Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

I am going to state my point again, if you give someone a legal power. The power to create a legally binding contract he can not decide himself when to and with whom he can use that power. Marriage is a in the eyes of the state a civil thing, a contract between two people that grants a certain status in the eyes of the law and the state. If gay marriage, or inter-racial marriage or marriage between two people who are of wildly different ages are legal then any instiution that is granted the right to grant this legal status can't be allowed to pick and choose when to do so.

Now, if you think that marriage is something more, that it is a spiritual bonding between two people, a man and a woman and no fags allowed then you can have a spiritual ceremony a "real" wedding in a church that can decide completely arbitrary who can have this ceremony and then they just pop down to the justice office to pick up a piece of paper before or after to make it legal in the eyes of the state as well as in the eyes of god.

Anyone having legal, civic power can not be allowed to decide based on ideological reasons when and where to use it.

 

That JP in LA resigned. Unfortunately, there is still no such power in the National Constitution to protect gays, as there are for other minorities, and even yesterday another state (Maine) voted against gay marriage. I agree that gays should have equal access to the Law, but unfortunately voters here in the US don't agree.

 

They have the power to do so because they are not the only means to marriage. If they were, I would agree. But since there not, it's not necessary to go down that path and buck tradition that goes back many generations in a society. The priest is not representing the Government, but his church. The Government already knows the rules the church follows and still grants the Church the ability to legally marry a couple. That is why there are other options on the road to marriage.

 

Apologies if the following has already been addressed. In all honesty I barely read the first two pages of this thread so if these were cleared up later on then feel free to give me a proverbial punch in the face.

The definition(s) of atheism, even more than most other terms you can find in various dictionary sources, can vary wildly from context to context.

Atheism means "One who believes in but Hates God!" to some fundamentalists and directing them to the term "maltheist" will fall on deaf ears.

Atheism means "One who 'believes' there is no God" to certain persons with certain agendas and bringing up problems of clarity, logic and distinction will fall on deaf ears.

Amongst the lofty intellectuals who often make their careers in philosophy and who can talk at length about everything from "solipsism" to "Computationalism", atheism is far more complex and at the same time far simpler.

Weak atheism is what almost all general atheists fall under. These simply lack a positive conviction that any supernatural gods Do exist and they do not actively worship any natural entities as gods(i.e. the sun, Kim Jong Il, Eric Clapton etc.).

Strong atheists assert that SOME supernatural gods cannot exist for reasons of logic(the law of non-contradiction being the guiding principle here) but to other gods they remain "weak atheists" OR they assert strong atheism to ALL gods on the grounds that either an alleged god is defined well enough that they can say "That cannot exist!" or "That does/may exist but regardless I deny it's deification!" OR the alleged god in question is unintelligible(i.e. 'the spiritual somethingness that IS but also is NOT...") and should be dropped in a bucket labeled "nonsense" and ignored.

Neither "atheism nor "theism" themselves necessarily imply a position on RELIGION. There ARE religious atheists(many Buddhists for example and arguably Scientologists) as well as non-religious theists.

Using selective dictionaries to try and define someone in a way that makes them easier to 'knock down' is just bad form and ignorant of the way language works and evolves. Dictionaries gives USAGES, not "meanings".

 

Welcome aboard! Your last point is something we all should keep in mind and it goes for all sorts of language books not only dictionaries but grammar books as well. The books are supposed to reflect how the language is actually used, they are not there to define the language or to give the correct usage. They exist to show the most common way of doing things and to ease understanding but language use should not change to fit the books, the books change to fit the language.

 

Likewise, welcome! The point of the definition of atheism has been batted back and forth quite a bit here, especially as it concerns agnostics, and I like the division of weak vs strong atheism (also called agnostic vs gnostic atheism). You skip the final extreme, however, of strong atheism. The Ultimate Atheist (tm) denies the existence of all deities (and usually all supernatural) on principle. They claim that such things cannot exist, and thus no specific examples of them are real. Some will admit that they cannot prove their claim, and thus it is simply a belief, but others will claim they can prove it. Such "proof" tends (as I have seen it) to be logically flawed, and often evidentiarily flawed as well.

It is to these people, either claiming proof or not, that I should compare religion. They believe a specific doctrine without (legitimate) supporting evidence, and generally cling to that dogma with the same fervor we religious folk cling to our Bible (or Torah, or Koran, or whatever holy teachings you want to use). They may not organize on the same level, but there is a strong similarity between the individuals of each group.

