Anti-Christian Bigotry?

[kimmy]

Yeah man, evidence can be whatever people want it to be. Pliny has evidence that the foundations of modern physics are all wrong. Schizophrenic people have evidence that UFOs abducted them and stuck probes up their butts. Michele Bachmann has evidence that the End Times are upon us. This woman has evidence that Jack Black is using satellites to control her mind. It's all evidence.

http://youtu.be/5_hPVnev1Qs

And once you accept that evidence can mean whatever you want it to, then of course logic becomes a completely subjective exercise. Everything is logical once you accept that anything anybody believes is evidence.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

And of course refuting evidence for schizophrenics delusions, Michele Michele Bachmann's singular views, and this woman and whatever it is she believes proves that all of the evidence that all religious people have for their belief in a god is 'bad evidence' - or whatever it is you are trying to say.

As for what pliny believes about whatever it is you disagree with him about - isn't it rather trollish to keep bringing him up this way?

Logic is not absolute - or no one could logically argue that there is no god any more than one could logically argue that there is.

FYI, the definition of "evidence" isn't conditional on whether it's "good" or "bad" and ya'll are just the opposite side of the coin of the religious who think they know The Truth and put down anyone who doesn't think as they do.

Also fyi, repeating yet again, you don't have to accept everyone's evidence in order for it to be evidence - courts dismiss evidence as not conclusive, but that doesn't mean the plaintiff/defendant 'went to court without any evidence.' Furthermore, some evidence stands up in a court of law, and some doesn't. And for some cases it's the 'preponderance of the evidence' and for others 'it's without a reasonable doubt.' In other cases it's circumstantial evidence. And sometimes people are wrongly convicted based on evidence presented. So I don't know what point you are trying to make with your "anything anyone believes is evidence." The definition makes clear what "evidence" is.

[bleeding heart]

Also fyi, repeating yet again, you don't have to accept everyone's evidence in order for it to be evidence - courts dismiss evidence as not conclusive, but that doesn't mean the plaintiff/defendant 'went to court without any evidence.' Furthermore, some evidence stands up in a court of law, and some doesn't. And for some cases it's the 'preponderance of the evidence' and for others 'it's without a reasonable doubt.' In other cases it's circumstantial evidence. And sometimes people are wrongly convicted based on evidence presented. So I don't know what point you are trying to make with your "anything anyone believes is evidence." The definition makes clear what "evidence" is.

Which has been my point. The evidence for the existence of God is the sort of evidence that would be thrown out of court (or more likely be insufficient to make it there in the first place); or would be the opposite of scientific standards of evidence; or would be laughed out of the room were the inhabitants mostly rational.

Edited October 14, 2013 by bleeding heart

[kimmy]

To reject "evidence" based on bad science, personal anecdotes, hallucinations, schizophrenic "voices", and so on is not a subjective judgment, it's an objective analysis.

It's not an issue that can be condensed into a paragraph or two on a web board -

And this is rich, coming from you, the one who clings to her little 6-word long Merriam-Webster definitions as the final word on topics like "evidence", "logic", and "atheism".

If you were interested in actually informing yourself, you'd put down your Merriam-Webster and pick up an encyclopedia.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

Which has been my point. The evidence for the existence of God is the sort of evidence that would be thrown out of court (or more likely be insufficient to make it there in the first place); or would be the opposite of scientific standards of evidence; or would be laughed out of the room were the inhabitants mostly rational.

"Scientific standards of evidence" is not the standard set for courts, so your point is not relevant, so I won't argue the validity of it. I was simply pointing out that "evidence" is not an absolute, and whether or not it's "evidence" isn't dependent on whether or not it's "good" or "bad." Whether or not it's good or bad is not an absolute, and so far all I've seen is a bunch of claims that 'it's not good' - based on nothing.

But your 'mostly rational' comment proves my point, especially since you claim to be unaware of the 'evidence' people claim. You are just the opposite side of the coin. No different.

[Guest American Woman]

To reject "evidence" based on bad science, personal anecdotes, hallucinations, schizophrenic "voices", and so on is not a subjective judgment, it's an objective analysis.

And this is rich, coming from you, the one who clings to her little 6-word long Merriam-Webster definitions as the final word on topics like "evidence", "logic", and "atheism".

If you were interested in actually informing yourself, you'd put down your Merriam-Webster and pick up an encyclopedia.

If you were interested in learning something, you'd pick up a book or two, read an article or two or several, talk to people, read about people's beliefs, listen to them - rather than dismissing evidence of a belief in god based on ignorance and schizophrenics delusions - and trolling about what pliny supposedly believes.

I know what evidence is, I know what atheism is, and I know what logic is - and I know for a variety of reasons, from a variety of sources and experiences. But I will turn to a dictionary for a definition before I will turn to you. FYI - that's the purpose of a dictionary. To define words.

But way to argue your point - by going after and insulting me. Once again you prove the point I have been making regarding the opposite side of the coin.

Edited October 14, 2013 by American Woman

[bleeding heart]

"Scientific standards of evidence" is not the standard set for courts, so your point is not relevant, so I won't argue the validity of it.

And the distinction is implies; and, in another response I made to you recently, in this thread, I made it explicit that there was a distinction.

But you miss the point. The point is that we understand there are distinctions between good and bad evidence in every realm, from the legal to the scientific and beyond.

I was simply pointing out that "evidence" is not an absolute, and whether or not it's "evidence" isn't dependent on whether or not it's "good" or "bad." Whether or not it's good or bad is not an absolute, and so far all I've seen is a bunch of claims that 'it's not good' - based on nothing.

And you still refuse to buttress your argument with a single example.

But your 'mostly rational' comment proves my point, especially since you claim to be unaware of the 'evidence' people claim. You are just the opposite side of the coin. No different.

I AM aware of the evidence people claim...and its bloody awful. I asked for your link (which you still refuse to repost) in the vain hopes that might be offering something new to what I've already heard about.

[Guest American Woman]

I AM aware of the evidence people claim...and its bloody awful. I asked for your link (which you still refuse to repost) in the vain hopes that might be offering something new to what I've already heard about.

You're aware of all of the evidence that people claim? Really?

So how about pointing out that awful evidence and refuting it with something other than 'that's awful evidence!'

So far the attempts to dismiss it have been aimed at anything and everything but the actual evidence that people claim.

---------------------

Edited to add: At any rate, it's a false statement to say that 'religious people believe in a god without any evidence' - which, again, has been my point.

Edited October 14, 2013 by American Woman

[carepov]

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

[Bonam]

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

Well, there's a few types of people that fall into this category, for example:

1) People that believe they are alien abductees. These people are "sure" aliens exist, but we generally consider their belief to be delusional rather than based on evidence. These would be analogous to people that think god talks to them.

2) People that ponder ideas such as the Drake Equation, and fill in the parameters to the best extent they can based on available information and guesses. This process may lead them to conclude that the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high. This is not a "belief" or a surety about something, rather, it is a statement of probabilities based on explicitly stated assumptions. I would consider myself as falling into this category, as do many other scientists. (This would be analogous to the mythical individuals that AW describes, who rationally evaluate the extensive and convincing evidence of god's existence and conclude that the probability of god existing must be rather high.)

3) People that for no particular reason other than that they heard it from someone else, or think it's a cool idea, believe that intelligent life must exist elsewhere. This is, as you call it, a "leap of faith". These would be analogous to your typical religious believer: someone told it to them since childhood, and they believe.

Edited October 15, 2013 by Bonam

[sharkman]

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

It's a leap of faith. Some believe Aliens started life on earth and there is simply no proof of this. Personally, I don't care what people believe, it's a free country and I'm not going to think less of complete strangers or belittle their beliefs. Life is too short, and people are far more than the set of their beliefs.

[dre]

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

Well based on the vastness of the universe I think its pretty likely that there are probably hundreds of millions of life forms as advanced and intelligent as us or more. But thats a little different than being sure. Human theology of course takes things much further. I would not only have to believe theres other intelligent life, I would have to believe in the existance of a specific dude somewhere out there, and attribute to him amazing supernatural powers. At this point it would just be pure faith.

Edited October 15, 2013 by dre

[kimmy]

If you were interested in learning something, you'd pick up a book or two, read an article or two or several, talk to people, read about people's beliefs, listen to them - rather than dismissing evidence of a belief in god based on ignorance and schizophrenics delusions - and trolling about what pliny supposedly believes.

