Empircal Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  Yeah I hear what your saying, but maybe this discussion should more be about our lack of belief more than their lack of evidence, as the lack of evidence doesn't really phase them at all, no atheist ever won a debate with a religious nut by saying well if god exists show him to me then. You might be thinking "yeah I showed him, just pwned that Christian with the evidence play' but never has a Christian thought "oh gee that guys right I cant prove jesus with science I better stop believing."
Being a Christian I can relate to this and again you're right (unless a theist is questioning his faith). Frustrating as it is, it is how it is

Asking a Christian for evidence is like telling an Eskimo he's wrong for not using bricks and mortar to build his igloo

“I am so clever that sometimes I don't understand a single word of what I am saying.” ~ Oscar Wilde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 09:51 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  Yeah I hear what your saying, but maybe this discussion should more be about our lack of belief more than their lack of evidence, as the lack of evidence doesn't really phase them at all, no atheist ever won a debate with a religious nut by saying well if god exists show him to me then. You might be thinking "yeah I showed him, just pwned that Christian with the evidence play' but never has a Christian thought "oh gee that guys right I cant prove jesus with science I better stop believing."

That's the Christian's problem , not ours.

If a Christian claims the bible is 100% factual and the word of god, the burden of proof is on them. And so far that claim has been refuted with evidence. The creation story is a myth, Noah's Flood is a myth, the Jewish enslavement and exodus from Egypt is a myth, and a lot of the narrative about Jebus has been refuted with evidence.

After all that is presented, yeah there's nothing you can do if they refuse to accept it. But many times in a debate, the other person isn't necessarily the target. I for one started to doubt watching debates. The debate can be to show others who are watching what the evidence actually is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ResidentEvilFan's post
27-04-2017, 09:54 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:48 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  
(27-04-2017 09:37 AM)Walluin Wrote:  Yeah I hear what your saying, but maybe this discussion should more be about our lack of belief more than their lack of evidence, as the lack of evidence doesn't really phase them at all, no atheist ever won a debate with a religious nut by saying well if god exists show him to me then. You might be thinking "yeah I showed him, just pwned that Christian with the evidence play' but never has a Christian thought "oh gee that guys right I cant prove jesus with science I better stop believing."
Being a Christian I can relate to this and again you're right (unless a theist is questioning his faith). Frustrating as it is, it is how it is

Asking a Christian for evidence is like telling an Eskimo he's wrong for not using bricks and mortar to build his igloo
And that's exactly what I don't respect believers.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 10:10 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
The request for empirical evidence actually has two sides.

The first, challenging the believer in his or her beliefs, we've talked about for quite a bit.

But the second is challenging the atheist in his or her (absence of) beliefs.

In asking for evidence, an atheist may also be asking, "hey, maybe you've got something that I should look closer at. Is there a good foundation for this? Should I reconsider my current position?"

The atheist might suspect, quite strongly, that the answer to these questions is no. But for anyone not completely and unreasonably locked into that position, asking for evidence is the proper path to take. It gives us a way to discover if we're wrong, while avoiding the trap of being drawn away from a correct position if we aren't wrong.

My point isn't that asking for evidence is a sign of an open mind, since plenty of close-minded individuals will also ask for evidence as an argumentative challenge. My point is that it's a valid approach regardless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
27-04-2017, 10:39 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 10:10 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  The request for empirical evidence actually has two sides.

The first, challenging the believer in his or her beliefs, we've talked about for quite a bit.

But the second is challenging the atheist in his or her (absence of) beliefs.

In asking for evidence, an atheist may also be asking, "hey, maybe you've got something that I should look closer at. Is there a good foundation for this? Should I reconsider my current position?"

The atheist might suspect, quite strongly, that the answer to these questions is no. But for anyone not completely and unreasonably locked into that position, asking for evidence is the proper path to take. It gives us a way to discover if we're wrong, while avoiding the trap of being drawn away from a correct position if we aren't wrong.

My point isn't that asking for evidence is a sign of an open mind, since plenty of close-minded individuals will also ask for evidence as an argumentative challenge. My point is that it's a valid approach regardless.
I don't have to prove anything, I'm not promoting anything.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
27-04-2017, 11:17 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
Here's the thing, faith is gullibility.
If christians were honest about why they believe something without evidence, they would say...
"It's because I'm gullible. I'm unable to doubt someone when they tell me the most outlandish things. I believe them when they tell me things, even when others point out how ridiculous it all sounds."

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
27-04-2017, 11:25 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
Well, it's called "blind faith", but "blind, deaf, and DUMB faith" would work better.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 11:27 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:13 AM)Walluin Wrote:  This is always the go to for atheists, seems a stupid argument to me.
Religions are based on Faith and Belief. In some cases it is actually the entire
point of their religions to have no evidence and use their faith.

Fideism is a joke.

Quote:If the evidence was ever produced then their religions would no longer be...
as the evidence would make it science.

Having evidence for a belief doesn't make that belief a science or a part of science. It only makes it a warranted belief.

Quote:Seems a circular argument that's pointless.

How is it circular?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Naielis's post
27-04-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 09:48 AM)SeaJay Wrote:  Being a Christian I can relate to this and again you're right (unless a theist is questioning his faith). Frustrating as it is, it is how it is

Asking a Christian for evidence is like telling an Eskimo he's wrong for not using bricks and mortar to build his igloo

I disagree. Most of the Bible seems to separate itself from fideism.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-04-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
I don't get it? is there some dictionary term I don't understand?
If something is proved then it is understood to be... idk factual and not a fantasy
So if God was proven then having a faith in it would be idk... superfluous????
Hence I would say Proof or Evidence of something that was previously thought to be fantastical
would render that to be part of Science since it had been proven, by its evidence.
I'm not good at big words.

Don't Believe the Hype
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: