Thanks for the exchange Stragg ... Hope all is well with you today.
brutha Stragg writes:
weary writes:
brutha Stragg writes:
weary writes:
Atheists have employed the absence of evidence, and established it as concrete perception; the paradigm then rests upon the premise of this absence.
Er no. There is not an "Absence of evidence".
There is a vast array of evidence to suggest that humans invent "irrefutable" gods to meet their very human needs.
That is your mythology showing? Work with what is tangible - there is no proof of deity, positive or negative, either way. That is absence as premise.
Evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are not similiar or interchangeable.
Are you a believer in all irrefutable concepts?
Personally, I have belief in the atheist concept. However, I place no faith in it, and so, do not subscribe to the available support group or title.
Atheist mythology is exposed when ...
* one claims, as science rather than dogma, that the concept of deity is based on theory, rather than entity.
* the atheist does not recognize a fellow as an anti-theist when they presuppose paranormal phenomena.
* the simple non theist is not recognized as an anti-theist when presupposing deism.
* an atheist pleads for leniency towards the definition and criteria for atheism.
It seems the majority of racist atheists have successfully commandeered the title of 'atheist', who by definition need not reject diety - but rather theology, in a similiar fashion as the racist Levites who attempt to commandeer the title of the Anointing as 'christians'. Much like them, the atheist's goalposts often seem to shift everytime an attempt is made towards establishing what defines the title.
I have determined that ...
* atheism is a borderline racist concept, reserving segregation to deity.
* atheism is a concept constructed within a syncretic world belief system.
* atheism is an orthodox construct, founded on an absence of evidence.
* atheism is sectarian in nature.
I understand that, in practice, a subscriber to atheism can accept Casper into their world view and retain the title of 'atheist' among a certain majority of others who decide to identify themselves as such. I understand that, even by rejecting the theory - or theological substance, which attempts to create an orthodox framework for deity, a practitioner will be shunned as a fellow 'anti-theist' by identifying the existence of deity. Facts don't lie or have an agenda.
Do you believe commonly referred to atheistic sectarian terms, such as weak or strong atheism, are suggestive of a hierarchical nature?
Do you believe that a group or a club whose membership status is defined by making non-evidenced determinations is not delusional?
Do you believe that evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are similiar and interchangeable?
..... Or do you suggest that we accept all such concepts equally?
Again, as Theodoric says, facts are just facts. I suggest that one will accept belief towards variant concepts by establishing what they are willing to percieve as convincing criteria and evidence, as well as, making certain determinations. Finally, there is a sense one may choose to employ faith in their conclusions.
What we then have are four quick steps ...
* establish acceptable criteria (requiring faith that the considered science and/or religion maintains the highest degree of accuracy)
* establish sufficient evidence (requiring faith that the considered science and/or religion maintains the highest degree of accuracy)
* establish educated determination (allowing one to place faith within a previously unaccepted and/or unrecognized concept)
* continue having faith in your science and/or religion
This is not to say that the investigation should be done hastily or that it is commonly approached in this particular order or fashion.
One Love
I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, tho my intentions are no less than to tickle your thinker. If those in first century CE had known what these words mean ... 'I want anddesire mercy,not sacrifice' They surely would not have murdered the innocent; why trust what I say, when you can learn for yourself? Think for yourself.
quote:Belief and faith are not the same thing. Faith is belief without any underlying evidence.
Not according to the English definition from dictionary.com in the OP. It says that faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence.
And not according to the Greek word pistis which is translated as "faith" in the New Testament. This means "conviction of the truth of something" (Thayer). It is related to the word peitho, "to be persuaded." Biblical faith is not blind, but is persuasion based on evidence.
Frankly I don't know what most of your post is going on about. Nor do I care about different definitions of atheism. If you want to know what I think specifically then just ask and I will tell you.
With that aim in mind I will ask you the same questions that I have asked LindaLou and RAZD.
1) Is there a rational reason to consider any one immaterial undetectable entitity as more likely to exist than any other?
2) How is it even possible that anyone has ever experienced any aspect of any immaterial reality (that might exist) unless we are invoking the existence of a form of sensory perception beyond our known material senses (i.e. a "sixth sense")?
3) Is agnosticism or a degree of atheism the rational conclusion regarding any immaterial undetectable god concept cited by humans given that humanity has an indisputable and proven tendancy to invent such things?
I would ask that you try and be both clear and concise in your answers........
quote:Anything that is evidence is a fact. If it is not a fact, then it is not evidence.
The thing you describe (non-scientific 'evidence', mystical or some other type) are reasons to believe in something. But they are not evidence.
The two are close, but there is a very important difference.
Reasons are not necessarily facts.
You make a reasonable distinction between evidence and reasons, but I think you are being overly restrictive in your definitions.
From dictionary.com:
evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
A "ground for belief" can be fairly broad, and can include subjective as well as objective data.
In science we require "evidence" to be objective and fact-based. But when we get out of the realm of science, the word evidence is often used of things which you would call "reasons" rather than "facts." This sort of evidence becomes more subjective, and is not accepted by everyone.
I suppose one could distinguish between objective (fact-based) evidence and subjective evidence, which you would probably call "reasons."
But when we get out of the realm of science, the word evidence is often used of things which you would call "reasons" rather than "facts." This sort of evidence becomes more subjective, and is not accepted by everyone.
You are correct. People often do abuse the word "evidence." I was just trying to inform you of how pretty much everyone else has been intending it's usage in this thread so that we can avoid any unintentional abuse.
Not according to the English definition from dictionary.com in the OP. It says that faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence.
The dictionary.com definition is obviously not using the scientific definition of the word "proof." This is far too restrictive - proof exists only in the realm of mathematics. In this case the word is being used as a synonym for "evidence."
If it actually meant "proof" in the scientific sense, literally every belief from the belief that teh Earth is an ovoid sphere to the belief that the Earth orbits the Sun would be based on faith. This makes the word rather meaningless, doesn't it.
Clearly, you're trying to conflate faith with beliefs supported by evidence. And failing.
And not according to the Greek word pistis which is translated as "faith" in the New Testament. This means "conviction of the truth of something" (Thayer). It is related to the word peitho, "to be persuaded." Biblical faith is not blind, but is persuasion based on evidence
By this standard of evidence, the Harry Potter series must be regarded as true. There is absolutely no extrabiblical evidence supporting the extraordinary claims of the Bible (though many people recognize sources such as Josephus, this is false - Josephus is not a primary or even a secondary source, and doesn't verify anything beyond that there was a cult of followers organized a man reported to be named Jesus, which says absolutely nothing as to the veracity of such claims as healing the blind or lepers, raising from the dead, being born of a virgin, etc). Many Biblical claims have in fact been falsified (the Flood, for one).
So you are essentially arguing via manipulation of semantics. You use the most broad definition of "faith" possible, to the point where it encompasses all beliefs anywhere because no beliefs are based on "proof" in the scientific sense - all is tentative. You then use the most loose definition of "evidence" possible such that I can support the notion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists with "evidence" of similar quality.
Reasonable individuals recognize that the dictionary.com definition refers to "proof" as synonymous with "evidence:"
quote:proof /pruf/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [proof] Show IPA Use proof in a Sentence —noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. 5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight. 6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind. 7. an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation. 8. Mathematics, Logic. a sequence of steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. 9. a test to determine the quality, durability, etc., of materials used in manufacture.
See the bold definition. "Proof" is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or produce a belief in its truth."
There is no objective evidence supporting the existence of god(s). None. At all. Period. Any belief in a deity is based on faith alone - faith that the Bible is accurate in its claims despite the lack of external, independent corroborative evidence and the presence of some contradictory evidence for its various extraordinary claims, as one example.
Again, by any definition of "evidence" that allows the Bible or "personal revelation" to qualify, the Harry Potter series is supported by "evidence" as well.
Evidence must be one or more facts that support one conclusion about reality above others. A knife lying on the floor is not evidence of a murder. A knife lying on the floor covered in blood next to a dead body with a stab wound consistent with the knife is evidence of a murder.
A book claiming there was a murder is not evidence of an actual murder. A dream about a murder, a "feeling" about a murder, or a conversation with a non-corporeal entity which for all practical purposes appears in every way to be a conversation with yourself, are not evidence of a murder. If you had a book, a feeling, a dream, and a conversation with your imaginary friend that all suggested a murder had occurred upstairs, your belief in the murder is still one based on faith because you have no actual evidence. You have no objective facts that support such a conclusion - you have a series of claims sufficient to produce a delusional belief that someone has been murdered upstairs, but such a belief would indeed still be delusional until you actually observe real, objective evidence supporting such an assertion. Such a belief is not based on evidence, but is rather based on a series of suggestions and mental self-confirmation. There are no facts involved.