 

There is also a confusion of reference points. Some define specific terms based on the "human" context, some define them based on the "absolute", and the rest try to make due with a "comfortable" mix of the two.
Logic, for example. "Logic", by itself, is (probably) absolute, all-encompassing, etc etc etc. Human Logic, however, is by nature flawed and incomplete. Using it to prove the existence of something beyond the "human comfort zone" (/human understanding, human reasoning, human science etc) is not only folly but an affront to the concept of absolute Logic.

As an aside, a "contradiction" is a spawn of human logic. The universe is perfectly fine with the existence of "contradictions" ("black holes", "+ and - opposites attract", "division by zero", etc).

 

Why would non-belief need proof? It is pointless to "disprove" a mythology.

 

An Athiet defends religion

Check out this link, I think it really sums up the topic from a cultural perspective.

http://www.zenit.org/article-27550?l=english

 

Why would belief need proof? Unless someone has actually found a way to count to infinity.

"Mythology" is a unique study. Myths are notorious for having details that are particularly exaggerated or just plain untrue. And yet a lot of what we know as fact today were the object of "myths" (or worse) not so long ago.

But just in case I'm not about to argue whether the rest of the more "profound" messages of certain myths are true or not, or whether certain concepts (discussed in this thread) have more merit than the other. At the moment I'm more interested on results that make sense, like the concept of democracy.

 

Thank you for what appears to be a well thought out comment.

How is "weak" atheism different "strong" in a practical way. If asked does God exist my understanding is that both would say "no" or "I don't think so".

In this way the difference between weak and strong is just how certain you are of your position-that their may be a God but you don't think so or that there certainly is not.

Either way both seem to be a way to address/describe what one thinks reality is.



I would like to point out that there were some inconsistencies that were discussed which I think you may have missed if you didn't read through a long discussion we had.

And they do relate to the discussion of definitions. There
One was about dealing with if atheism, or at least types there of, can be an active force in society.

Some groups that believe in a supernatural being (or at least the likelihood one exists) are seen as an active force in society for good or ill.

A claim was made that unlike these groups atheism, or groups of people following an understanding of it, cannot be.

I think both can be and that it is inconsistent to say only one is and the other isn't.

I disagreed with T2Bruno here but recognized him for being consistent when he said neither were and that actions (we were mainly discussing negative ones) were done by leaders and do on and that neither theism and its subcategories nor atheism and its subcategories bear responsibility for various actions (some of which were quite horrible).

I have seen some atheists argue that the subcategories of theism bear responsibility for the Inquisition but (subcategories of) atheism do not because it is supposedly impossible to act on a lack of a conviction in spite of the recorded, as historical fact, events such as Russian Communists trying to get people to give up their believe in supernatural beings (God) by both propagandistic and brutal methods (I'm referring to different things done with the same intended goal).

But I and T2Bruno were consistent even if we disagreed. What do you think of self proclaimed atheists who appear to be using definitions to be inconsistent in the picture they paint (their understanding of reality as harmless and a different understanding as harmful)?

How would you address their claims?

Welcome to the boards as well.

 

Non-belief doesn't need proof. Claims of disproof or absolute non-existence need proof. Non-belief, in and of itself, is simply an opinion, just like belief.

The difference is that the weak would likely say "I don't know" while the strong would more likely say "absolutely not".

I think that, on the note of social impact, religion can be best seen as a tool of organization. Whether the impact is positive (hospitals, charities, etc.) or negative (prejudice, violence, etc.) depends entirely on the leaders guiding the tool.

 

Point taken NOG. Though there are times when people look to back up their opinions with evidence.

I is the word "agnostic" younger than the word atheist? Perhaps it was an innovation generated in an attempt to clarify the difference between unconvinced and actively denying the existence of. In that way it may be an lingual improvement made for clearer communication.

Though people who actively say God is a myth, superstition, and so on would then be incorrect in saying they are simply unconvinced because they are declaring God doesn't exist as a fact rather than a personal opinion.


Though I think the issue of inconsistency on the part of the atheists I referred to (not all) is a still a problem and just another way of trying to be elitist/say we're better than them.


Which is why I would hold T2Bruno and atheists like him apart from the atheists I came across on that website.


By the way Vhailor, thank you for the link to the book. I don't know if I'll agree with it but its author seems to be trying to take a step away (at least from the description I read) of the atheists I referred to.

 

Agnosticism is not what you seem to think it is. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, not belief. Most agnostics are also weak atheists. A few are theists. NONE are "neither" because it is impossible to neither have nor lack a conviction that God(or any transcendent gods) exists.

