other than some sort of idea arrived at by rationalizing a limited amount of knowledge. The relative strength of it, however, is as O’Connor & Robertson state; he tried to provide a rational, natural explanation rather than an irrational superstitious one. Moreover, his hypothesis is testable, in principle—sail out into the ocean and see if it is infinite, dig down deep enough and find out what is holding us up—but simply claiming that the Gods cause earthquakes is not.

    So, in asking a testable question about the nature of earthquakes, Thales provided humanity with a framework for investigating the world. In asking the question, he provided the groundwork for finding the answer. This is the strength of Philosophy, and its most important function, even in the modern world. It is important to note that not all philosophical questions are equal. It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me that I will claim that the question “Is there a God or Gods?” is among the most useless. There is simply no way to ever answer that question. “Is there a teapot orbiting the smallest star in the Andromeda galaxy? Do leprechauns, unicorns, and angels exist? How deep is the well of human gullibility, anyway?” These are the equivalents of mental masturbation in that they are not testable, and serve no greater purpose than to distract the masses from questions of greater import.

    Some might argue that this is exactly why people find Philosophy so fascinating, that it is in the very discussion or argument of such questions that truths can be found, even if rational explanations cannot. To this I would reply with another query; of what use are such truths? When two people disagree about the nature of something that has no basis in verifiable evidence—for instance when Muslims and Christians discuss their differing views of God—isn’t that the same as two people disagreeing about the color of the teapot in Andromeda? I cannot prove that the teapot, or God for that matter, don’t exist (let alone what color they are or what type of sexual behavior they condone), but do I really need to? There are an infinite amount of things which may exist, and disproving any one of them is not simply a waste of time, it is an infinite waste of time.

    The human imagination can come up with any number of monsters, fairies, gods, teapots, or endless other scenarios, and thus rational inquiry must restrict itself to that which has measure. This is why Philosophy needs Science. Science is a natural extension of Philosophy which demands critical thought and verifiable facts from any statements that its progenitor may make, from which it learned how to use them in the first place. Philosophy is the train and Science is the track. Philosophy, as I have shown, tends to go off the rails when it ignores such Natural Philosophical strictures.

    The Age of Enlightenment is significant in regards to two of my purposes in writing this paper. One—it is when Science finally reached its age of majority. Thanks to Isaac Newton’s classical mechanics, a new world of thought became available to mankind and it definitively demonstrated the most accurate system for understanding and explaining how the Universe operates: Aristotle’s physics were replaced with non-teleological explanations discerned using the Scientific Method. Two—a most interesting correlation occurred in the remaining branches of Philosophy. In the period known as Early Modern Philosophy, philosophers began to abandon traditional authorities:

During the Middle Ages, philosophizing took place in the arts faculties […] and in the theological faculties of the universities. It thus came under the direct and censorious scrutiny of the Church. By the seventeenth century, however, [...] it had become more common to find original philosophical minds working outside the strictures of the university—i.e., ecclesiastic—framework. [...] by the end of the eighteenth century, [philosophy] was a secular enterprise. (Nadler, 2002, pp. 1-2)

    When philosophers emancipated themselves from the yoke of authoritarian “thought,” they ceased looking for truths and causes that had their basis in religious or Aristotelian assumptions, and began focusing their attention towards more humanistic concerns such as the nature of the mind, free will, and secular morality. I believe that these two intertwined occurrences—the parting of ways between science and philosophy, and the more deterministic direction which philosophy itself then took—illustrate the power of philosophical inquiry and its dependence upon testable facts—i.e. the Scientific Method.

    As I asserted earlier, the most vital aspect of philosophy lies in asking questions. That is its ultimate strength, and when philosophical questions are asked properly they can lead to astounding discoveries. What causes Earthquakes? Gods? No! Water? No! Tectonic plates bumping into each other and generally sliding around like a bunch of drunken Greeks? Yes! Next Question! The fact that asking simple questions led to finding the method for asking better questions, and in turn led to finding the ways to then answer those questions is perhaps the most dramatic quest in the history of humanity. In other words, if Philosophy is the question—How do I find answers to my questions and know that I’ve found a truthful answer?—then Science is the How. Ask a testable question, experiment, revise your assumptions and make a prediction, experiment again. Revise again. Ask again. Philosophy is thus most successful when Science can prove that it has asked a good question.

    The danger of Philosophy then is of course when you ask a question that you are certain that you already know the answer to, based especially on feelings of how the world “ought” to be. Socrates was the earliest recorded human to realize this and he made it his life’s work to instill in his students, and thus in humanity, the humility of never assuming too much self-certitude. In Plato’s Apology, Socrates says:

I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either. (Plato, p. 21d)

    What he was communicating is that it is folly to claim knowledge that is unearned; if you assume that you know something without having subjected it to rational dissection first, then further questions that you may ask based on this assumed knowledge will be faulty. His famous technique of questioning his opponents has come to be called the Socratic Method, but with a little age and maturity the Socratic Method begins to look quite a lot like the Scientific Method. When Aristotle assumed that there must be something like aether holding up the heavenly bodies, every question that future Western philosophers asked about the nature of the Universe afterwards was supposed on the basis of this false knowledge. Two-thousand years were wasted trying to find a way to turn lead into gold using Aristotelian principles. It is a shame for humanity that Aristotle didn’t heed his grand-master’s teaching more closely.

