I'm not talking about organizing and coordinating efforts to get a job done, but this has nothing to do with belief.
Hence my rebuttal speaking primarily to a valid sense of security.
I don't understand. What has a sense of security, whether "valid" or "invalid" have to do with belief?
I don't need belief to get the garden planted. Fact and belief are two very separate things. Fact does not need belief and belief has liitle use for fact Why should belief ever enter the equation in doing work that needs to be done?
Easy--because you don't know there is work to be done (or how it should be done) unless you believe
something, probably something perfectly reasonable to believe, about the facts.
I know for a fact, that if I don't eat, I will at best get hungry and at worst die of starvation. In this instance, it is fact and not belief that motivates me to get the garden planted. Through trial and error, i have discovered how best to plant the garden so that it is a fact that if I plant the seedlings too close together, they will not thrive (depending on species of course), or that if I don't water the plants, they will die. I need not believe in the God of Corn to make corn grow.
Facts are very limited and specific. They're not instructions, they just are. For example, intelligent life exists in the universe. Given what you know of this fact and the science behind what likely
led to it (after all, there is no law of evolution, yet), do you believe it exists somewhere other than Earth or do you subscribe to the notion that it doesn't because you're not aware of facts that support it?
Given the images brought back by Hubble, I would say that intelligent life probably exists someplace other than Earth, but I can't say for sure. I do not say there is intelligent life elsewhere or tehre is not life elsewhere. I have no belief one way or the other. Ido, however, say it is probable.
I haven't spoken to morals, at least not yet. Consider that many non-believers are perfectly moral people.
Are they? There are no facts supporting this assertion.
I don't need to read the scriptures in order to conduct my life sanely. As in the example of poking a pin into your arm and causing pain, while knowing that if you reciprocated the action i would also feel pain. This is fact so what need have i for belief?
Alright, you've identified cause and effect, but nothing indicating that either or both is immoral. That would require belief.
But the feeling of pain does not depend nor require belief.
Historical texts are also most likely a combination of fact and fiction depending on who is telling the story.
That applies to any non-fictional or reference account given that they are created by mistake-prone humans. This is exactly my argument when it comes to what the Bible says. The question remains as to whether it is actually false or simply that we do not know one way or the other.
Ahhh yes, I see. I agree that we cannot know one way or the other. But I also don't see that it matters. Because I cannot know for sure, I would say that I enjoy the stories.
The added problem with the known sacred texts is that they are very old which adds further doubt to their accuracy.
No, it simply detracts from our confidence in the account. You are confusing accuracy with knowledge that something is true or that it exists.[/quote]
I know the Bible exists. I know the Koran exists. I know the Vedas exist. I know the Pali Canon, and the Mahayana Sutras exist. That's all I know. If I were to subscribe to them as the authority, I would be in belief land. I don't need to believe there was a man named Jesus or Moses to know that pricking you with a pin would hurt you and is not something I would like done to me. I simply don't understand the need for religion or belief systems of any kind when common sense could or ought to, prevail.