I have never heard this term "Ultimate atheist" before but I gather from your description that it is something like "Militant atheist", "extreme atheist", etc. More of an attempt to insult those who do not agree that 'everything is possible' or some such.

I suspect that I myself would be called an "ultimate atheist" by you because I hold that the supernatural does not and cannot exist for reasons of logic.
However, I would be the first person to say I was wrong if someone were to cough up some decent evidence to suggest such.

For specific "Gods" or the supernatural in general? Atheism itself, whether strong or weak, is in no way affected by the hypothetical existence of supernatural entities who are not transcendent gods.

Logically, something either exists(and is thus "natural") or it does not. Anything which exists can and does affect everything else that exists and so CAN be demonstrated to exist by means of science(whether it has yet or not). Things which are said to be "beyond" the reach of science must therefore be imaginary.

Incorrect. That is like saying that anyone not 'open minded' enough to agree that square shaped circles are possible is therefore holding to a fundamentalist religious doctrine, mystic rituals, dogma etc. Furthermore you presume that these who adhere to logic/rationalism are akin to those who adhere to dogma. Dogma is something adhered to in spite of and often CONTRARY to evidence, logic and inference. It is typically stated as "I don't care what you say, you're NEVER going to convince me that...(God does not exist/9-11 was not a government plot/JFK was assassinated by Oswald/etc.)!".

EDIT: The definition of "agnosticism"

Huxley coined this term in response to the claims of the 'Gnostic' sect who asserted that they did not "believe" in God they KNEW God and had diorect revelation of him. Huxley was basically saying two things:

1)That he did not "know" of any "God"(and had good reason to strongly suspect no one else did either).

2)That if such a God did not do anything that would warrant every rational person inferring his existence, then his alleged existence is of no more consequence than his non-existence. See Sagan's "Garage Dragon" for a good illustration of this point.

---------- Added 0 hours, 19 minutes and 21 seconds later... ----------

The implied analogy b between counting to 'infinity' and believing in transcendent gods is a bit dubious IMO. Infinity, while useful in the mathematical context, is NOT a number at all. It has no specific quantity and is as much a quantification as "perfection" is. We cannot prove infinity exists because quite simply it does NOT. If "God" is defined as simply "Something that is greater than any number we could count to." or what have you then you will get no argument from atheists(even us "Ultimate atheists" ) except that we would not deify such.

The claim that God exists is not a mathematical proposition or tool. It is a claim about reality itself. What is called an "extraordinary claim" because if it were true, it would have great impact in revising everything we know or observe to be true, in effect placing us in an "anything is possible" reality.

Ergo the mantra "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

---------- Added 0 hours, 33 minutes and 23 seconds later... ----------

Strong atheism is provisional. Strong atheists defer to weak atheism when presented with gods who are not logically impossible but still lack credible evidence to say they exist. But if you claim a God exists who is, for example omniscient AND has free will himself, a strong atheist will say that this is impossible.
A weak atheist will not say "no he does not exist" but rather "I do not currently believe such exists.". It is a lot like Sasquatch in that, ignoring the biological difficulties of such a thing, there is no logical reason he could not exist but most of us would say "Give us some evidence that warrants me assenting to the claim he does exist(fecal matter, a severed appendage, etc.).".

Again, it depends on the "God" in question. I am 100% certain that the Judeo-Christian god(as defined in the Holy books(Bible, Torah, Quar' ran etc.) cannot exist for logical reasons. A hypothetical god that is defined as "The something that IS and is NOT of spiritual totality" is a nonsense statement to me and I reject it the same way I reject Lewis Carrol's Jabberwocky. Common Pantheistic god concepts I simply lack belief in(or lack deification of the concept) and so am "weak atheist" towards.

Could be. I will try and read through as much of the thread as I can when I get the chance.

Specific atheists CAN most certainly organize and be an "active force". Atheism itself cannot because it does not entail the many details that say religious or political affiliations contain. Some atheists can be quite religious as well but atheism itself cannot be "a religion".

This is true in that atheism itself does not entail anything that can drive a 'cause'. Stalin did not believe in supernatural gods but this is not what drove his terrible regime. You simply cannot form a movement of fundamentalist/fanatic "We lack belief in God". There is not enough there to drive anyone to action.