    Another example of reading your own presuppositions into philosophy and the danger this can lead to are the Nazi interpretations of Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s philosophy seems diabolical and radical when taken at face value, and his harsh German writing style doesn’t help. But he was anti-Judaist, not anti-Semitic or in other words, he was anti-religious and anti-authoritarian, not racist. His idea of the coming master race did not involve singling out any particular race, Aryan or otherwise, for the honor. Instead, it involved the eventual evolution of all mankind in a similar manner as when Homo Erectus evolved into Homo Sapiens. However, he envisioned the Übermensch as the end result of a more spiritual or mental evolution, perhaps even as a goal which humanity can set for itself purposefully.

    Unfortunately, Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth was anti-Semitic, and she had total control over all of his manuscripts for many years. It is well documented how she used and changed them to her own purposes. Thanks to her meddling, “Nietzsche's philosophy had been made ambiguous and incoherent, allowing loose interpretation. This ambiguity prompted Nazi interpreters to choose a context that supported Nazi literature and prophesy” (Kalish, 2004). When you think you know the truth, you will go looking for something to support it even if what you find must be altered—or conflicting evidence ignored—in order to do so. This is called confirmation bias and needs to be just as assiduously avoided in Philosophy as it is in Science.

    Therefore in order to avoid the appearance of confirmation bias myself, I wish to make one final point whose distinction I may not have made clear until now. When I say that there is danger in philosophizing without a scientific license, so to speak, I am not mainly talking about philosophical speculation. Although any philosophical speculation can be strengthened with a more firmly logical, scientific footing, there is no harm in sitting around the dorm room and wondering if the Universe is an atom in a giant cheese pizza. Nor is there any harm in writing a philosophical paper, treatise, or novel based around uncertain principles—whether by a stoned college undergrad or a tenured Ivy League professor—so long as it’s speculative nature is made unequivocally clear. As a matter of fact, such speculation is the cornerstone of much progress in all of the Arts and Humanities. If you are too afraid to ask absurd questions, you will never learn how to ask the good ones and in any case, the truth is often found out to be more absurd than could have been believed in the first place.

    No, I am mostly talking about making policy based on such speculative philosophies. As in the case of the Nazis who based many of their actions on a misunderstood reading of Nietzsche, there is danger in claiming that you have found a woman’s,  Jew’s, or homosexual’s place in society, or the meaning of life, or the one true God, all based on a logically flawed philosophy. It is mostly a given among scientists and philosophers nowadays that you must be certain of your footing before you aim for exciting new questions, but it is almost never a given among the less educated. Philosophy in the hands of a politician is often a tool for suppression. If people demanded that the philosophies of the powerful lived up to well understood facts and not to simple ideology, it would be infinitely more difficult for the atrocities of population marginalization and genocide to occur.

    If Philosophy then is the love of wisdom, and Science is knowledge, it must be understood that there can be no wisdom without the love of knowledge. It is far easier to convince an ignorant population to commit atrocities in the name of an ideology or a deity than it is to convince an educated one that recognizes the difference between a well-reasoned position and a scatterbrained dogma. If a philosophy is to do no harm, it must be understood in its entirety by an educated population before decisions of policy are based on it.

    Conversely, in an age of nuclear and biological weapons proliferation, it would seem that knowledge is also in dire need of some wisdom. How do you then gain the wisdom to use knowledge? It is not so much a chicken and egg situation, but a male and female one. So, while my main assertion is that Philosophy needs scientific back-up in order to be valid, the reverse is also necessary. The two must be learned hand-in-hand; they each need the validation of the other in order to survive.

 

 

Works Cited

Dorling Kindersley Limited, London. (1998). The Ultimate Visual Dictionary of Science. New York: DK Publishing.

Kalish, M. (2004, June). Friedrich Nietzsche's Influence on Hitler's Mein Kampf. Retrieved December 07, 2012, from UCSB Department of History: http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/MKalishNietzNazi046.htm

Nadler, S. (2002). A Companion to Early Modern Philosophy. Blackwell Publishers.

O'Connor, J. J., & Robertson, E. F. (1999, January). Thales of Miletus. Retrieved December 03, 2012, from School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St Andrews, Scotland: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Thales.html

Plato. (n.d.). Apology. http://perseus.uchicago.edu/perseus-cgi/citequery3.pl?dbname=GreekTexts&query=Pl.%20Ap.%2022a&getid=1.

Smoot, P. G. (1996, December 21). Professor Smoot Courses' Page . Retrieved December 03, 2012, from CMB Astrophysics Research Program : http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/aristotle-physics.html

Covered In God Poop In Portlandia

        I am way behind on my travel posts. I went to Portland Oregon in October, after getting back from Hawaii. I don't have much to say about the trip though... I didn't see or do anything particularly noteworthy because it was actually a busy week of work, plus a busy week of school work, plus some old friends from Chiemsee live there and I spent the small amount of free time I had at a Halloween wig party they were having. Not much to blog about really, because I'm not going to tell the story of how I wound up passed out in my rental car, covered in vomit and dog poop, trapped in the wrong rental car lot at three in the morning just hours before my flight. It's just a typical Chiemsee sort of thing. Good times. And since I'm not going to tell that story, and the only pictures I got were of the Portlandia statue, I'm going to post a discussion from my Philosophy class discussion board. The question on the table was—"What is your philosophy? Do you believe in God, and if so, for what reasons? How would you prove to someone who does not believe in God that God does indeed exist and your belief is true?"—And since I tend to have one sided atheist rants on my blog, I thought it might be fun to show me in action when people talk back to me. Last names are left out to protect the ignorant innocent.

