I would of added this to the "Atheism 2.0" thread. But that seems a bit full with replies to the OP, and this topic is on a more open/varied topic regardless.

Essentially to explain the question, yesterday me and two friends were at a park and at one point the topic of Voodist came up.
The friend explaining it described how they'd have some ritual, and then several hours later a dead persons spirit would come and they'd all talk to them. How everyone in the room could clearly see and talk to this dead person, and it was rather cool but no big deal.

So I asked the question "Why do they not try to prove this though? If they can do such a thing so easily, can they not do some sort of test or recording to show that it actually works?". Which essentially led to a debate where her point came down to "Why should they have to go through the Criticism and questioning to be proven? Why should they have prove themselves to Science, rather than simply being left alone to do their own thing?".

So basically the question I have here is: "Is there ever a reason to not prove something if it can be proven?"
"What is gained by proving something to another person?" (Re-worded as suggested by mdk).

Magic Magnum said
I would of added this to the "Atheism 2.0" thread. But that seems a bit full with replies to the OP, and this topic is on a more open/varied topic regardless.

Essentially to explain the question, yesterday me and two friends were at a park and at one point the topic of Voodist came up.
The friend explaining it described how they'd have some ritual, and then several hours later a dead persons spirit would come and they'd all talk to them. How everyone in the room could clearly see and talk to this dead person, and it was rather cool but no big deal.

So I asked the question "Why do they not try to prove this though? If they can do such a thing so easily, can they not do some sort of test or recording to show that it actually works?". Which essentially led to a debate where her point came down to "Why should they have to go through the Criticism and questioning to be proven? Why should they have prove themselves to Science, rather than simply being left alone to do their own thing?".

So basically the question I have here is: "Is there ever a reason to not prove something if it can be proven?"

Yeah, if it is inconvenient or irrelevant. Am I capable of saying the word, "Chartreuse"? Yes. Is it worth proving? No.

So Boerd said Yeah, if it is inconvenient or irrelevant. Am I capable of saying the word, "Chartreuse"? Yes. Is it worth proving? No.

Do you care to expand on what you mean by if it's Inconvenient?

A better way to phrase the question would be, 'What is gained by proving something to another person?' In some cases, a lot ('I have proven that this new concrete mix is safer and cheaper, and now manufacturers will buy from me, and everyone profits). In other cases, not much ('I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I do not like vanilla ice cream, and now people know I'm for real when I say I don't like vanilla ice cream).

mdk said A better way to phrase the question would be, 'What is gained by proving something to another person?'

^Stuff like this is exactly part of the reason why I don't consider myself a good people person, my ability to word questions and such is shit.

mdk said In some cases, a lot ('I have proven that this new concrete mix is safer and cheaper, and now manufacturers will buy from me, and everyone profits). In other cases, not much ('I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I do not like vanilla ice cream, and now people know I'm for real when I say I don't like vanilla ice cream).

lol, well ice cream is rather important though mdk :P

Personally i feel that if you cannot prove it or show me good odds that it is probably correct then i do not know how you can possibly believe it.

Magic Magnum said
Do you care to expand on what you mean by if it's Inconvenient?

The amount of effort is not commensurate to the reward if I prove it.

Vortex said
Personally i feel that if you cannot prove it or show me good odds that it is probably correct then i do not know how you can possibly believe it.

Just because this is such a trite internetism,

Cos^2(X)=1-Sin^2(X)
Cos(X)=sqrt(1-Sin^2(X))
1+Cos(X)=1+sqrt(1-Sin^2(X))
1+Cos(pi)=1+sqrt(1-Sin^2(pi))
1-1=1+sqrt(1-0)
0=2

If you looked at that result (not that 2 actually equals zero but that I have just disproved pythagorean identities) and disbelieved it without immediately knowing the mathematical error I intentionally made, congratulations, you now know how it feels to be religious. Please grab a habit or whatever those nun hats are called on your way out.

EVERYONE (read: everyone) believes in that which cannot be proven. The Munchausen trilemma: A conclusion must have as its premises

1. An axiom (a premise accepted without proof because it cannot be proven)
2. An infinite regression of proof (impossible)
3. A premise it itself proves (circular logic is inherently fallacious.

To illustrate the trilemma, ask someone to prove something obvious, do your best impresion of a five-year-old and ask "How do you know?"