And once again we reach the point where faith and delusion are indistinguishable.
I suppose one could distinguish between objective (fact-based) evidence and subjective evidence, which you would probably call "reasons."
Why do all threads discussing faith inevitably end up with theists talking about subjective forms of evidence of one sort or another?
Do deists/theists have faith? Or do they have evidence? Which is it?
Can you give a very specific example of the sort of "subjective evidence" you are referring to, specifically with regard to immaterial entities that are unable to be empirically detected.
..Sorry for jumping in, but I'm a bit curious/confused..
dictionary.com writes:
faith /feɪ/ [feyth] —noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
I'm wondering why exactally the second definition is being used for this argument when contextually the third makes more sense (or eighth if were speaking specificaly about the christian belief)?
With many (sometimes conflicting) definitions for words in the english language, one must often rely on context to distinguish which is applicable.
* Do you believe commonly referred to atheistic sectarian terms, such as weak or strong atheism, are suggestive of a hierarchical nature?
* Do you believe that a group or a club whose membership status is defined by making non-evidenced determinations is not delusional?
* Do you believe that evidence of imitation and absence of evidence are similiar and interchangeable?
Two succinct posts and five salient questions. No answers.
Btw, we are now up to three posts and seven questions ...
I would ask that you try and be both clear and concise in your answers ...
I would only inquire that, before responding in kind to the variance your newly proposed questions raise, you may return the aforementioned courtesy.
If one is unable to follow the succinct and salient wording employed throughout the various ordered lists presented within Message 91, there seems little reason to suspect they may comprehend what is being discussed. However, I will certainly attempt to accomodate your request to the best of my ability.
What evidence supports the existence of god(s)? Be specific.
A discussion of specific evidence would probably become a heated exchange and would quickly pull us off the topic of this thread. Besides, I'm sure there are many other threads on this forum which have discussed this. If you want to see reasons I would recommend looking at those threads or at the various Christian responses to Dawkins' "The God Delusion." (I'd recommend the books "Dawkins' God" and "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath, and the book "God's Undertakers" by John Lennox.)
Militant atheists will try to reject any evidence for God put forth by theists, of course. They will try to claim that we theists are deluded. This doesn't mean that we have no evidence, rather that the evidence is not accepted by the skeptic.
This strikes me as similar to the way in which young earth creationists (YECs) reject any evidence for an old universe, and try to claim that we scientists are deluded. We believe that the Big Bang occurred, based on abundant evidence. But we can't prove it. This gives YECs enough wiggle room to claim that we are deluded or that there is some sort of cosmic conspiracy.
How do we distinguish between faith and delusion in this case? How do we objectively defend to a YEC that our belief in a Big Bang is not a delusion, and that the evidence for it is compelling? I'm not sure that we can do this in a way that will convince a skeptical YEC. Likewise, I'm not sure there is any way to convince a militant atheist that my faith in God is not a delusion.
Edited by kbertsche, : Changed "atheist" to "militant atheist" in two places.
Hi kbertsche, interesting post, raising some interesting questions.
Militant atheists will try to reject any evidence for God put forth by theists, of course. They will try to claim that we theists are deluded. This doesn't mean that we have no evidence, rather that the evidence is not accepted by the skeptic.
A rather succinct observation. The whole issue revolves around the different levels of acceptance of various evidence/s and belief/s. Nobody considers what they believe to be delusional, the issue comes up when one comes into contact with people that seem to believe things contrary to your belief/s.
They will try to claim that we theists are deluded. This doesn't mean that we have no evidence, rather that the evidence is not accepted by the skeptic.
An example of just this kind of behavior has been presented on this thread Message 56 (and several others - it was easy to find):
quote:There is no such thing as a vacuum of evidence. There is a great deal of objective evidence that tells us as verified fact that humans have a strong disposition to invent gods.
Notice that this simple comment accomplishes several things for the poster, initially it pretends to be open to considering evidence, but then it deflects the discussion to it being evidence of insanity, hallucinations, delusions, etc, while building up the impression that it could not be evidence supportive of belief/s, and ending with implicit denial of any evidence being valid for belief/s. It's all made up in your head.
This strikes me as similar to the way in which young earth creationists (YECs) reject any evidence for an old universe, and try to claim that we scientists are deluded.