I wasn't claiming that all "evidence" for god is comparable to hallucinations or schizophrenia or Pliny's latest junk-science e-book. I was pointing out that under your nonsensical notion of what constitutes "evidence", all of those things would be considered evidence as well. But we all know that none of that crap is evidence in any meaningful sense, so your definition of "evidence" clearly needs some work.

As far as what religious believers do consider evidence for their beliefs, it's highly presumptuous of you to assume I haven't done those things you suggest. I've done all of them to quite an extensive degree.

I frequently read some of the better Christian bloggers like Rachel Held Evans. (I frequently read many of their dumb-ass contemporaries too.) I've engaged with Christians at several forums and had polite discussions with them. I've read their personal reasons for believing, I've read the accounts of former atheists who became believers, and former believers who stopped believing. I've acquainted myself the arguments of people like William Lane Craig and CS Lewis and Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh D'Souza who supposedly rank among the top minds in the field of Christian apologetics.

And I do know the "evidence" that all of these people bring to the table. I know that all of it falls under the following headings:

-personal feelings or sensations.

-unverifiable events (whether it be alleged miracles, or "signs" given to individuals, or the historicity of the Bible.)

-arguments based on science (including both bad science, as well as "science can't answer this yet, therefore God is the only possible answer!")

-arguments based on abstract logic (St Anselm's "ontological argument" for the necessary existence of god, for example.)

All of the "evidence" I have ever encountered can be fit under one of those broad categories. All of the evidence you will ever find will fit under one of those categories. I know you'd love to prove me wrong, but I doubt it'll happen. After all, people like William Lane Craig have been looking for better evidence for their entire lives, and that's the best they have. If respected theologians and apologists can't come up with anything more concrete, I doubt you're going to do better with a few minutes of Googling.

I'm open minded to any "evidence" that comes along, but have yet to see anything of any objective value.

There is, after all, a reason that religious people use the term Faith.

I know what evidence is, I know what atheism is, and I know what logic is - and I know for a variety of reasons, from a variety of sources and experiences. But I will turn to a dictionary for a definition before I will turn to you. FYI - that's the purpose of a dictionary. To define words.

These topics are more complicated and nuanced than your dictionary can express in 10 words, and your comments in this thread demonstrate that your knowledge of these topics is not as advanced as "y'all" would have us believe.

But way to argue your point - by going after and insulting me. Once again you prove the point I have been making regarding the opposite side of the coin.

I haven't insulted you personally, I've made fun of your debating style, and your insistence on clutching to your precious Merriam Webster definitions as if 2 lines of text were the be-all-and-end-all of nuanced topics like logic, evidence, and atheism (or to paraphrase what Sarah Palin might say in your shoes: "Merriam Webster says it, I believe it, and that settles it!")

Considering some of the things you've said about me over the years, you're the last person who has any business complaining about insults, and the last person I have any sympathy for.

-k

Edited October 15, 2013 by kimmy

[GostHacked]

Here's a question: there are people that strongly believe, some are even "sure", that we are not the only intelligent life form in the universe. Is this belief based on evidence or is it a leap of faith?

Calculated probability. Number of stars with possible earth like planets and then a chance of life. But this is a simple theory unless we encounter alien life. Logically there is a probability. But it is a form of faith until we know for sure.

[bleeding heart]

You're aware of all of the evidence that people claim? Really?

No, not necessarily; as I said, I'd like to take a look at the link you've provided, in case there is evidence of which I haven't heard.

For some reason, you don't wish to repost that link. I went to find it, and could not.

So how about pointing out that awful evidence and refuting it with something other than 'that's awful evidence!'

So far the attempts to dismiss it have been aimed at anything and everything but the actual evidence that people claim.

This is pretty rich, coming from someone who refuses to engage in specifics.

But ok, the evidence I've heard is this:

"I feel God."

"God speaks to me, not in normal language, but in conscience and intuition."

"I prayed, and my prayers came true."

"I prayed, didn't get what I wanted, but got what I needed."

The "demonstrable truth" of Biblical prophecy.

"With so many people who believe, the odds that God doesn't exist seems unlikely."

