That's Not Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 12:53 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
Any Christian who can says they can show you "Evidence" is lying through his teeth and/or is delusional.

The entire basis of God and salvation is solely within the terms of a thing called "faith".

If the core of a belief is faith-based, it can never produce "Evidence".

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kingschosen's post
13-08-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Any Christian who can says they can show you "Evidence" is lying through his teeth and/or is delusional.

The entire basis of God and salvation is solely within the terms of a thing called "faith".

If the core of a belief is faith-based, it can never produce "Evidence".

I concur, for if it had evidence, by doctrinal design it wouldn't require faith.. as it would simply be fact. Thumbsup

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 01:17 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 01:25 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Any Christian who can says they can show you "Evidence" is lying through his teeth and/or is delusional.

The entire basis of God and salvation is solely within the terms of a thing called "faith".

If the core of a belief is faith-based, it can never produce "Evidence".

I don't think this is true.

If you mean to say that faith can't be reducible to factual knowledge, or that one can't be led to have faith based on evidence, than I agree with you. But if you're saying that faith can't involve factual knowledge than I don't.

Or to quote Terry Eagleton: "...while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 01:23 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 01:17 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 12:53 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Any Christian who can says they can show you "Evidence" is lying through his teeth and/or is delusional.

The entire basis of God and salvation is solely within the terms of a thing called "faith".

If the core of a belief is faith-based, it can never produce "Evidence".

I don't think this is true.

If you mean to say that Faith can't be reducible to factual knowledge, or that one can't be led to have faith based on evidence, than I agree with you. But if you're saying that faith can't involve factual knowledge than I don't.

Or to quote Terry Eagleton: "...while faith, rather like love, must involve factual knowledge, it is not reducible to it. For my claim to love you to be coherent, I must be able to explain what it is about you that justifies it; but my bank manager might agree with my dewy-eyed description of you without being in love with you himself."

I mean it can't... and shouldn't... meet the 4 requirements listed. The concept of faith is in direct contention with those things.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kingschosen's post
13-08-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 05:46 AM)epronovost Wrote:  You should willfully ignore your feelings because feelings are the least reliable method to determine the veracity of what surrounds you.

Just because you desire to ignore your feeling doesn't mean you actually can. In fact you're more inclined to imagine you've ignored your feeling, than actually ignoring your feeling. You're more inclined to rationalize your feeling into your assumptions, rather than being able to set them aside.

A man who claims to have ignored his feelings, is more likely to be lying to himself than telling the truth. Anyone who despises religion, who sees it as something to scorn and mock, and thinks that he can set these feelings aside when trying to evaluate religious beliefs, is lying to himself.

While I do agree with you that pushing aside your inner bias and emotion is difficult if not impossible at times, I do believe that we are all capable of doing it at some point in our lives. All of us who had to fight off a phobia had to do this. When I was a child, I used to be very scared of the dark like many children, but I learned how to make the difference between real danger and imaginary ones and grew out of it. I repeated the same process in my late teens to solve my fear of water. In the same fashion we have demonstrated the ability to fight our bias by overcoming things like racism, sexism or political barriers.

All in all, I think that goodwithoutgod exposed that struggle in a better way that I could. It's a difficult task, but that's also why peer review and critique exist. We all have different bias and emotional response. I am pretty certain that there is several atheists who would love it if God (or a deity) was real, but just can't convince themselves that it's the case since there is no clear evidence for one. Theism requires faith. The more gnostic the theist, the more he requires faith. Since faith and belief are not evidence and have no impact on the reality of something like the existence of a creature, I deem it unwise to base your life around such a belief. Depending on your vision of such a deity, I might find it respectable or even admirable, but I might also find it despicable, dangerous or simply mad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like epronovost's post
13-08-2015, 06:05 PM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 06:34 PM by Free.)
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?

One more very important thing should be added:

5. Legitimate evidence must be an observable/detectable existence or non-existence(Evidence of Absense).

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
13-08-2015, 06:19 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?
Is something is unfalsifiable then how is it not evident? Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 02:24 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:14 AM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  The quality of the evidence is irrelevant, it is always down to interpretation. Even the best "upper-case" evidence is ultimately subject to interpretation.

I feel you may be barking up the wrong tree here.

Archi

Wow really? So you don't think say, a successful scientific theory is an objectively better reason for believing something than say, its emotional appeal?
A theory is just a theory or an "educated" assumption. True Faith brings confirmation which is evidence to the holder of said Faith.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:31 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:19 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:07 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Drewpaul's "Why I'm a Theist" thread really got my mind going recently. For those of you who haven't read it, Drewpaul makes his case for Theism with points like "The universe exists, life exists, and sentient life exists, therefore god." That is certainly the cliff notes version, and I would recommend you actually read his comments, but it does the job.

After reading his argument I knew right away that we disagree most on how high quality the "evidence" should be for something like Theism. He seems to have a pretty broad definition, even admitting the case is circumstantial.

So, I have been asking myself what separates just any reason for believing in Theism from the kind of upper-case "Evidence" that we Atheists are always talking about. He isn't the first Theist I read who doesn't understand the distinction, so I know fleshing out the basic criteria involved would be beneficial to the arguments. I have a few so far, but I thought the community might chime in a bit.

So far, I have four basic criteria.

1. Legitimate evidence does not contain logical fallacies.
2. Legitimate evidence does not include un-falsifiable claims.
3. Legitimate evidence should be capable of withstanding rigorous scientific review.
4. Legitimate evidence is not faith based.

These seem to cover all the recurring arguments, and maybe even some of the rarer ones. What do we think?
Is something is unfalsifiable then how is it not evident? Thanks.

Not merely "something" but rather "claims."

Example:

"God exists, so prove he doesn't."

That is an unfalsifiable claim.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 06:33 PM
RE: That's Not Evidence
(13-08-2015 06:22 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 02:24 AM)Dark Phoenix Wrote:  Wow really? So you don't think say, a successful scientific theory is an objectively better reason for believing something than say, its emotional appeal?
A theory is just a theory or an "educated" assumption. True Faith brings confirmation which is evidence to the holder of said Faith.

Actually, a theory is supported by actual observable evidence.

Faith is not supported by actual observable evidence.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: