Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[Guest American Woman]

Only if you dumb down the definition of evidence to mean "anything that makes anyone believe in anything".

You prove my point.

[dre]

You prove my point.

Not really because dumbing down that definition is exactly what has to be done to make the claim that the belief in god is supported by evidence.

As soon as you constrain the definition to the practical definition taught to students in modern countries - " empirical evidence that by its logical extension supports a certain conclusion" then you can no longer claim that religious beliefs are in any way based on evidence.

So yes... in the sense that anyone can see anything as evidence of anything else, you are right. Religious beliefs are based on evidence. Problem is... thats not the definition that the rest of the wrold uses, so by clinging to it you make it impossible for you to have any sort of meaningful discussion.

[kimmy]

"AW Evidence" sounds a lot like "Chretien Proof".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX6XMIldkRU

-k

[Mighty AC]

Yet he based his decision on logic, so logic, as I've been saying, is not absolute; and so far I haven't seen you disprove the claims that people have re: the existence of a god. So far all I've seen you do is show bad evidence for other made-up claims.

Your claim that people believe in a god without evidence is a false statement, while it is a fact that some do base their belief on evidence.

No, logic is the reasoning John used to evaluate the three pieces of evidence mentioned. One that he could not see and two that he knew people are made of cells and three cells are invisible to the naked eye. If that's all the information John had then logically it is possible that people are invisible.

The problem lies not with the logical reasoning but with a shortage of evidence and John's eagerness to jump to conclusions. Rather than stating that based on extremely limited information it is possible that people are invisible, John jumped right to the false conclusion that people are in fact invisible. John's belief is ignorance based not evidence based. John believes in invisible humans without evidence, like people believe in gods without evidence.

The religious tend not to follow this pattern of deductive logic though. The religious start with the conclusion that a god exists and then cherry pick information in an attempt to substantiate that claim. The belief isn't based on the evidence, it exists in spite of it. Belief is most often created by the accidental situation one is born into. Born here they may be Catholic or Protestant. Born in India they may be Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. Born 2,000 years ago they may believe in Jupiter or Zeus.

[BubberMiley]

Yet he based his decision on logic, so logic, as I've been saying, is not absolute;

And you've been saying that despite knowing that deductive logic is indeed absolute, because you realize that if you acknowledge this fact, the argument you've been repeating and repeating for 20 pages completely falls apart.

[Guest American Woman]

No, logic is the reasoning John used to evaluate the three pieces of evidence mentioned. One that he could not see and two that he knew people are made of cells and three cells are invisible to the naked eye. If that's all the information John had then logically it is possible that people are invisible.

Yep. Logically that is possible. Logic in and of itself is not absolute. When one does not have all of the information available, when science doesn't have all of the answers, it's possible to come to the wrong conclusion whether one is basing that conclusion on evidence or logic. Neither is infallible. Neither is absolute when dealing with unknowns. Whether or not there is a god is such an unknown.

The problem lies not with the logical reasoning but with a shortage of evidence and John's eagerness to jump to conclusions.

Why do I get the feeling that you think such an observation applies just to one side of the 'is there a god' question? It doesn't. It applies to both, as we don't have "all of the evidence" at this time. Science has not yet come up with all of the answers. There are still many unknowns.

Rather than stating that based on extremely limited information it is possible that people are invisible, John jumped right to the false conclusion that people are in fact invisible. John's belief is ignorance based not evidence based. John believes in invisible humans without evidence, like people believe in gods without evidence.

No, it is not "without evidence." He has evidence. The evidence is that cells are invisible to the naked eye. And he came to his conclusion logically. So again. Neither "evidence" nor "logic" is absolute. I've repeated this over and over - if logic were absolute and one could logically argue that there is no god, then it would be a fact that there is no god, and that is not a fact.

The religious tend not to follow this pattern of deductive logic though. The religious start with the conclusion that a god exists and then cherry pick information in an attempt to substantiate that claim. The belief isn't based on the evidence, it exists in spite of it.

That's your claim. You are speaking for others. That is not your place. Some people didn't believe in a god until they encountered evidence. Evidence is what made them believers. Quite the opposite of starting with the conclusion that a god exists, as you claim.

You paint all religious people with the same brush, even speaking for them, as you dismiss all of their evidence, and then claim that they have no evidence.

It's the epitome of a closed mind, an 'anyone who doesn't think as I do is wrong' mindset. It is just like the religious who claim their beliefs are The Truth. It is no different.

Belief is most often created by the accidental situation one is born into. Born here they may be Catholic or Protestant. Born in India they may be Hindu, Buddhist or Sikh. Born 2,000 years ago they may believe in Jupiter or Zeus.

