Immaterial "Evidence"

I never intended to go any further, but it seemed to me a useful remarc.

Message 269Who is this other Straggler that keeps being mentioned? He sounds like a completely unreasonable immovable zealout and ignorant pain in the ass. If ever I meet him I will put him right on one or two things. Well this Straggler hasn't denied any possibilities at all.This Straggler has simply pointed out that citing a form of evidence that is both undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense and that is utterly unable to be distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of it's reliability as an indicator of reality, is a rather weak position. Some might go so far as to say desperately weak.If the proponents of immaterial subjective "evidence" cannot see that they are effectively rebranding personal conviction and subjective notions of "believability" as "evidence" then I am not sure what else there is to say on the matter.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

He is the one who made 2840 posts here.Just read them and you will see what RAZD knows.But if you have the same psychological problem as Straggler you will not notice it.Not a big deal, I see people like Straggler do this all the time.

Not a fan huh Petrophysics? Oh well, we all have our crosses to bear. I'll cope.I notice that you don't actually have anything to add to the debate on immaterial subjective forms of "evidence". I notice that you cannot actually refute the arguments presented in the OP or elsewhere. And I see people who have deep conviction but no actual argument make these sorts of comments all the time too.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Its weak to the person who hasn't had or wasn't convinced by, the experience(s) that lead(s) to the position in the first place. To the others, it being "weak" doesn't make it any less real.Although, it being weak relies on: ...which if that was the case then the experience wouldn't have been ...can't really rule that out as a possibility. (However, we could discuss and compare our experiences to see if we think that's a plausible explanation.) ...not sure how you're measuring the reliability of the experience here. And what about experiences that don't really predict anything to guess at or make up or leave to chance?Also, doesn't the whole idea of it being "undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense" kind of preclude it from being "distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of it's reliability as an indicator of reality"?Isn't this really just a long-winded and confusing tautology? That non-empirical things can't be scientific. And going further that non-scientific things are unreliable? Well, you do know what it does to assume, right? It makes an ASS out of U and ME. And if you can't accept that people are being honest and simply trying to make sense of their real experiences by discussing them along side ways that are more reliable, and that they're not really trying to "rebrand evidence", then you are not going to have anything else to say.And frankly, I think its the people who bring up the IPU that are the ones who are trying to "rebrand evidence".

Hi CS
I started writing a detailed point by point reply to your post but stopped. I just don't see the point anymore. It has taken us six months to reach the point where we are actually discussing the true nature of the evidence involved. Namely immaterial evidence (visions, hallucinations, voice of god experiences etc. etc.) I now have neither the patience nor interest to further try and decipher what it is you guys actually mean based on the drip feed of information that you think is "relevant" to such discussions. Rightly or wrongly it feels evasive to me. It feels like trying to get blood out of an unwilling stone.So if you are content considering some forms of purely internal personal experience (e.g. visions) as genuine evidence of external reality whilst not others (e.g. daydreams) despite there being no way to differentiate them in terms of practical reliability as true indicators of external reality then - So be it.If you find convincing forms of evidence that are both undetectable without an immaterial sixth sense and that are utterly unable to be distinguished from blind chance, biased guessing or even just intentionally making things up in terms of practical results and thus demonstrable reliability as a true indicators of reality then - So be it.If you find these things personally convincing and that is enough for you then - So be it. I do not deny, and never have denied, that people have deep conviction that what they are saying is true. I am not calling them liars. I am not and never have doubted their sincerity. Which part of this are you guys not understanding? Why does pointing out the groundless basis of confidence in such conclusions in terms of demonstrable reliability equate to calling people dishonest deceptive liars who are lacking conviction in what they believe?Regardless of honesty, sincerity, personal conviction, strength of belief or whatever other cherished feelings it seems I have offended recently - If the "evidence" being cited is simply unable to be distinguished from the results of making things up (whether intentionally or unintentionally, whether consciously or unconsciously, whether sincerely believed or not, whether products of wishful thinking need and desire rather than reality OR not) in any practical sense whatsoever then the fact is that there is no rational reason for anyone else to accept such conclusions as any more or less true than simply making things up. Conviction has no bearing on the nature of reality or the quality and reliability of conclusions drawn regarding the nature of reality.I think there can be little doubt that people would invent gods and other supernatural explanations whether any actually exist or not. That we consistently tackle the unknown by invoking such things is a highly objectively evidenced fact. But if you still think that internal visions (or whatever) of gods are better and more reliably and rationally explained by the actual existence of materially undetectable gods rather than by humans finding wholly internal methods of fulfilling their innate need for answers and purpose etc. etc. then - So be it.I really don't see what else there is to say on this matter.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How are we going to measure the practical results of my belief in god to demonstrate its reliability? Key words: anyone elseBut for myself, I can tell that my belief in god is not made up. And I maintain that it is different than a belief in the IPU (which is made up).And also, its not that I decided to accept shoddy evidence and then as a result formed a belief in god. I find myself with this belief in god and as a result, have accepted some shoddy evidence.