Vortex said
Personally i feel that if you cannot prove it or show me good odds that it is probably correct then i do not know how you can possibly believe it.

Something that is 100% proven to me, is not necessarily proven to you. That's partly because of different thresholds for 'proof,' yes, but even if we ignore that, it's often a matter of perspective. "Is this relationship healthy?" To rely solely on concrete, demonstrable and irrefutable truth, such a question would paralyze you. Human nature can't be treated as binary. We're not robots.... Look at the stock market, look at sports, look at politics, look at religion, look at art, look at any human endeavor; we're not creatures of mathematics, we're creatures of spirit. Wild, unpredictable, transcendent.

I guess it depends on how bad you want to prove it to another person. I'm sure you'd want to prove why birds chirp or something for a school project more than trying to prove you can fart for 3 minutes straight to a friend. Of course that's just my opinion, if you want to prove you can fart for 3 minutes straight, than Godspeed you mad bastard.

Why in the world would I want to prove something to someone else?

-Scientifically: To better understand the world through the gathering of evidence and information, hard facts, logic.

-Personally: Whatever works best for me may not work best for others. Besides, if I firmly believe something myself, while I can try to explain it to others, there's no point in trying to "convert" them.

Others can have their opinion about that, and I can think it wrong just as they can think themselves right, and so long as we can coexist, and tolerate one another, and at least have some rudimentary ability to understand each other, then we're all good. I don't have to "prove" to a Christian my atheism for instance: I cannot prove to a person how it is I internally think beyond a shadow of a doubt. They're not telepaths, and what would it even matter to them? So long as they don't try to misconstrue my atheism for being something it's not, and use that to predispose judgement or otherwise, why should I care? Let them believe what they believe, and let me not believe that thing they believe, and so long as they're good neighbours and I'm a good neighbour and we all just leave each other alone in our personal spaces, what does it matter to prove it?

Brovo said So long as they don't try to misconstrue my beliefs for being something they're not, and use that to predispose judgement or otherwise, why should I care?

I made a change in bold. If we all afforded one another that same courtesy, the world would be a better place; sadly, religious or atheist or pastafarian, we collectively cannot seem to resist the urge.

So Boerd said The amount of effort is not commensurate to the reward if I prove it.

Ah.

Glad I asked for clarification then, my first impression was something else entirely.

Brovo said -Personally: Whatever works best for me may not work best for others. Besides, if I firmly believe something myself, while I can try to explain it to others, there's no point in trying to "convert" them.Others can have their opinion about that, and I can think it wrong just as they can think themselves right, and so long as we can coexist, and tolerate one another, and at least have some rudimentary ability to understand each other, then we're all good. I don't have to "prove" to a Christian my atheism for instance: I cannot prove to a person how it is I internally think beyond a shadow of a doubt. They're not telepaths, and what would it even matter to them? So long as they don't try to misconstrue my atheism for being something it's not, and use that to predispose judgement or otherwise, why should I care? Let them believe what they believe, and let me not believe that thing they believe, and so long as they're good neighbours and I'm a good neighbour and we all just leave each other alone in our personal spaces, what does it matter to it?

True enough.

But what if it were a case of something such as dead Ghosts appearing, something that is not an inner working of the mind or based on emotion/spirit (ex: Art, Relationship Health) but rather something concrete and observable would you want it to be proven? For nothing more than to get across the fact, we can assume that if this is left unproven that no conflict would take place. That both beliefs are respected, it's just that talking with Ghosts is given no scientific standing.

Now, I'll fully admit now I may simply care about exposing the truth of things for the sake of the truth being known more than most people. I could say I'm rather extreme in the stance of if a truth can be shared or proven than it should be (Obvious exceptions, ex: Hiding a persons location from someone looking to hurt them).

mdk said I made a change in bold. If we all afforded one another that same courtesy, the world would be a better place; sadly, religious or atheist or pastafarian, we collectively cannot seem to resist the urge.

Less Hostile conflict = Better world, I can agree with that.

However, there is a reason such conflict exists. Look at the bible, there are many ways people can interpret it. Sometime's they may come in direct conflict with other systems. For example, ______ Church want's to teach the earth is 6,000 years old. Science want's to teach otherwise, this issue won't be resolved by simply agreeing to disagreeing and respecting one another's desires. A decision has to be made, a side needs to be chosen. Now, I will fully admit these conflict's could be resolved far more civil/peacefully than they often are, but it is a conflict that cannot be settled by simply letting it be.