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Monday, August 27, 2012 11:08:16 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Monday, August 27, 2012 11:08:16 AM EDT

    I am an atheist. Not only am I an atheist, but I will state outright and argue with anyone who wants to argue rationally about it that religion is the greatest evil that humanity ever invented. I am also a humanist, in that I am concerned for people suffering under the delusion of religion. I respect their right to believe whatever they wish, but I do not respect the belief itself that was not arrived at with critical thought backed with evidence, nor do I respect the right which all religions seem to claim of forcing their beliefs onto the populace through moral legislation.

    Since I would never try to prove to anyone that God existed, as there is no evidence that he does, I suppose I should turn the question around. However, neither would I try to prove that God does not exist. That is not what atheism means. I would never state categorically that there is no God for the same reason that I would never unconditionally declare that there is not a race of hyper-intelligent shrimp living in the oceans of Europa. There probably isn’t, but it’s an unanswerable question at the moment. It is not up to me to prove that something exists for which there is no evidence; instead, it is up to those who want others to believe in their God(s) to prove to me that he/she/they do exist. There are an infinite amount of ideas of things which might exist out there somewhere, but it is ridiculous to expect us to have to go around actually disproving each one of them.

    There is plenty of scientific evidence which proves that a creator is unnecessary, however. Evolution has shown that life can evolve from simple single-celled organisms without divine help, and modern cosmology is rife with ideas on how the Universe itself may have got its start. We may not yet actually understand how life got started in the first place, but I am far more comfortable with saying “I don’t know” to the ultimate answers of these questions than I am in trusting to the ridiculous claims from some musty old books, which were written by goat farmers and compiled by scribes and rulers with political agendas in a time before anyone on Earth had the smallest idea of what was really going on in the Universe. Science has shown that it is quite capable of understanding the world around us, and in a far more accurate way than any single religious claim has ever been able to.

Author:

Jason

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:07:37 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 1:07:37 PM EDT

     I understand and respect your belief.  I do belief in God.  I see that you have quite a problem with religion...which is the same sentiment of a lot of people.  I was wondering do you belief that there is a difference between religion and having faith? Also you said that "There is plenty of scientific evidence which proves that a creator is unnecessary, however. Evolution has shown that life can evolve from simple single-celled organisms without divine help, and modern cosmology is rife with ideas on how the Universe itself may have got its start", my question to you would  then be have you ever wonder where did that single- cell organisms came from?  

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:12:45 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 2:12:45 PM EDT

     Well, faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, and religion is simply the codifying of those beliefs. So no, I don't see a huge difference. They both involve a lack of critical thought.

     And yes, I do wonder how life got started in the first place; that first single-celled organism. It's true that science has not yet discovered the truth behind the beginning of life on Earth, but that's not to say that there are not some very reasonable theories about it. There's even a name for the scientific branch of the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes: Abiogenesis.

     However, the important thing about this is that it shows the difference between the religious mind and the scientific mind; Scientists have no problem looking at a question, and saying "I don't know" as an answer. In fact, a good scientist views such questions as exciting challenges, and will attempt to find the answers through further questioning, experimenting, revising, reframing the question, experimenting again and so on until an answer is found. Religious folks delight in pointing out areas where science has not yet found the answer and saying "We can't know! God did it!" But this is a dangerous game that religion has been playing for centuries. Every time Religion has tried to use God to explain something which we don't yet understand, it has had to backpedal when science eventually has explained it. In light of this, God is merely an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.

Robin

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:57:53 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 4:57:53 PM EDT

    It says in the bible Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding." I quote the bible and I realize that not everyone believes in it. What makes this useful to the - "Religious folks delight in pointing out areas where science has not yet found the answer and saying 'We can't know! God did it!' But this is a dangerous game that religion has been playing for centuries. Every time Religion has tried to use God to explain something which we don't yet understand, it has had to backpedal when science eventually has explained it. In light of this, God is merely an ever-receding pocket of ignorance.", is that this is a overgeneralized statement with a hint of disgust -"ever-receding pocket of ignorance." Not every person that believes in God writes off their lack of knowledge for the world and our existence to God's doing due to ignorance. It is that obviously we have only the capability to think for ourselves and not others, and yet we have the choice to think of others. It is a humble choice that we put someone before us, especially God. We trust God's ways before ours, there is no room for pride or ignorance if we do this. Then what is ignorant in a person who in their own life acknowledges God's existence, where as another person would hope to dissuade that person to believe in God by only having physical facts to show for proof towards a spiritual matter and of course without the ablity to completely know what that person knows for themselves?

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 5:56:59 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 5:56:59 PM EDT

     Proverbs 3:5, "Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"

     This is a wonderful Bible Verse which illustrates another critical difference between Religion and Rationality. You'll get no argument from me about the meaning of this verse, and in fact it is a major reason why I am an atheist.

     Please explain exactly how "God is merely an ever-receding pocket of ignorance" is an overgeneralized statement, especially in the context in which I used it. I don't think you are using that phrase correctly because it is a very specific statement which means that all throughout history, whenever man has not understood something, he has attributed it to God. Priests used to preach that Angels kept the Sun and the Moon in the sky and moving about. Now they do not, because we understand the mechanics of gravity regarding bodies in motion. People used to think that insanity was a sign of demonic possession and subjected the afflicted to unspeakable tortures, such as drilling holes in their head to get the demons out. Now even the most fundamentalist among the religious understand that human psychology is prone to certain neurosis and understand that demons have nothing to do with it, or at least understand that these people require actual medical treatment rather than torture.

