Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[cybercoma]

Evidence has standards and we use critical thinking and reason to evaluate it. Should something qualify as evidence just because someone believes it to be? A belief based on bad or misused evidence is really a belief based on ignorance.

For example. John believes that storks deliver babies, even though storks haven never been seen doing so. John notes that stork populations and human birthrates in Lower Saxony from 1971 - 2000 correlate.

Of course, we know that correlation does not equal causation and that John is misusing the data. Claiming that the correlation is personal evidence to John hence his belief is evidence based is unsound. His belief is based in ignorance not evidence.

*sigh*

[cybercoma]

I've got a biblical quote to inspire the atheists.

Matthew 7:6 "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

[GostHacked]

I love semantic discussions. This one, however, fails to distinguish between deductive logic (which is absolute) and inductive logic (which is predictive). Any attempt at applying logic to creation will ultimately be inductive because we don't have all the evidence. That means the conclusion has a margin of error and may be unreliable.

You got a good point here. Makes more sense in the type of logic. Scientists would use deductive logic. Religion uses inductive knowledge.

Evidence is not subjective and it is either good enough for deductive reasoning or it isn't.

Agreed.

[Guest American Woman]

Evidence has standards and we use critical thinking and reason to evaluate it. Should something qualify as evidence just because someone believes it to be? A belief based on bad or misused evidence is really a belief based on ignorance.

For example. John believes that storks deliver babies, even though storks haven never been seen doing so. ......

Comparing evidence of a god to your fictional evidence of storks delivering babies just shows an ignorance and inability to actually address the issue at hand.

Edited to add:

And again. One cannot argue their belief that there is no god logically - or logic isn't absolute.

Edited October 12, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

////////////////

Edited October 12, 2013 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

Comparing evidence of a god to your fictional evidence of storks delivering babies just shows an ignorance and inability to actually address the issue at hand.

What was this evidence of a god, again?

-k

[Guest American Woman]

What was this evidence of a god, again?

Try reading the thread. I'm done repeating myself.

[kimmy]

Try reading the thread. I'm done repeating myself.

I read it. You kept saying "Again." over and over, and that you're not going to provide examples.

The truth is, this "evidence" you speak of isn't actually "evidence". It's a variety of "gut feelings", anecdotes, and opinions based on debatable comprehension of scientific information. Somebody with your fanatic enthusiasm for literalism ought to recognize that none of that stuff is "evidence".

-k

[BubberMiley]

I'm done repeating myself.

OMG, there is a God.

[Guest American Woman]

The truth is, this "evidence" you speak of isn't actually "evidence".

It is not "the truth;" it's your take on it.

Somebody with your fanatic enthusiasm for literalism ought to recognize that none of that stuff is "evidence".

Evidence consists of facts, signs or objects that make you believe that something is true.

You don't have to accept the evidence, but that doesn't mean religious people "believe without evidence."

Edited October 12, 2013 by American Woman

[Bonam]

The thread that just keeps on giving.

[kimmy]

This new world where evidence is completely subjective sounds a lot like Pliny's science world where everybody gets to decide for themselves which facts are right for them.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

This new world where evidence is completely subjective sounds a lot like Pliny's science world where everybody gets to decide for themselves which facts are right for them.

You do realize that "evidence" and "fact" are not synonymous, right? Because it doesn't sound as if you do.

[GostHacked]

You do realize that "evidence" and "fact" are not synonymous, right? Because it doesn't sound as if you do.

Right over your head.

[Guest American Woman]

Right over your head.

Not at all. Evidence isn't synonymous with fact, and y'all aren't the anointed judges of what is and isn't considered evidence, making kimmy's comment irrelevant as well as ironic.

Edited October 13, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

Not at all. Evidence isn't synonymous with fact, and y'all aren't the anointed judges of what is and isn't considered evidence, making kimmy's comment irrelevant as well as ironic.

Well, I think everyone understands that there exists such a thing as bad evidence...the evidence for God, for example, is monumentally weak.

As shorthand, when people ask for or talk about "evidence," they usually mean the good kind.

[Guest American Woman]

Well, I think everyone understands that there exists such a thing as bad evidence...the evidence for God, for example, is monumentally weak.

As shorthand, when people ask for or talk about "evidence," they usually mean the good kind.

LOL With what's good being determined by - you? kimmy? The rest of your ilk? Got'cha.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. As I said, y'all are not the anointed judges of whether or not evidence is good or bad.

But even "bad" evidence is evidence - making the claim that people believe "without evidence" a false statement. At any rate, it's your opinion that it's "monumentally weak;" that is not a fact.