Indeed, and the basic reason is fairly simple to understand:
One of the first reactions to contrary evidence of anyone's beliefs is denial - the evidence isn't real, it isn't valid, it isn't convincing. A common second reaction is to claim that the one's pushing the concept are deluded or irrational. We see this reaction from the YEC's regarding the evidence of an old earth, and we see it in the attitude of atheists to the beliefs of theists. One could argue that the purpose, the agenda of this thread is to make just such an argument.
A discussion of specific evidence would probably become a heated exchange ...
I'd say that would be a given. It's an emotional issue, and people react emotionally to it. One of the reasons I have rejected going down that path.
evidence--that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
A "ground for belief" can be fairly broad, and can include subjective as well as objective data.
In science we require "evidence" to be objective and fact-based. But when we get out of the realm of science, the word evidence is often used of things which you would call "reasons" rather than "facts." This sort of evidence becomes more subjective, and is not accepted by everyone.
Yes, indeed, and we've had several threads discussing the relative merits of subjective evidence. In Message 83 I noted reference to one of them:
quote:In the Is My Hypothesis Valid??? thread Straggler started out trying to limit the basis of valid hypothesis to objective evidence, but eventually conceded that he could not rule out the possibility that a subjective experience could be related to reality, and he was left with ...
evidence + logic = hypothesis
... as a valid starting point to test and look for validation.
Also on the Is My Hypothesis Valid??? thread Straggler was forced to concede that subjective evidence was acceptable evidence in a court of law as long as there could be some experience of the event by the witness providing it. To get to that point he had to posit a person that was completely unable to experience anything outside of their head, as any other experience could be legitimate.
(btw, specific references are below my signature)
I suppose one could distinguish between objective (fact-based) evidence and subjective evidence, which you would probably call "reasons."
One needs to be careful going down this road. I have considered this question for some time now, and it seems to me that, at best, the evidence of subjective experiences of a religious nature point to a general spirituality, whether it is due to god/s per se or some emergent property of the developing human mind, is an open question. I certainly reach no "actionable" conclusions from this, rather that there is not enough information at this time. At best these experiences cannot just be dismissed, for there are so many of them, for anyone with an open mind.
One of the problems here is confirmation bias, where we seem to find evidence of what we want to find evidence of, and ignoring the skeptical voice/s that say otherwise.
Subjective experiences and evidence can inform and direct avenues of enquiry, however they cannot substitute for verified and validated evidence, else we go down the road of the YEC's and militant anti believers.
All I have said is that a singular subjective experience, experienced by a conscious and aware individual, may be indicative of reality. You acknowledge that such experiences are valid starting points for investigation
quote:Imagine a murder trial. Imagine an "eye" witness who was physically present at the time and place that the alleged crime took place. Now imagine that this witness is a blind, deaf, quadriplegic with no sense of touch from the neck down and who also has no sense smell or taste.
Note that issue of subjective evidence in a court of law started on a previous thread, and only reached this point later in the debate. The sole whole purpose of this strange, bizarre, improbable, incredible construction, was to develop a witness that could not experience objective reality in any way. The fact that it had to reach such an absolute extreme condition, demonstrates clearly that anything intermediate between that witness and a normal conscious and aware individual, could have the possibility of having experienced objective reality. This means that any subjective experience could have an element of objective reality and thus be valid evidence for such a reality.
Re my distinction between objective and subjective evidence:
quote:One needs to be careful going down this road. I have considered this question for some time now, and it seems to me that, at best, the evidence of subjective experiences of a religious nature point to a general spirituality, whether it is due to god/s per se or some emergent property of the developing human mind, is an open question. I certainly reach no "actionable" conclusions from this, rather that there is not enough information at this time. At best these experiences cannot just be dismissed, for there are so many of them, for anyone with an open mind.
Agreed; perhaps a distinction between objective and subjective evidence is not the best. Maybe scientific versus non-scientific evidence is more pertinent. (I believe that there is objective as well as subjective evidence for the Christian faith, but I would not call any of this scientific evidence per se.)
Agreed; perhaps a distinction between objective and subjective evidence is not the best. Maybe scientific versus non-scientific evidence is more pertinent. (I believe that there is objective as well as subjective evidence for the Christian faith, but I would not call any of this scientific evidence per se.)
Actually the only distinction that makes any sense at all is a distinction between material evidence and immaterial "evidence".
Namely the distinction between that which can in principle be detected by means of our fives senses (or related instruments of detection) and that which cannot.
™ Version 4.2