     I used that phrase which you found offensive, but was not meant to be, in response to Jason who asked me "have you ever wonder where did that single- cell organisms came from? [sic]" because this is an argument that religions like to use often when trying to prove in God. If we don't know how life began, then God must have done it. But this is what they used to say about the reason for the sun shining before we understood Nuclear Physics.

     "It is a humble choice that we put someone before us, especially God. We trust God's ways before ours, there is no room for pride or ignorance if we do this." This statement is of course a matter of personal opinion, one with which I strongly disagree. Is it humble to think that an all-powerful creator who created the entire Universe is personally concerned with you and your relatively insignificant lifestyle choices? Or is it more humble to realize that you are one tiny insignificant human on a tiny insignificant planet of billions of humans orbiting a tiny insignificant sun which is in a tiny insignificant Galaxy composed of billions of suns, which in turn is one galaxy among billions?

    Lastly, when you say that "only having physical facts to show for proof towards a spiritual matter and of course without the ablity to completely know what that person knows for themselves"[sic] please understand that this is a meaningless statement to me. In October of 2008 James Randi offered a one million dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, spiritual or occult power or event. To date, no one has claimed this prize, or even been able to pass the preliminary test. People may have experienced personal spiritual events in their lives, but this is meaningless to all those who have not personally experienced any such thing and furthermore is absolutely not a claim for the existence of God, much less for making laws based on said claimant's morals.

Author:

Robin

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:49:04 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:49:04 PM EDT

    The question that if we believe in God and how would you prove it to someone is all that I am trying to share. There is way too much we both have to say on this and although we're not here to prove each other wrong, I was curious if my thoughts would make any difference to yours that maybe no one has said to you before. No big deal, it's a good discussion no matter how much we agree or disagree because it has substance from both sides and if you think of it like math when you're finding the lowest common denominator, it goes as far as it can and I think that's interesting and is good critical thinking on both sides of this, and I think we're there. :)

Author:

Tracy

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:13:47 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 8:13:47 PM EDT

 Hey messiestobjects,

    It was very nice reading your views on religion. I am not an atheist but I also don't consider myself to have any religion right now. All I know is that I have faith, not sure in who or what...but it keeps me going each time I struggle with something. I can say that I never met an atheist and when I first started reading your post I was nervous, but you made some great points. I like that you would never force your belief on anyone just as well as people should not force their belief on you. Can't wait to read more of your posts in the future!

Tracy

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:41:24 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:41:24 PM EDT

     Atheism does tend to make people nervous and/or angry. It's strange that it is that way... after all is said and done atheism is simply the declination to believe in something for which there is no evidence. The nature of religion is such that its followers need for as many people as possible to share their own beliefs in order to obscure the idea that there is actually no other reason to have faith in such ideas other than the reasoning of popular opinion. When a jerk like me thumbs his nose at such beliefs, it rattles the false idea of the self-evidency of those beliefs.

Author:

Jason

Posted Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 2:00:40 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 2:00:40 PM EDT

    Messiestobjects, as I read through all you responses it appears that because you don't believe in God you are trying your best to have everyone else believe what you believe. I am not convinced and you have not showed us that God does not exist. You talk about science but the same things you are saying that religion does not prove no science has proved it either. I not saying that in every instance majority rule is right, but 82% of Americans believe in God. Are you saying that we are all wrong and you and your science is right? By the way if God does not exist and science can explain and prove everything as you a making it out to be ...... why haven't they proved to the 82% of Americans and the rest of the world that God does not exist? One last thing, this country was founded on God! our forefathers used the Bible to aide them in writing the constitution that you and the  rest of us abides by. You spend the American dollar "In God we trust".

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 4:11:53 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 4:11:53 PM EDT

     Jason, apparently you haven't actually read my other posts, or at least you haven't comprehended them. As I've stated at least twice, as well as stated outright in my original post, it is not up to atheists to prove that God does not exist. That is not our claim. I am not making out that science has proved he doesn't exist. I am making out that truths which science has uncovered have simply made him unnecessary as an explanation for life, the universe, and everything. Atheism is simply a LACK of belief in theistic claims for which there are NO EVIDENCE. There is no evidence that God exists, period. Therefore, I don't believe him. And you are correct, the fact that 92 percent of Americans believe in him is meaningless. 73 percent of Americans also don't know the reason behind the Cold War. More Americans know who Kim Kardashian is and what she is up to than who Richard Feynman was and what he did for this country. By and large, the larger the number of Americans that believe in something, the more wary you should be about the veracity of it.

     Also, you are 100 percent wrong; our country was not founded on God. "In God We Trust" was added as a motto to the American dollar in 1956, many years after the country was all done being founded. Also, there's this: The 1796 US Treaty with Tripoli, Article 11 reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Additionally, none of the founding fathers were Christians, especially not Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, or Madison. This claim that we are a Christian Nation, founded on God, is completely false and revisionist. They despised the Christian religion, in fact, and left behind many writings to attest to that fact. Have you ever heard of the Separation of Church and State? A concept introduced by Thomas Jefferson.

     I am not trying to have everyone believe what I believe, Jason, far from it. I leave that sort of behavior up to the religious inquisitionists and Republicans who want to dictate laws based on so-called Christian morality. All I want is for people to understand the difference between fact and opinion, evidence and belief, knowledge and faith.