And, of course, the (thoroughly discredited) "scientific proof" as offered via theories of Intelligent Design, including by--gasp!--some real scientists!

And, well, that's the stuff I've heard--and I grew up Christian, so it's not as if I've never spent any time among the believers.

And all of that ranges somewhere from piss-poor to nothing, as far as evidence goes.

Now, if I'm missing some better evidence, I'm asking now for the third or fourth time if you might direct me to it?

Edited October 15, 2013 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

Well, there's a few types of people that fall into this category, for example:

1) People that believe they are alien abductees. These people are "sure" aliens exist, but we generally consider their belief to be delusional rather than based on evidence. These would be analogous to people that think god talks to them.

2) People that ponder ideas such as the Drake Equation, and fill in the parameters to the best extent they can based on available information and guesses. This process may lead them to conclude that the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high. This is not a "belief" or a surety about something, rather, it is a statement of probabilities based on explicitly stated assumptions. I would consider myself as falling into this category, as do many other scientists. (This would be analogous to the mythical individuals that AW describes, who rationally evaluate the extensive and convincing evidence of god's existence and conclude that the probability of god existing must be rather high.)

3) People that for no particular reason other than that they heard it from someone else, or think it's a cool idea, believe that intelligent life must exist elsewhere. This is, as you call it, a "leap of faith". These would be analogous to your typical religious believer: someone told it to them since childhood, and they believe.

Thanks, for the well-reasoned answer. I agree with your categories and your analogies.

I do question the claim that by using the Drake Equation and then "concluding the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high" is different from a "beliif" or a "leap of faith". Some assumptions that go into the equation are beliefs in themselves (and so is the validity of the equation.). Depending on your beliefs, you can conclude that intelligent life on other planets is either certain, a practically-impossibility or anywhere in between.

[carepov]

It's a leap of faith. Some believe Aliens started life on earth and there is simply no proof of this. Personally, I don't care what people believe, it's a free country and I'm not going to think less of complete strangers or belittle their beliefs. Life is too short, and people are far more than the set of their beliefs.

You seem to care that some people believe that religious believers are intellectually inferior to non-religious believers, right?

[carepov]

Well based on the vastness of the universe I think its pretty likely that there are probably hundreds of millions of life forms as advanced and intelligent as us or more.

So the evidence of intelligent life outside of our planet is the vastness of the universe?

What if someone said that the evidence of a God is the vastness of the universe?

Human theology of course takes things much further. I would not only have to believe theres other intelligent life, I would have to believe in the existance of a specific dude somewhere out there, and attribute to him amazing supernatural powers. At this point it would just be pure faith.

Some theology does take thinks much further but some believers claim that God is incomprehensible and unimaginable to humans. Analogous to some unknown life form that is almost certainly out there somewhere - for which we have no evidence for. hmmm....

Edited October 15, 2013 by carepov

[Bonam]

I do question the claim that by using the Drake Equation and then "concluding the probability of other intelligent life existing in the universe is very high" is different from a "beliif" or a "leap of faith". Some assumptions that go into the equation are beliefs in themselves (and so is the validity of the equation.). Depending on your beliefs, you can conclude that intelligent life on other planets is either certain, a practically-impossibility or anywhere in between.

That's why it's a statement of probability based on assumptions. Someone that went through this exercise would be only too happy to update their assumptions based on any new available evidence, whichever way they point. The main thing though that makes many people say that other intelligent life in the universe is quite likely, is even if you pick vanishingly small values for the parameters we don't know, once you multiply by the shear number of solar systems in the universe... well, you get a pretty big number.

It's really not a question of beliefs, but of estimates, assumptions, and guesses, some based on what evidence we have, and some waiting to be updated once we get better evidence.

[dre]

So the evidence of intelligent life outside of our planet is the vastness of the universe?

What if someone said that the evidence of a God is the vastness of the universe?

Some theology does take thinks much further but some believers claim that God is incomprehensible and unimaginable to humans. Analogous to some unknown life form that is almost certainly out there somewhere - for which we have no evidence for. hmmm....

The ammount of star systems is not "evidence" of intelligence life. It just part of a statement on probability based on what we know about life here on earth.

To have a material belief in advanced alien races would still required a leap of faith.