Edited October 13, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

LOL

And "good" or "bad" being determined by - you? kimmy? The rest of your ilk? Got'cha.

No, my ilk has not been a major part of influencing the various ways in which evidence is measured: legal, scientific, and philosophical. All of which have some distinctions; and all of which recognize strong versus weak evidence.

In fact, I think everybody does except for you.

The infamous (and infamously bad) "Bigfoot" video that everybody's seen?

That's bad evidence.

At any rate, it's your opinion that it's "monumentally weak;" that is not a fact.

Ironically, the way you've phrased this sentence is contradictory....but concludes that YOUR assertion about my opinion is "not a fact." And I agree.

Edited October 13, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

No, my ilk has not been a major part of influencing the various ways in which evidence is measured: legal, scientific, and philosophical. All of which have some distinctions; and all of which recognize strong versus weak evidence.

Your ilk certainly has been trying to be a factor in determining if evidence that a god exists is good or bad. In fact, you've declared it bad.

The infamous (and infamously bad) "Bigfoot" video that everybody's seen?

That's bad evidence.

And if only this thread were about Big Foot, you'd have a point. But goshdarn, it isn't.

Ironically, the way you've phrased this sentence is contradictory....but concludes that YOUR assertion about my opinion is "not a fact." And I agree.

No, it's not contradictory. Your claim that all the evidence that there is a god is monumentally weak is only your opinion, not a fact; and that is a fact, whether you agree or not.

[bleeding heart]

Your ilk certainly has been trying to be a factor in determining if evidence that a god exists is good or bad. In fact, you've declared it bad.

And if only this thread were about Big Foot, you'd have a point. But goshdarn, it isn't.

No, it's not contradictory. Your claim that all the evidence that there is a god is monumentally weak is only your opinion, not a fact; and that is a fact, whether you agree or not.

If you would generously break your vow of silence on the matter, and offer up some examples of "good evidence" for the existence of God, we could move out of these generalities and tackle the specifics. So far, you've declined to do so. Why not educate us, for the sake of discussion?

and that is a fact, whether you agree or not.

??

After so often castigating me for offering "opinion stated as fact," you're going to go there?

Edited October 13, 2013 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

If you would generously break your vow of silence on the matter, and offer up some examples of "good evidence" for the existence of God, we could move out of these generalities and tackle the specifics. So far, you've declined to do so. Why not educate us, for the sake of discussion?

As I've said countless times now, there is a myriad of evidence out there. It's not my evidence. I'm not advocating that there is a god. I couldn't care less if you believe the evidence is good or not; that's a matter of opinion. But y'all don't seem to get that. You seem to think it's your call to make. You seem to think that because you deem it unworthy evidence it means that those who believe do so without evidence. Which is what I am taking issue with.

So try to comprehend the fact that I don't have a vow of silence. I've in fact given tips, including a link to get y'all started, as to how you can find information on the evidence that does exist. It's not an issue that can be condensed into a paragraph or two on a web board - nor am I the anointed judge of what is or isn't good evidence. At any rate, it would take some time on your part if you're truly interested - with "on your part" being the key words. I'm not about to take the time to educate you in that area.

After so often castigating me for offering "opinion stated as fact," you're going to go there?

What I said is a fact. It is your opinion, not a fact, that "the evidence for God is monumentally weak."

[dre]

It is your opinion, not a fact, that "the evidence for God is monumentally weak.

There IS no empirical evidence AT ALL, never mind whether its weak or strong. Furthermore religion does not even claim to be a body of knowledge based on empirical evidence. Its a doctrine that requires faith to believe. There is absolutely no emprical evidence... no obersvation you could make... no experiment you could perform that will support any theology what-so-ever. These are completely different schools of thought, and most religious people understand this. Rationalism and fideism are two diametrically opposed ideologies. One is based on observable evidence and one is not.

You were supposed to have learned this by about grade 5.

[Moonlight Graham]

Please people, you're not going to convince each other of anything new. Just go on to the next topic and stop wasting your time re-typing the same arguments for another 20 pages.

[bleeding heart]

It's not an issue that can be condensed into a paragraph or two on a web board - nor am I the anointed judge of what is or isn't good evidence.

But surely anything claimed as evidence is not automatically good evidence?

At any rate, it would take some time on your part if you're truly interested - with "on your part" being the key words. I'm not about to take the time to educate you in that area.

Just so. So I went through the entire thread, and I failed to discover this link. Might you post it again, so I can get started?

Edited October 14, 2013 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

Please people, you're not going to convince each other of anything new. Just go on to the next topic and stop wasting your time re-typing the same arguments for another 20 pages.

That's just your opinion.