Author:

Dana

Posted Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 11:16:28 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Monday, September 3, 2012 11:16:28 PM EDT

    Messiestobjects, that was a very well thought out and well written argument and it is apparent that you have taken the time to draw the conclusions that you have. Interestingly enough, I was also 'indoctrinated' at a very young age into religion and due to many unfortunate circumstances spent many years resentful at churches and the idea of God. My views have since changed with age and life experience and although I am not here to force my beliefs upon you (something I still abhor), I do have a few things to say in response to your post. I was at one point a nursing major and took several science classes in order to  get all my prerequ's for the program. I have a friend who is a nurse and is athiest and felt that his science classes helped him in that direction. At times he would ask me while I was in these classes how I could still believe in God and I would answer him, how can you take these classes and not believe in God? The human body is made up of so many complex systems that all must work together perfectly forr us to exist. Additionally, the world around us must operate in a certain way as well to create a balance for the environment and for us. It is a hard pill for me to swallow that these complex systems just evolved over time without some sort of divine guidance. I agree with you that people's faiths are their own and should never be forced upon others which is why I would never be associated with people that live as such. However, I have personally lived through many life experiences that have given me a firm foundation for a belief in God that science can never explain. Also, interestingly, science itself is based soley on theories. Theories that when retested are often altered and changed. The theory of evolution is just that, a theory that began with the observations of some guy in 1859... over 150 years ago. Their are many aspects of Darwin's original theory that have been discredited by scientists over time. The point I am trying to make is that nothing is absolute, which you agree with. Everyone has a right ot believe whatever they want and it is harmful to try to force those opinions on others.

Author:

Messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 12:01:33 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Tuesday, September 4, 2012 12:01:33 PM EDT

HI Dana,

    I appreciate your viewpoints on God and your willingness to accept differing beliefs in people. I agree that you should never force your beliefs on anyone through say, legislation or the brainwashing of children. However, this idea that simply debating for your own point of view is the same thing as forcing your opinion on others is false. Merely having to hear about the reasoning and logic behind science and evolution vs. creationism in a school is not an act of violation! I find it amusing that certain Christians can’t read my views on atheism in a philosophy class without gasping in fear that I am forcing them to hear that not everyone agrees with their own views on the existence of God, and with good reason. Especially since this is actually exactly what they are attempting to do when they are happy to tell me all about how I am in the minority in America, and how 92 percent of Americans believe in God, so I must be wrong and should stop trying to force my views on others through, say, a debate as assigned by the class professor! Clearly, you are not one of those types, and so I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate you in a rational manner.

    So with that in mind, I will first address your statement that “The human body is made up of so many complex systems that all must work together perfectly for us to exist. Additionally, the world around us must operate in a certain way as well to create a balance for the environment and for us. It is a hard pill for me to swallow that these complex systems just evolved over time without some sort of divine guidance.”  The fact of the matter is that just because you personally find the human body to be so complex that you don’t understand how it could have happened without some kind of a creator is meaningless. Perhaps you studied evolution in school, perhaps not, but it is clear to me that either way you haven’t fully grasped the power of natural selection. I don’t hold that against you because the fact of the matter is that very few people seem to understand the Theory of Evolution, which is because it is a complicated idea and requires concentrated effort and will to study it and completely grasp it. But anybody can do so if they want to and so I suggest you spend some time studying books and lectures on the Theory of Evolution and fully coming to grips with how it works before you decide that it can’t possibly explain complex life forms.

    Which brings me to my next point; you state that “The theory of evolution is just that, a theory,” which is a common statement by creationists who don’t understand what a scientific theory actually is. Did you know that gravity is also “just" a theory? However, you don’t see many creationists trying to prove their point by stepping out of 12th story windows! Most people tend to confuse a hypothesis, which is an educated guess about the outcome of an experiment, with a Scientific Theory, which is the framework of ideas which explain an interrelated set of facts and observations. In fact, the Scientific Theory is the strongest and best explanation of the natural world that currently exists! When you say that “Their [sic] are many aspects of Darwin's original theory that have been discredited by scientists over time,” what you actually mean is that a good scientific theory must be falsifiable, which in turn means that they must be able to adapt to new information, i.e. observations, evidence, and facts. So it is true that the Theory of Evolution has changed over time, but rather than being discredited it has only become stronger. It is currently the strongest explanation for how life has organized itself on this world, and you are dead wrong to say that it has been proven incorrect in any meaningful way.

    Lastly, I would like to direct you to two excellent videos by Qualia Soup which explain very clearly how Science and evolution work. The first one is called "Skewed Views of Science" and is self-explanatory. The second one is called simply "Evolution" and is an excellent primer on the misconceptions surrounding evolution. They are ten minutes each and well worth your time.

Author:

Samantha

Posted Date:

Monday, August 27, 2012 4:56:16 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Monday, August 27, 2012 4:56:16 PM EDT

    I do believe in God and attend church when I can.  I was raised Catholic and then changed to Lutheran.  The reason I changed I attended church with my cousin and I enjoyed her listening to her Pastor and Youth Pastor who talked about you making a change in the world.  Whether it be big or small everyone can make a change.  While some people believe there is no God how can that be with this earth as beutiful as it is.