How can you tell the difference? How do you know that the IPU is made up, as opposed to being an idea "inspired" by the Real Thing? How do you know that your God isn't made up (after all, you don't have to be the one to make it up)?We have two beliefs in question here. Neither is supported by any objective evidence. One has a long history and a wide base of honest believers with a variety of traditions. The other is relatively recent and may not have any honest believers.Without and objective evidence or even any conceivable method to test the accuracy of each belief, how can you say that one is made up and the other is not? Are you relying on appeals to popularity and tradition? We know for an absolute fact that people can have honest belief in things that are completely made up - faith-healing televangelists and other con artists prove that to society's detriment all the time.What differentiates the IPU from your God?We could take another example. Scientology is a recent comer to the religion scene. Many people (perhaps even most) think that it was completely made up by L. Ron Hubbard. The religion makes some outlandish claims that are not supported by even a scrap of objective evidence, requiring faith in the words of Hubbard and his successors. Scientology has a relatively short history and tradition, but it does have a small and growing group of genuine, honest believers.What differentiates the IPU from Scientology? Scientology from your beliefs? How, in the absence of any evidence, can you determine which beliefs are made up and which are not? How can you have any confidence in the accuracy of one belief over another without any conceivable method to reliably test the accuracy of each belief?

Sorry Straggler but this post will be off-topic. I'm still waiting for your reply in the other threads you pussy.Quit being so judgmental and man up, bitch. Don't just make one post and flee, stick around and defend your position, or do you lack the balls to do that?- Oni

Ultimately it requires as much faith to conclude that your "evidence" is a true indicator of reality as it does to conclude that your god actually exists based on such "evidence".If you don't see the problem with that in terms of reliability then, like I said before - So be it. Then why do you keep telling me that I should be agnostic towards your god rather than atheistic?All of the objective evidence we have available points towards such expereinces being products of the human mind. Yet you, RAZD and others relentlessly tell me I should treat the idea of a sixth sense with which you have all somehow detected the immaterial being(s) (that you already believed in anyway) as a form of evidence that necessitates downgrading my desbelief in such things to the point of saying "I just don't know either way. It is 50-50. I am agnostic".Can you remind me again why I should be agnostic rather than have a degree of atheistic disbelief regarding gods based on the evidence available?

Because I didn't make up my belief in god. I can tell when I'm using my imagination or not.

quote:

---

The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.[1] This makes her a rhetorical illustration used by atheists and other religious skeptics.

---

sourceI don't know that God wasn't made up, but I do know that my belief in him was not.I'm not saying that I can tell if somebody else's sincere belief is made up or not. But sometimes you can tell that they're not sincere, the IPU being an example.

No worries. I too have noticed Petrophysics's rather lame hit and run tendancies.

If we were talking about sincerity you would have an argument clinching point here.But we are not. We are talking about reliability. And there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the "dreamt up" idea of the IPU is any more or any less reliable as a conclusion than the immaterial sixth sense requiring gods that you are advocating as so fundamentally different.If your only argument is conviction then you really have no argument at all.

I didn't ask whether you had made it up. I asked how you can tell the difference between a made-up belief and a non-made-up belief without any evidence or method for reliably testing accuracy. You haven't answered that question. A Wiki page can now disprove a religion?What if there are genuine believers in the IPU? What if the IPU belief is not a parody, but is actually inspired by Her Pinkness? Ignore the absurdity for a moment, remembering that invisible men in the sky sound no less absurd to some of us. How can you know that the IPU is completely made up, and know that your God is not made up? How can you differentiate between the two, when you have no objective evidence and no method for reliably testing their accuracy? So then, if it is possible that your God is made up, and it is possible that the IPU is made up, regardless of the honesty of their respective believers, how can you tell the difference between the two?A Wiki page that says one of them is made up? I can point you to dozens of websites that say with just as much certainty that your God is made up; perhaps statements on a website do not disprove the existence of deities? Perhaps this is an appeal to the dubious authority of Wikipedia, which we all know is the unbiased, objective and consistent arbiter of all knowledge? How can you tell? What if I am being sincere? You have no evidence that disproves the IPU; you have no objective reason to think that I (or someone else, somewhere) don't believe in the IPU.What about my Scientology example? You completely ignored it, and it illustrates an important point. To most people, Scientology looks like a completely made-up religion created by a bad science fiction writer with delusions of grandeur...and yet those same people believe in their own deities with just as much genuine faith as adherents of Scientology. If we remove the IPU and substitute it with a "real" religion that sounds just as wacky, how can you tell whether the belief is made up or not?I assert that genuine belief is irrelevant, as is popularity and tradition; all are just logical fallacies. The accuracy of a belief is independent of any of them. Whether a belief is made up or not is independent of all of them.Given that you have absolutely no objective evidence and no reliable method to test the accuracy of any of the beliefs in question, how can you honestly say that one is made up and others are not? What reason do you have for increased belief in one, but not in the others? Tradition is not a reason. Popularity is not a reason. Personal credulity is not a reason. A website claiming that the IPU (or Scientology, or your God, or anything else) is made up is not a reason. None of these things are tied in any way to the accuracy of the belief; they're irrelevant logical fallacies. What reason do you have to say that the IPU is completely made up, while your God is not? How would you differentiate between belief in the IPU, Scientology, and your God when determining which belief is more accurate, and which are likely to be completely made up?

Its beside the point.I have a belief in god. Subjective experiences support my belief. The majority of people agree with me. I have reasons for it. I don't have any reason to believe in the IPU.I don't care if other people are capable of determining whether or not I've made up my belief. I know that I didn't make it up. I know that the IPU was made up. There's the difference in the beliefs.