You can ignore the reality over and over, but it doesn't change the reality. Many, many people's beliefs change from the 'situation [they] were born into.' Not everyone lives their lives believing what they were taught/told at age 5. I would wager that a substantial percentage of people don't share the same beliefs their parents have, but whether one calls the god they believe in God, Allah, Buddah, whatever - it's all a belief in a god.

[cybercoma]

My favourite part of this thread is the part where AW completely ignored kimmy's total dismantling of her positions in Post #613.

[BubberMiley]

When someone improves the overall quality of this forum with reasoned arguments, it's best to pretend it didn't happen and repeat for the umpteenth time exactly what you've posted before.

[dre]

It's the epitome of a closed mind, an 'anyone who doesn't think as I do is wrong' mindset. It is just like the religious who claim their beliefs are The Truth. It is no different.

Actually its a lot different. Rationalism and Fideism are two completely different and diametrically opposed methods of coming to a conclusion about something. Beliefs based on empirical evidence and those based on doctrines are also completely different methods of coming to conclusions.

That doesnt mean that one is right and the other is wrong. It just means that conclusions were arrived at by different means.

Edited October 18, 2013 by dre

[dre]

My favourite part of this thread is the part where AW completely ignored kimmy's total dismantling of her positions in Post #613.

I guess the jokes on Kimmy and the rest of us. Time spent trying to explain to AW elementary school level concepts like the different between inductive and deductive logic, the difference between evidence and faith based beliefs, or the difference between rationalism and fideism, is time thats utterly wasted that none of us will ever get back.

With the time we have spent trying to explain this stuff, we could have built Kimmy a brand new porch or installed a new engine in her car. If you include all the other threads where forum members have burned time trying to explain basic concepts to AW, we could probably have all taken a vacation together to Cuba - all expenses paid - even if we only valued our time at 15 bux an hour.

[Mighty AC]

No, it is not "without evidence." He has evidence. The evidence is that cells are invisible to the naked eye. And he came to his conclusion logically.

Of course we would instantly shatter John's belief with more complete evidence and chastise him for jumping to a conclusion on such little data. This is how bad data, incorrect, unsupported or mistaken ideas are treated. You personally demand reliable evidence for claims made on any other topic I've seen you post on. You are constantly asking other posters for evidence and citations? Why do you make an exception for belief in gods? Why suspend reason and standards of evidence for just this one idea?

Nonbelievers are consistent with their treatment of evidence and reasoning while theists grant special exceptions to their god beliefs. What is the root of this distinction?

[bleeding heart]

Not to mention we could have been discussing the Miley Cyrus "controversy," or argued over how much evidence can dance on the head of a faith-based pin...all about as important as "anti-Christian bigotry," essentially an irrelevant "issue."

[eyeball]

Really? People/institution destroy the environment because of their religion - this is a ridiculous claim.

Not in light of Genesis 1 - 26.

[carepov]

Nonbelievers are consistent with their treatment of evidence and reasoning while theists grant special exceptions to their god beliefs.

Are you saying that non-religious people are consistent rational evidence-based critical thinkers?

[Mighty AC]

Are you saying that non-religious people are consistent rational evidence-based critical thinkers?

No. I'm saying theists exempt one subject from evidence based, rational thought. AW in particular is a stickler for quality evidence on most subjects, but gives god belief a free pass. This inconsistency suggests the god belief comes first and later anything resembling evidence is sought to shore it up.

[carepov]

No. I'm saying theists exempt one subject from evidence based, rational thought. AW in particular is a stickler for quality evidence on most subjects, but gives god belief a free pass. This inconsistency suggests the god belief comes first and later anything resembling evidence is sought to shore it up.

OK thanks for clarifying. I never did get all the discussion on this point, the word "faith" is used for good reason.

[Guest American Woman]

No. I'm saying theists exempt one subject from evidence based, rational thought. AW in particular is a stickler for quality evidence on most subjects, but gives god belief a free pass. This inconsistency suggests the god belief comes first and later anything resembling evidence is sought to shore it up.

No, I do not "give god belief a free pass." You claim that people who believe in a god do so without evidence. I've pointed out that some base their belief on evidence. I've said repeatedly that you don't have to accept the evidence as proof, but not accepting it as proof doesn't eradicate the evidence; it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, what you consider "quality evidence" obviously differs from what others see as "quality evidence" - based on your beliefs. But again. And I think I've said this repeatedly. I'm not saying that the evidence is "quality evidence" - but I'm not saying that it's not. That's not my intent, my point, my purpose. I'm simply saying that some do have evidence of a god and quite frankly, who am I to determine whether or not their evidence is "quality" or not?

Again. To dismiss everyone's evidence, all of the evidence out there, and claim that those who believe in a god do so without evidence is quite arrogant - and no different a mindset than those believers who claim that their belief is The Truth. As I've said.

As a side note, whether or not there is a god is hardly comparable to "most subjects" as there is no proof one way or the other. It's an age-old question.

[cybercoma]

AW, it's funny how your burden of proof for God is so much lower than things in other threads where you demand that others "wait and see" before coming to conclusions.

[Guest American Woman]

AW, it's funny how your burden of proof for God is so much lower than things in other threads where you demand that others "wait and see" before coming to conclusions.

REPEATING:

As a side note, whether or not there is a god is hardly comparable to "most subjects" as there is no proof one way or the other. It's an age-old question.

I'm not saying that the evidence is "quality evidence" - but I'm not saying that it's not. That's not my intent, my point, my purpose. I'm simply saying that some do have evidence of a god and quite frankly, who am I to determine whether or not their evidence is "quality" or not?

Again. To dismiss everyone's evidence, all of the evidence out there, and claim that those who believe in a god do so without evidence is quite arrogant* - and no different a mindset than those believers who claim that their belief is The Truth. As I've said.

*It's also false.

Edited October 22, 2013 by American Woman

[cybercoma]

Why is this topic "special"? Simply because it's an "age-old question"?

[Guest American Woman]

Why is this topic "special"? Simply because it's an "age-old question"?

I didn't say it was "special." I said it was different. AGAIN. ....whether or not there is a god is hardly comparable to "most subjects" as there is no proof one way or the other. It's an age-old question.

[bleeding heart]

But if (and yes, I recognize you're not making the claim either way)...IF the evidence for God is good evidence, then wouldn't the same standards apply in other cases?

For example, if I claim that "Faeries speak to me"--which is precisely the claim made by (and probably believed by) many Christians--it is in fact part of the "evidence" of which you speak--would you seriously defer judgement on whether or not that was good evidence...or not?

Or how about something closer to home: if I say God tells me that the US and its junior partner Canada are so morally corrupt that its people should all die (as in Biblical precedence, mind)....you wouldn't think it within your purview to argue the point? Or do you think the fact of my summoning "God spoke to me" might well constitute "good" evidence?

[dre]

Again. To dismiss everyone's evidence, all of the evidence out there, and claim that those who believe in a god do so without evidence is quite arrogant

Again that really depends how you are defining evidence. Everyone else is definining it as empirical evidence... the type of evidence/reason/logic that children are taught to use in schools in the industrialized world. You used a dumbed down definition that could literally include anything.

So yes. Based on your definition of evidence the belief in god is evidenced based (as are ALL other beliefs in ANYTHING). Based on the rest of modern worlds definition they arent.

Its weird you wouldnt just go and read about this stuff, instead of chasing your tail in this circular argument. The difference between faith and evidence based beliefs are very well documented and often spoken/written about.

[bleeding heart]

So yes. Based on your definition of evidence the belief in god is evidenced based (as are ALL other beliefs in ANYTHING).

Yes, this has been my point.

And it begs the question of why AW would dispute....anything.

[Guest American Woman]

But if (and yes, I recognize you're not making the claim either way)...IF the evidence for God is good evidence, then wouldn't the same standards apply in other cases?

For example, if I claim that "Faeries speak to me"--which is precisely the claim made by (and probably believed by) many Christians--it is in fact part of the "evidence" of which you speak--would you seriously defer judgement on whether or not that was good evidence...or not?

Many Christians claim that fairies speak to them? Who knew!

Again. I'm not passing judgement. I don't argue whether or not there is a god. It's completely pointless. My only point is that those who do judge others based on their beliefs, those who judge the whole and feel superior/more intelligent, are cut from the same cloth. And it is bigotry.

But the point is - whether or not ALL of the evidence is good or not is a personal call - and it doesn't eradicate the fact that people do base their belief on evidence. It's false to claim that people's belief is not based on evidence. Don't you get that??

Or how about something closer to home: if I say God tells me that the US and its junior partner Canada are so morally corrupt that its people should all die (as in Biblical precedence, mind)....you wouldn't think it within your purview to argue the point? Or do you think the fact of my summoning "God spoke to me" might well constitute "good" evidence?

You're now making it about a very specific, personal claim, not simply a general belief in a god, which isn't relevant to the issue I've been arguing.