    In trying to prove to someone there is a God I would not be the person to do that, as I am one person and how do they know what I say is true or false.  I believe that people accept or deny someone or something for different reasons, and if they want to change they can but on their terms or something in their life has made them change.  Just like when I reading Tracy posting that he started questioning the beliefs of the Catholic Church and did not take everything they said at face value.  The reason he changed his beliefs was because of when he was sick and it made him start questioning things. 

Author:

Messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:04:39 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:04:39 AM EDT

 

"While some people believe there is no God, how can that be with this earth as beautiful as it is."

 Hi Samantha,

      I just want you to know that I'm not picking a fight, but I want to respond to this statement of yours. The fact of the matter is that beauty does not imply a creator. Evolution can actually explain why we find the earth beautiful because 'survival of the fittest', as Natural Selection is otherwise known, does not mean survival of the strongest, as is often misunderstood. It means survival is awarded to the organism that fits its environment better than other organisms. This means that we have evolved and flourished on this planet because we adapted to the environment extremely successfully, in large part thanks to our brains (and a very enthusiastic 'thumbs up' to our opposable digits). Is it really a surprise, then, that our minds find this world in which we grew up to be beautiful?

     You don't personally have to accept evolution as true in order to see how my argument shows why beauty is not an argument for God. The fact that evolution has a perfectly logical explanation for beauty simply shows that there is an alternative possible explanation for why we find the world to be attractive, and why beauty in and of itself is not proof of God's existence.

Paulette

Posted Date:

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:45:58 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:45:58 PM EDT

    In my youth I would have to say that my belief in God was force fed to me. As I grew older and saw more terrible things I would come to believe there is no God. For if there was a God and if he was so good why then could all these bad things happen to one person. As I grew even older I realized that God was not a thing but a way to live a set of standards that people use to have something that is greater than them and then the fear of being alone would be less scary. God exists because there are people who believe in this theory and if there is belief then it becomes a thing. The existence of God is not in its physical form but in its metaphysical form (can’t believe I just used that word) and it is because of this that God exists.

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:50:17 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:50:17 AM EDT

 

Hi Paulette,
      So, are you saying that you think that just because people believe in something that doesn't exist and choose to live their lives by the myths surrounding the non-existent deity, that this deity somehow becomes an actuality? Or are you using the term metaphysical as a metaphor for "not real"?

     Obviously, as an atheist, I disagree that the term "metaphysical God" means anything at all: If there is no God then there is no God. But I'm curious to know what you think metaphysical means, because it sounds to me like it means "wishing something into existence".

     Sorry, don't mean to sound combative, it's a difficult subject to talk about without sounding confrontational! I really am just trying to talk about the definition of metaphysics, here.

Paulette

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:04:14 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:04:14 PM EDT

    Wait, wait, wait messiestobjects. LOL! 

    This is the first class I have taken on Philosophy. So then my first response is yours. Oh great, the pressure to answer. So I'll try.

    I think that if you want to believe this gives it, its reality. The more you believe the more you think it is real so it will be real to you.

    So I guess the answer is not if you wish but "believe" which to me are two different things.

    I am 39 and still dont know where I stand on God, I sometimes find myself saying "God forbid" or "Oh My God", but then I think why did I say that do I really believe??

Sometimes I pray, but not really sure why.

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48:59 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:48:59 PM EDT

     This is my first philosophy class too! It's perfectly ok not to know where you stand on God... but if you make statements about him, I think it's important to be clear what you mean,  which is why I asked all the questions. Again, I am a dyed-in-the-wool atheist so if anyone is going to make claims about God, I am usually going to challenge them on it. It's not personal, and I'm not trying to convert anyone, but it's important to me.

     I think an important part of philosophy is the art of Sophistry, which I know that Socrates spent a lot of time philosophizing against. In his day, Sophistry was the art of argument using rhetoric (word games, essentially), in order to prove a point, whereas Socrates tended not to respect such approaches; he seemed to be more concerned with the actuality of ideas and delighted in winning arguments not by making statements, but by asking his opponent questions.

     In this case, I want to get to the bottom of the difference between a wish and a belief. By "wish," I don't mean something you wish for from a magic lamp. I mean it as something which you need to be true in order to validate your beliefs. Often, people claim that prayer works, which is wishful thinking. There have actually been experiments performed which test the power of prayer, and the results are conflicting and certainly not in favor of prayer. There have been studies performed by religious groups in the hopes that they could prove that prayer works scientifically, and they found that prayer in fact could have a negative effect on the recipient of a prayer! I think that what you can safely take away from this is that prayer, at best, is not scientific and as such there is no evidence that it actually works for anything.

     Belief, in my mind, is no different from a wish in this respect. Just because you believe in something, doesn't make it true. Harold Camping predicted last year that the Rapture would occur on May 21, 2011. Some of his followers believed the "proof" which he claimed to have found in the Bible, and sold everything they owned in order to donate money and time to Camping's ministry to try and get the word out to as many people as possible. They BELIEVED that the Lord was coming back. When he didn't, lives were ruined. Belief does not make something true, in any sense that matters.

     So my Socratic question to you is; if you believe something for which there is no evidence, and it becomes real to you, in what sense is it real? If you pray for world peace, or for a relative not to die of cancer, and world peace doesn't happen or he or she does die (Or even if he or she doesn't die, the question remains; was it the prayer that saved him or her, or modern medical treatment? You can prove that medical science may have had something to do with it, but you'll never be able to show what good, if any, that prayer did), and yet you continue to pray for things, in what sense are your beliefs real?

Author:

Robin

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:07:17 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:07:17 PM EDT

    Messiestobjects, why do you usually challenge people when they make claims on God? If there was solid scientific proof of God and prayer, would you believe in God? This is a deep question for us all, and I think this is very interesting to be able to discuss  such this with people with many views on it in depth that we might not normally have a chance to otherwise. I'm not used to talking fairly to someone that is an atheist that doesn't quickly get upset with me for disagreeing in what I believe in, while they tend to get upset if I disagree with what they believe in. I appreciate your objectiveness!

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:22:24 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:22:24 PM EDT

     I usually challenge them because I find that most beliefs are based on faulty reasoning, and I myself was once a victim of religious belief. I am a first generation atheist: my family are NOT happy with me (in the religious sense, at least). The process of realizing that I had been lied to my whole life, and of shedding my irrational beliefs, was both liberating and traumatic. So the debate is a lifelong, ongoing process for me. I challenge others because I am challenging myself.

     I have yet to hear of any evidence for God's existence, but I will tell you this: If there were solid, verifiable evidence that God existed, not only would I NOT believe in God, but there would not be one single believer left on Earth for the same reason that no one on Earth believes that the Sun exists: We know it does.

     This is the crux of atheism. It is NOT a belief or a claim that God does not exist. It is simply a lack of belief in things for which there are no evidence. You yourself are an atheist you know... you don't believe in Odin, Thor, Baal, Osiris, Ahuru Mazda, or Zeus! I just go one God further... :)

Author:

Christine

Posted Date:

Friday, August 31, 2012 1:36:37 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Friday, August 31, 2012 1:36:37 AM EDT

    Hi messiestobjects,

    Religion is a real sort of tabou subject, in the sense that if you don't believe in God or if you question his existence then you are sort of looked at with a discerning eye. It is really hard to question someones beliefs without at times sounding combative.  I myself question if there is a god, especially the more you read about history and science.

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Friday, August 31, 2012 10:49:15 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Friday, August 31, 2012 10:49:15 AM EDT

    Right; when you claim to be an atheist who finds religion ridiculous, religious people don't like it. Which is actually a double standard... I don't like it that Republicans are attempting to legislate women's reproductive rights based on their religion, but for some reason we are supposed to respect their beliefs anyway. This is an untenable state of affairs. Any religion that needs to coerce others into adhering to its belief system through the law deserves NO respect, and needs to be called out on all of its hypocrisies at every opportunity.

     It may have been a taboo subject once, but no longer. There are more and more people realizing that religion is a big scam every day, and the internet has made it possible for us to make ourselves heard without fear of being ostracized from our local communities... I was an atheist for a while before I felt comfortable declaring that fact, but the more I've learned and the more I've debated, the more confident I am and I no longer have any trouble wearing a T-shirt that says ATHEIST! out in public.

Author:

Brittany

Posted Date:

Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:47:07 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Saturday, September 1, 2012 8:47:07 PM EDT

    Personally, I was raised Methodist in a small town in southern Missouri. Church activities constituted most of my social life as an adolescent, as well as the social lives of my peers. This being said, I bought into Christianity wholeheartedly during that part of my life. I believed in God, I was baptized, and I became a member of the United Methodist Church. As I got older though, I started to question the things that I had been taught, and slowly became an atheist. My main question was: If science can prove that something is true, why would seemingly intelligent people deny its validity because of the Bible? For example, some religious people have a problem acknowledging that evolution is real, or that the Earth is actually over 4.5 billion years old. I just can't bring myself to believe in an ideology that tries to hold back the advancement of knowledge in our society. I also dislike when religion is used as a weapon in the political arena. For some reason, all politicians have to say that they're Christians to get elected, and sometimes they use the idea of Christianity to deny people their rights. I also think that people often use religion as a crutch to get through the trying times in their lives, instead of actively trying to fix things themselves. Telling someone to “Pray about it”, is much less effective than giving them advice on how they can proactively make the change they want to see in their lives.

With this in mind, I would never take it upon myself to impose my own personal philosophy (that science is truth, and that we make the decisions that shape our lives) on someone who said that they did believe in God. I think people are entitled to their own beliefs, and no one is necessarily right all the time. However, if someone had a question about whether a scientific fact or a religious idea was true, I would offer them my opinion.

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:59:55 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:59:55 AM EDT

    "With this in mind, I would never take it upon myself to impose my own personal philosophy (that science is truth, and that we make the decisions that shape our lives) on someone who said that they did believe in God."

    What do you mean by "impose"? I would never try and force someone to believe/acknowledge scientific truths through say, legislation or brainwashing, but I have no problem "imposing" my atheism on people through conversation or debate. Religion has been imposing it's moral values on everyone for centuries, and has been a huge force for harm in the world. I am compelled to point out errors in reasoning whenever I can because I feel very strongly that if humanity doesn't wise up very soon, we're going to destroy ourselves.

    I also don't believe that people are necessarily entitled to their beliefs. What I mean is, Islamic fundamentalists believe that it is their imperative to kill all infidels and subjugate all women. Do you think they are entitled to this belief? Christians in the US seem to believe that it is their right to impose the teaching of "Intelligent Design" in public schools at the expense of evolution. They also believe that Homosexuals do not have the same legal rights as other human beings, or that women don't have the right to choose how to use their own reproductive systems, and want to enforce this moral code on them by law. They are entitled to hold these insane beliefs amongst themselves, but they are not entitled to believe that they have the right to force other people to live by their beliefs, because we have a constitutional guarantee for the separation of Church and State.

