Ignorance or stubbornness?

Stubbornness. facts are of no use to them.

Just look at the denial, rage even, when it is disclosed that Jesus is not a historical figure.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

.

"I have not seen nor tested this data concerning X for myself, yet I consider X's existence as factual.

I have accepted that X exists solely because evidence for it's existence has been claimed to exist.

How can I claim X's existence over Y's is factual (assuming as well that Y doesn't exist) until I observe and test it's supporting evidence or observe X for myself? "

You evaluate the credibility of the people making the claim and the likelihood that they are fully or at least partially correct. If the claim for X comes from a late night infomercial, then you are pretty foolish. If the claim from X comes from a qualified expert who's methodology and data were vetted by her peers from a community that prizes accurate and truthful understanding and which has historically replaced inaccurate explanations with better ones (electron obits vs. orbitals anyone?) then your belief is not faith. It's based on evidence of the credibility of the people involved. It's based on the fact that you could, if you wanted, go test X yourself - the data and methodology has all been explained and replicated by others already.

There is a tremendous amount of evidence to support a belief in an electron. Just because that evidence isn't derived from personal experience doesn't make the belief one of faith.

"existence of electrons for instance; I doubt the majority of people considering existence of electrons as 100% fact have seen or learned about them and their properties outside of a textbook..."

The Civil War for instance; I doubt a majority of people considering that the Civil war happened as 100% fact have seen or learned about it outside a textbook.

I doubt that the majority of people who believe in God would believe in God if it weren't for their parents indoctrinating them.

Unlike gods, there is actual evidence for it.

And are you really comparing something that we can test and observe, with a supernatural being which there hasn't been 1 single shred of evidence for?

Do you also put claiming that a 6 headed snake called Bork who eats salt is in your closet, and that a car with a picture of a snail on it passed by your house on the same level?

you know the shocking energy powering the device you just posted this question? => electrons

and those pretty (and deadly) light show in the sky called a thunderstorm? => electrons

"How many scientific "facts" will be altered as we expand our knowledge of the physical world?"

don't think that because something in science changes it's not so reliable. as long as evidence pore in to show us that some of the "facts" are not correct or missing something, science will change it for the better.

look at the non-changing bible: the world is flat, bats are birds, insect have 4 legs, dragons, unicorns, leviathan and cockatrice are all real.

You've got yourself a verbose strawman there. Scientists don't just "claim" their hypotheses to be supported, they have to demonstrate significant support by data and then a lot of other scientists verify those results. For a scientist's findings to get published in a journal, their results have been verified by repeated experiments by neutral third parties of researchers.

When a scientist says, "There's considerable evidence for X," there almost always is.

Sure, science is always moving forward. Einstein improved our understanding of Newton, he didn't cause it to be discarded. Electron orbitals are a revision of orbits, the idea of orbits led to the discovery of orbitals, the idea wasn't trashed, just revised as more is understood.

It is not a simple case of Bob says evolution and Joe says God, Bob has a mountain of fact and evidence for evolution and Joe says, no really, this one unverified book says God."

Are you aware of the distinction between necessary truth and contingent fact. I weigh 130 but that is a contingent fact, it just happens to be that way. God is the necessary conclusion to a search for a First Cause, that is a necessary truth.

You were wrong from the first sentence.

If your eyes fill with tears when you witness something great, something selfless, something you just feel is "right" - then you believe without seeing. I have seen a picture on the net once, where the twins inside mum's belly are talking: "do you believe in life after birth? Do you believe in mum?" and the second one answers: "I mean, have you ever seen mum?" Same with faith, or X or Y, or God, or Jesus, or Energy, call is as you like it - you either believe in power of goodness, or you don't...

Behold, the field was ripe, and blessed are ye, for ye did thrust in the sickle, and did reap with your might, yea, all the day long did ye labor; and behold the number of your sheaves! And they shall be gathered into the garners, that they are not wasted.

Yes science does evolve over time while religion remains the same 2000 year old fairy tale

leave both X and Y for Z

Above is notably neither of these

under the law -vs- under grace.

Peace is notably neither of these

atheists -vs- theists

More Excellent is neither of these

broad mindead vs narrow mindead

Immortality is neither of these

Mortality -vs- Mortality