To an extent it is true that THEISM is no more prone to being a socially active force than ATHEISM. Indeed if humans were wired to simply believe things and not to convert others then this would be so. But unfortunately theism is a POSITIVE belief about reality and it is a positive belief in an EXTRAORDINARY claim about reality. Positive beliefs eventually end up in religions or political parties and such and religion/politics IS always an "active force". And when your belief is in an extraordinary being, what better justification for both good and atrocious works is there?

It is true that certain people who are prone to megalomaniac aggression and such would be so with or without theistic beliefs. Stalin is a good example of this, as is Mao. But also keep in mind that Stalin was himself the Godhead of the (in effect) religious movement that worshiped him. He deified himself in this way and drives me to think that worship is even worse than(faith based) belief.

It is POSSIBLE, even common for atheists to BE religious. Atheism does not mean "without religion". It is even possible that someone could start a religion centered around the idea that no one should believe in the supernatural.
However "I lack belief in your claims" itself is not something you can blame such things for.

I would have to see specifically what you are referring to as I am apparently unfamiliar with such atheists.

Who specifically?

 

No, I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't trying to say that agnostics are a "neither" category. Perhaps what I should have written is "agnostic atheism vs gnostic atheism" as another term for "weak atheism vs strong atheism". You're right that the difference between an agnostic anything and a gnostic anything is one of 'knowledge', not belief, but that's a relative one. By that I mean that a gnostic atheist "knows" there are no gods (is completely sure about it) while an agnostic atheist doesn't, but rather casually suspects or has a hunch or the like.

You've never heard it before because I just made it up on the spot. It's not an attempt to insult anyone, but rather just to classify the ultimate extreme of atheism: the claim that nothing supernatural exists. This isn't a strawman, either, because I have heard a great many people claiming exactly this.

Yes, it sounds like you are in that category, though you seem to be one of the rational members in that you don't claim "absolute knowledge of the absolute fact", but rather present it as a logical conclusion which may be disproven with evidence. Irrational members of the Ultimate Atheist extreme simply claim it is impossible and that no such proof could possibly exist.

The supernatural in general. If they are arguing the existence of particular gods, they're arguing a point of specific strong atheism, not ultimate. On top of that, such disproof, both logical and evidentiary, exists for a great many deities.

Well, now, that entirely depends on how you define a god, doesn't it?

You assume one continuous reality. What if there are alternate realities that are seperated from our own (and unreachable)? They may be both real and unprovable.

On top of that, you assume a perfect form of science, one that is capable of testing and proving everything. Do you assume our science today to be of that callibur, or are you speaking of some hypothetical future science? 150 years ago, that logic would have declared radiation and all sub-atomic particles to be imaginary, along with a great many celestial bodies. If you're speaking of some hypothetical future science then, while I agree with you 100%, neither one of us knows what that science will be able to prove or disprove.

You'll have to support the analogy. I don't see it.

Wrong. You seem to be assuming I have an aggresive position, but I don't. I am comparing those who hold to a certain belief as absolute without proof to others who cling to certain beliefs as absolute without proof. The first group came to their conclusion (probably) through inductive logic and assumptions, many of which may be solid, well-grounded assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. The second came to their conclusion (mostly) through personal experience (proof that can't be proven to others). Neither can prove their positions. The rational memebers of each admit that, if proof were given to the contrary, they would change their positions, and they're honest about it. The irrational members may claim the same (though probably not), but don't mean it if they do.

Oh, and incidentally:
Dogma

For clarification on my own position, I have repeatedly (though not recently) admitted that, if you could find and scientifically prove you had found the corpse of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified outside of Jerusalem, then I would denounce God on the spot. In fact, the Bible itself says that if Jesus is a lie, Christians should be considered cursed above all men (this following the Greek thought that false-hope was the worst curse possible).

Here I can't help but disagree with him. What if God does something that warrants one person believing in him? That one person could make a serious difference in the world (look at Mother Teresa or, better yet, Jesus).

I think this mantra has often been misused. It is intended to be applied to claims that support action. By which I mean, if I claim there is a God, but recognize that you, having no proof of such, have no reason to believe me or do anything about my claim, then I need to submit no proof of it, nor do you need to submit any disproof of it unless you intend to convince me otherwise. It is only when I start preeching, "Convert or ye shall all burn in the eternal fires of Hell!!" that I need proof.

... I was with you up until here. I'm not sure why you would say that this was impossible, unless you define "free will" differently than I do (which is possible).

I would be interested in hearing this logic. If you don't want to put it in here (it could be seen a slightly off-topic), please PM me.

I think you'ce come to the same conclusion that we did here, that atheism on this level parallells theism and that, just as theism in general is not an active force for anything, neither is atheism, though specific organizations of each may be.

And here is where we got into the arguement about the definition of atheism. If you define atheism as Strong Atheism, and call agnostic atheism "agnosticism", as is commonly done in America today, then atheism itself makes an equally estraordinary claim about reality. Even if you group strong and weak atheism together, some atheists make that extraordinary claim, and it is far from unheard of to see that extraordinary claim devolve into the "and everyone who disagrees with me is mentally retarded or insane" arguement. In fact, we've seen that on these forums.

Again, you criticize the tool and not the use. Worship of people is a very bad thing, I agree with you 100%. What about "worship" of positive ideas, like kindness and forgiveness? What about worship of a deity you see as the embodyment of those ideas? These can be very good things.

Ah, but that's not what we were saying. Atheism itself isn't any more to blame for Stalin or Mao slaughtering believers than Theism is for the Inquisition, but a particular sub-set is just as much to blame as the Catholic Church is.

 

NOG, an athiest doesn't have anything to prove. A lack of believe is like a null set. A null set needs no proof. No proof is required for the claim 'there is no god' (as 'no' means null set).

Ultimately, every past religion has failed because they cannot maintain the faith of the masses -- current religions typically make the claim those other religions (such as the worshippers of Apollo) failed because "they were worshipping false gods." And yet the basis of faith in those "false gods" was the same as the basis of faith in current religions.

The athiest simply asks "how do you know your god is not false as well?"

There is no proof required of the question and until the question is answered adequately the athiest dismisses the religion in the same way Christianity dismissed the religions of the Roman empire. Answering the question adequately means basically no question to answer the question (like the BS response "How do know He's not real?"), no touchy/feely BS about a 'burning in the bosom' (which could be heartburn or the same feeling you get from a significant accomplishment), and no use of natural phenomena to prove divine influence ("the sun rises every morning to show the glory of God" or "the rainbow is God's gift as a promise to never again flood the earth").

It is the inability of any religion to answer that simple question adequately to the non-believer that continues to push people away. The vigorous and insulting retorts by many religious people in response to that simple question has brought great animosity to the discussion.

 

Although I had meant the analogy for the "proving belief" part, still, in the end it would still boil down to what you say, yes. A fine thing to say infinity does not exist, since any engineer or mathematician worth his salt will tell you that they use it every day in their calculations. Infinity as a number does not exist, but as a "notion" it does. Let's not argue about semantics since the fact is a person could start counting numbers from birth to death, and never finish. "Something that is greater than any number we could count to", "something greater than any human effort could possibly accomplish", "something that defies human science and understanding"... for the present at least. I tend to live as much on the now as any.

Yes, except "anything is possible" and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is already a contradiction. This implies that perhaps human logic is flawed (and needs an upgrade), or "that we need more information". Unfortunately, since we can start counting numbers from birth to death and never finish (ie try counting to inifinity but never succeed), it just might be that we will never be able to accumulate enough "evidence"/information/proof (the gist of the analogy lies in the trying to prove or disprove the existence of an overpower).

 

And again we come to the problem of definitions. A weak atheist doesn't have anything to prove, you are exactly right. A strong atheist, however, does. To clarify, a weak atheist's beliefs are null. A strong atheist's beliefs, however, are not. Here, the analogy to math fails, because in math, 0 means null. In philosophy and science, however, the claim that something doesn't exist is just as much a real, factual claim about the universe as the claim that it does exist. Both need to be proven if you want to convince anyone. As an analogy, if I said I believed there were no stars, that stars (including our sun) don't exist, I'm not presenting a "null set" philosophy. I'm presenting a very real, and very wrong, claim about the nature of the universe.

Actually, no, most failed because the people were conquered and an outside government (or sometimes their own) mandated another religion. The worship of the Greeks and Romans didn't fail because people didn't believe any more. It failed because the Roman emperor converted to Christianity. Likewise, the worship of the Egyptians didn't fail because of a lack of followers, but rather because they were conquered by the Babylonians and the priests were either taken to Babylon or executed. Similarly, the worship of the druids and the Japanese (who worshiped their emperor) failed because they were conquered. Comparatively, Israel was conquered many times, and several times worship of Yaweh was even banned with a punishment of death, yet Judaism survives to this day.

The weak atheist asks this. The strong atheist tells you your gods are false.