     Since "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed, and Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved," (Tim Minchin) I believe that the teaching of science trumps the beliefs of the religious in every public sphere. In the US, Christianity and other religions have every right to teach their beliefs to their own children at home and in church (or at temple or at the mosque etc etc) or even in conversation and debate with others, but they don't have the right to claim that we are trampling over their religious freedoms by keeping their beliefs out of schools and out of the lawbooks.

     I realize that, as an atheist, you probably agree with me at least to some degree, but I feel like it's important that when someone says "everyone is entitled to their beliefs" to point out that beliefs are not guaranteed equal status with the truth. The truth is not somewhere in between a fact and a lie, and opinions are not worthy of equal footing next to facts.

Author:

Claire

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:52:36 AM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:52:36 AM EDT

    Samantha and Stefani- I'm right in the same boat with you! I know I believe in God, and while I could probably start an argument with other people who don't believe in God, I don't feel the need to. Faith is an intimate thing. It is shaped by the way you grew up and by the situations you've lived through. Sure, someone could argue God is fake and use science to back up their claims, but that still wouldn't change my views. After living in a Christian home for my whole life my beliefs are so ingrained into the person I am that no one can take them away. Even though I may not attend church on a regular basis the Christian values I have will stick with me.

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:03:34 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:03:34 PM EDT

     "I could probably start an argument with other people who don't believe in God, I don't feel the need to." REMINDER: The topic of this discussion board is "What is your philosophy? Do you believe in God, and if so, for what reasons? How would you prove to someone who does not believe in God that God does indeed exist and your belief is true?"

     Not an argument, a discussion. You get more points for the assignment the more good comments you make.

Author:

Jeanette

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:57:57 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 10:57:57 PM EDT

    I am a believer.  My views have changed as I have gotten older but I have always believed in God.  I was raised Baptist.  When I was 5 my parents would send me and my borthers and sisters to Sunday School every week.  They decided to stop goin after a few years but I went every week. I believed what was told to me and just accepted what they said.   After graduating High School things in my life went astray and I stopped going to church for a long time.  After my Divorce in 2006 I spiraled downhill and called out to God in Prayer asking for help.  I am not going to go into all the details but I did not think I was going to make it through the night, I awoke in the morning and heard a voice telling me to get up, get dressed and go to church. So I did.  I decided to go to a local church here and immediately felt at home.  It is not your conventional church.  Few months after I started going I decided to be baptized and accept Jesus as my savior, not because someone was telling me it was the thing to do but because it was what I felt in my heart.  I felt the change inside after the baptism.  Few months later I met a man who did not believe in God.  He knew I was a christian and I accepted that he was not.  I did not force my views/beliefs on him but I did pray to God for help in deciding what to do.  A few months later he asked to go to church with me, the first time he felt uncomfortable and left shortly after arriving and did not come again for a few weeks.  Eventually on his own he came back and accepted Jesus as his Savior and was baptized.    When I asked him why the change he told me that he had been hearing voices for a few weeks telling him it was time to go to church.    I can't prove to someone that God exists, but you also can't prove that he does not exist.  Each branch of religion be it Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, etc still believes in God, they just worship him differently.  I found that the less conventional way was best for me to show my love of God.  Each person has to find their own path.  Sure I still stumble and make mistakes, but my belief in God helps me to get through the good times and the bad. 

Author:

messiestobjects

Posted Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:28:27 PM EDT

Edited Date:

Sunday, September 2, 2012 11:28:27 PM EDT

    Hi Jeanette,
     I have no desire to argue with your personal experiences that led you or your friend to become born again, but I do want to address one statement that you made: "I can't prove to someone that God exists, but you also can't prove that he does not exist." The burden of proof is an important philosophical argument that has been prominent recently amid creationist / atheist debates, and the assertion you make here is an often used point on the religious side. The crux of the matter is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the existence of a God who is responsible for everything is quite an extraordinary claim for which no evidence exists. This is the reason why religious belief requires faith. If you have faith, that is certainly your business (and your unequivocal right), but you cannot  expect someone who has never heard the voices that you have to accept your claims, which is why the first half of your statement is admirable and true.

     However, the second half is a non-starter, a non-point, and yet widely used. As I've said elsewhere, it is not up to unbelievers to prove that something doesn't exist. It would be like if I asked you thus: Jeanette, do you believe in Zeus? You would probably say no. Then I would say, you can't prove to me that Zeus does not exist! I've heard Zeus telling me to go kill Medusa, so I know he is real, and you can't prove to me that he isn't!" There are many, many ideas in the world of things that probably don't exist: Purple rain, talking dogs, flying shoes, a teapot orbiting Jupiter... the only way to definitively prove that a talking dog does not exist, for example, would be to interview every dog on Earth, which is absurd. How much harder would it be to prove there is NOT a teapot orbiting Jupiter, or an all-powerful, invisible creator who only speaks to a chosen few? Therefore, you can see why most non-Christians are hesitant to accept Christian claims of special knowledge regarding the creator, and their right to impose their beliefs through legislation.

    And that's it... I tended to have the last word against my classmates. I like to think it's because they had nothing against my devastating logic bombs, but in all likelihood it's more probable that they just didn't understand some of the big words I used. Or that they simply wrote me off as an asshole.-- Powell's books was HUGE!