What if someone said that the evidence of a God is the vastness of the universe?

Theres no logical connection between those two things though. At least in the case of a large ammount of worlds of a similar size to earth, and similar distance from suns of similar size, and the knowledge that life developed here on earth we can say that each such occurence increases the odds.

At least theres a logical connection between the two. Theres no logical connection though between something being vast, and the existance of god.

Edited October 15, 2013 by dre

[carepov]

The ammount of star systems is not "evidence" of intelligence life. It just part of a statement on probability based on what we know about life here on earth.

To have a material belief in advanced alien races would still required a leap of faith.

Theres no logical connection between those two things though. At least in the case of a large ammount of worlds of a similar size to earth, and similar distance from suns of similar size, and the knowledge that life developed here on earth we can say that each such occurence increases the odds.

At least theres a logical connection between the two. Theres no logical connection though between something being vast, and the existance of god.

Yes I see your points and agree, thanks.

[carepov]

The main thing though that makes many people say that other intelligent life in the universe is quite likely, is even if you pick vanishingly small values for the parameters we don't know, once you multiply by the shear number of solar systems in the universe... well, you get a pretty big number.

Well not necessarily. Why is the low estimate less valid than the high estimate:

R_* = 7/year,^[21]f_p = 0.4,^[22]n_e*f_l = 10⁻¹¹, f_i = 10⁻⁹,^[23]f_c = 0.1, and L = 304 years^[24]

result in

N = 7 × 0.4 × 10^-11 × 10^-9 × 0.1 × 304 = 8 x 10^-20 (suggesting that we are probably alone in this galaxy, and likely the observable universe)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Really, what evidence can we gather to estimate:

n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets

f_e = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point

f_i = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)

f_c = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space

L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space^[

I have a new equation:

(assumption) x (estimate) x (educated guess) x (belief)ⁿ = a belief disguised as an evidence-based statement of probability

where n => 1

Edited October 16, 2013 by carepov

[eyeball]

You seem to care that some people believe that religious believers are intellectually inferior to non-religious believers, right?

Intellectually distracted would be how I'd put it and it can happen to anyone.

I think the huge amount of credibility that is afforded religion can serve us poorly as a society because it encourages so much wilful suspension of disbelief. If you can believe some religions, there's really not a whole lot to discourage people from believing in just about any super-naturalism they're told or feel is real without tangible physical evidence.

In a evolutionary context suspending disbelief seems like a very poor survival trait. I recall a friend who believed she could cure her cancer by employing some ancient ritual involving herbs and meditation... I look around the planet and see so many people and institutions behaving as if it's okay if we wreck this world because there is another better one awaiting us when we die.

It would be better I think if religion was a lot more private and not so glaringly public like a never ending political campaign. Like I said its a big distraction and being distracted is often a dangerous state to be in.

[Bonam]

Well not necessarily. Why is the low estimate less valid than the high estimate:

Based on what we currently know, the low estimate could be valid as well. However, the numbers you quoted are based on the "rare earth hypothesis", which takes apriori that only one planet per galaxy will develop complex life, and there are no good reasons to assume that is true. It is obvious that there are a huge range of possible results from the equation given the many orders of magnitude of uncertainty in the factors that go into it.

But again, no one that goes through this thought process "believes" that life must exist, rather, they may think that it is likely based on certain assumptions. If you see no difference between an estimate of probability based on certain assumptions (which the individual explicitly recognizes) and a religious belief, then I don't think we can really go any further in this conversation.

[carepov]

But again, no one that goes through this thought process "believes" that life must exist, rather, they may think that it is likely based on certain assumptions. If you see no difference between an estimate of probability based on certain assumptions (which the individual explicitly recognizes) and a religious belief, then I don't think we can really go any further in this conversation.

I see the difference in theory but I am having trouble seeing a difference in practice. It often comes down to what assumptions that you believe in. For example, assuming the individual functions in one thing, but what about the assumption that the Drake Equation has any validity whatsoever, what evidence is that based on?

IMO, some people that "think something is 99.9 % certain" based on certain explicitly stated assumptions are "worse" than other people that "think probably God exists, what the heck I'll just beleive in God and my universe will seem more ordered".