I'll give you the last one, the natural phenomena, and the first one (which merely points out that the reverse is equally unprovable), but by dismissing the second one you dismiss anything you cannot personally witness or reproduce. In that note, I ask you: how do you know you have a chair? The answer is that you know it because you sit in it, but that's no proof for me.

The modern atheist's outright dismissal of personal experience honestly baffles me. I have never seen it in any other field. Even modern science only requires reproducability so that a single personal experience can be shared by many (rather than dismissing it, they seek only to limit it).

And both those points are equally applicable to the strong atheists' attack on various religions. The sword cuts both ways, you know.

I will say this, as an engineer: infinity is just as real a number as i is!

 

In other word they lost followers for whatever reason and could not maintain the faith of the masses. Seems my way was a bit less long winded. Of course I could have gone on a rant as well and listed every freakin' religion in the history of man and their individual reasons for collapse but one sentence was sufficient.

I must admit this whole weak athiest/strong athiest thing is hilarious. When it was introduced you really jumped on it because it helped label people into categories that were convenient. From the nearest I can tell a weak athiest is an athiest that doesn't really bother anyone while a strong athiest is one who tries to change laws and is basically in anyone's face who challenges their belief. By a similar token I guess there are weak Christians and strong Christians. The weak Christians are those who are more 'live and let live' while the strong ones are often trying to put the ten commandments in court houses and other such stuff. It's a bunch of BS.

An athiest simply doesn't believe in God. Period. Athiests can be activists or be fairly passive -- just like Christians. The whole weak/strong thing is a red herring.

You'll have to come up with a better analogy than "no stars." Those have been proven to exist already. God, on the other hand, has not. I'd be willing to buy off on the concept of a God if you could change a staff to a serpent, part the red sea, change water to wine, or call mana from heaven -- all of those would be adequate proof (provided there was physical evidence rather than just a story).

Likewise, the chair analogy is also rather weak. I could take pictures and even ship you the chair -- there is physical evidence that could be provided.

Personal experience is often not reliable because it is tainted by biases. Reproducability verifies the experience by another person performing it (ususally many reproduce an important discovery). The experience of one person is never taken at face value -- perhaps you remember an issue with cold fusion a number of years ago....

 

The point is that your way suggested people just changed their minds and the religion faded away. That's not what happens. Generally what happens is that the religion is killed, forcibly, often with massacres of clergy and/or believers.

In case you hadn't noticed from other topics, I like nice convenient labels and organizational systems. They appeal to me. Must be an engineer thing.

Actually, I've known a number of strong atheists who weren't at all "in-your-face" about it. It's just that, when the topic came up, they said, "Yeah, there's no such thing." The difference is whether you are certain there are no gods (a positive claim about reality) or simply undecided or uncertain (at best a vague belief, often a completely null set). The comparative Christian division is between devout Christians and what many people call "Churchians", i.e. those who go to church some Sundays, maybe even tithe every once in a while, but don't really take any of it seriously. If asked about God, they'll often answer in an "I guess so" manner. These are also the people who think Saul killed the Phinklestines with the Axe of the Apostles and Joan of Arc was Noah's wife.

That's like saying a design engineer is someone who designs stuff. While true, there are also many very useful subdivisions. Don't ask an aerospace engineer to design your sound room, or an acoustics engineer to design a wing.

The point was not to convince you God was real, but rather to demonstrate that a philosophical "null set" is not a belief that something doesn't exist. The point was that my supposed dis-belief in stars, an actual claim that there weren't any, is not a philosophical "null set" and would need evidence to support it. If you want a more apt example, though, think of aliens. If I say I believe there is extraterrestrial life out there somewhere and you say you believe the universe is completely sterile except for Earth, then we are both claiming a positive set and would need to prove it if we were trying to do something with the claim. It's only the person who says "I don't know" who has nothing to prove.

Actually, in many sciences, the experience of one person is taken at face value (or with only minimal questioning) because no other option exists. This is also the case with any undocumented historical event (meaning there isn't video evidence of it). We have what we assume to be an accurate and vivid description of the erruption of Pompeii from a single personal experience that was written down (that of Pliny the Younger), for example. The only difference is that his description is seen as reasonable today because we've seen other things like it. At the same time, more unusual claims are tossed out, such as the claims of giant primates living in the jungles of Africa a little over 100 years ago.

My point is that, while personal experience should be taken with a grain of salt, it shouldn't be tossed out entirely, or even substantially, without evidence to the contrary. And mass phenomena, such as hundreds of millions of people describing similar experiences across a multitude of cultures and backgrounds, should not be thrown out without good cause.