For example, ______ Church want's to teach the earth is 6,000 years old. Science want's to teach otherwise, this issue won't be resolved by simply agreeing to disagreeing and respecting one another's desires. A decision has to be made, a side needs to be chosen. Now, I will fully admit these conflict's could be resolved far more civil/peacefully than they often are, but it is a conflict that cannot be settled by simply letting it be.

Of all the disputations to have, that one has the least impact. Furthermore, the argument my friends who are Young-Earthers (I myself do not), they say that as God created a matured, old Adam, He created an old world.

Same with evolution. I have yet to meet a person who does not believe in natural selection, only ones who don't believe Humans came about that way. What difference does it make if they don't?

So Boerd said Of all the disputations to have, that one has the least impact.

Impact in terms of Religious Wars or Crusades perhaps.
But it has a rather big impact on education and scientific knowledge.

So Boerd said What difference does it make if they don't?

Quite a lot, it's basically going "What difference does it make if we believe in Gravity, but say it doesn't apply to humans?".

mdk said
I made a change in bold. If we all afforded one another that same courtesy, the world would be a better place; sadly, religious or atheist or pastafarian, we collectively cannot seem to resist the urge.

I can drink to that sentiment. Cheers.

Magic Magnum said
Impact in terms of Religious Wars or Crusades perhaps.But it has a rather big impact on education and scientific knowledge.Quite a lot, it's basically going "What difference does it make if we believe in Gravity, but say it doesn't apply to humans?".

Let the record reflect, that Magic believes Young earth creationism caused the Crusades.

And as for gravity, that would suggest that Intelligent-design advocates believe humans are not currently effected by Natural selection, which is not so.

Better analogy: "What if a small segment of the population believed gravity didn't apply to humans until 6,000 years ago?"

No effect.

So Boerd said Let the record reflect, that Magic believes Young earth creationism caused the Crusades.

>You say the evolution debate has little effect
>I reply saying in terms of wars and crusades perhaps

Maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that means I just said the Crusade's and Wars weren't started over the 6000 years old/evolution part of Religion.
Not that I thought that was the reason...

Magic Magnum said
>You say the evolution debate has little effect>I reply saying in terms of wars and crusades perhapsMaybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that means I just said the Crusade's and Wars weren't started over the 6000 years old/evolution part of Religion.Not that I thought that was the reason...

You are indeed correct. I had come to expect a degree of hyperbole from you and that was wrong.

Perhaps i'm necroing these threads considering the 3 week rule, but equally considering the lack of activity here I don't see it as a big deal.

So, first note...
I disagree with MDK's change, as it subtly moves it from being a matter of "When proving something is detrimental" to "Justify why you should prove it". Which to me, kinda changes the default, as I see proving things to be intrinsically a good thing, rather than a bad thing. Why? Well - proving something means demonstrating the validity of whatever is being claimed, and demonstrations is a universally received form of information, rather than a perceived conceptual one where our limitations as human beings often have the words in which we attempt to communicate things be stooped in bias associations, which is a failure of communication. And healthy communication (talking over dinner) is just plain ol' better than detrimental communication (talking over military trenches), war and such can be regarded as a failure to communicate entirely, arguably. .

My answer to the actual question would be "When it proves detrimental to the well beings of others, without a means to participate resolve on both parties". That basically means, anything beyond "Oh i'm a bit upset from being proven wrong, I may need to question my identity and actions in reflection to this new world view now proven" .

Another way to think of it is, 'What's the value of hammering in your rail-road stakes all the way?' Well, that's important, right, you don't want the track to warp and buckle and make trains crash, right? So railroad stakes should be hammered in fully, every time. 'Well then why aren't we hammering in rail-road stakes everywhere, if they're so good?' I don't have **ANY** in my house! Oh, shit! Is my house going to crash?!?

In most conversations (meaning the stunning majority of them), 'proof' is as useless as a railroad tie in your living room. Useless things are often detrimental. In the case of 'proof,' that comes from the fact that a person who tries to prove every damn thing in the world *must* believe he knows every damn thing in the world. Such a person is probably even more insufferable than I am.