100% lack of evidence to God

[muhammad_isa]

Indeed. Some people value belief over physical evidence.

That's like equating apples with oranges.
All knowledge has benefit to mankind..
..but religious knowledge is the most beneficial of all.

Naturally, satan will ridicule religion, because he wishes for our destruction through division and hatred.
Those with sound religious knowledge promote peace.

Don't confuse religion with politics. It is a common mistake.

 

[PureX]

It is irrelevant whether the result of a claim being true would be harmful or beneficial, if there is no evidence that the claim is true, there is no good reason to assume it is true.

I don't worship evidence as if it were God. I don't even worship God, for that matter. And I sure don't wait for conclusive evidence to tell me what to think or how to live a life. That's what hope, courage, and faith are for. And the results don't need any evidence, they can speak for themselves.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

But there is all kinds of 'evidence', and we both can and do seek out the evidence that supports the conclusions that we want to (and often have already) arrive at. And this is as true for the theist as it is for the atheist, because we all do it. Ask a theist to define his God's 'personality' and you will find their answer bears a striking correlation to the person you asked: an angry man worships an angry, vengeful God. A weak man worships an all-powerful, controlling God. A selfish man worships an uninvolved, forgiving God. A violent man worships a violent God. And a loving man worships a kind, loving God. Likewise, ask an atheist about the nature of "God" and they will rail against everyone else's conception of God because they have never developed one of their own. They either adopted someone else's in the past and found it didn't work for them (of course), or they just never gave it any serious thought.

I don't care how most people determine truth. I care about the best pathway to truth. Reason, logic, skepticism and science have been demonstrated to be the best path to determine truth. Faith has not. How you evaluate evidence will lead you toward or away from real truth. That is what convinces you and that is what needs to be addressed so our biases can be limited.

My point is that we find what we look for a great deal of the time. And we don't find what we don't look for, too. So we can tell ourselves that the evidence determined our conclusions all we want, but the truth is that we only looked for and accepted the evidence that conformed to what we already were inclined to believe.

This is not true for all. It was for me but not any more. It would be easier for me to believe, all my loved ones are Christians and since I became an unbeliever they have cause trouble for me and my family. Some of them told my wife to leave me and take the kids. She is too smart to fall for that but there was no good reason for me to look at the evidence again with a better epistemology except for wanting to know what is true and what is not.

Then you were 'played' by your own bias. Because the solution was not to "believe in", anything, but rather to remain skeptical, and therefor always able to choose a change when it's needed. An "evaluation" of the evidence by what criteria? This is the real question. And the answer is by YOUR criteria. By the criteria of who you are and how you see the world. So of course, if you adopt someone else's "God" it's not likely to function very well by your criteria. Because it wasn't your God-ideal. "God" is an ideological lens through which we can choose to see the world. But like a pair of glasses, if we put on a lens that was designed to improve someone else's view of the world, it's not going to be very likely to improve our own. We have to find the lens that works best for us. Instead, you put on someone else's lenses and when they didn't work, you assumed all such lenses are 'bogus'. It's a very common mistake given that religions keep trying to tell us that one God-ideal fits all people. THAT is bogus!

This is not how everyone determines truth. My criteria is that it must be demonstrated with reason and logic to be true, not what I want to believe.

That's not how it works. No one needs to be convinced of anything. It's simply an option. And it can be a very powerful, effective option for people if they can figure out how to make it work for them. No one is pursuing truth, because we wouldn't know it if we stumbled on it. What we are all pursuing is value, not truth. Specifically, functional value. We want to be in control of our own fate as much as we can be. And faith can be a very powerful tool for us in that regard, but we have to learn how and when to use it, and how and when not to. Faith without skepticism is dangerous. And faith without discernment is insane. But faith combined with instinct and intuition, and an appropriate degree of caution can take us far further and faster than laboriously sifting through big piles of contradictory and inconclusive "evidence" ever could.

You talk a lot about what other people want and how other people think. You are simply wrong at least for myself and many others I know. Instinct and intuition have been shown to be unreliable as far as determining truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In nearly all your posts you write as if evidence were some objective existential phenomenon that you simply have to be willing to lead you to a conclusion. But it's not. It a totally subjective determination based on what you determined to be "evidential" in the past.

We have means to determine if we have interpreted evidence properly. If there is no such test, then the conclusions are useless. We have likely concluded something unscientific and unfalsifiable, the kind of things that can't be called right or wrong, sometimes called not even wrong.

And in your case that's almost entirely material. That's your overwhelming bias: materialism.

All evidence is physical, else it could not be detected, making it no longer evidence. Evidence is the noun form of the adjective evident, meaning evident to the senses.

They ALL actively seek to minimize [subjective bias in interpreting evidence].

I doubt that, since many are not aware that there is an effective method for doing that, one which needs to be learned and to become a habit of thought.

Even if they did recognize that fact, without those skills they could not avoid following their biases. They wouldn't recognize them as such.

This is the most prominent thing about critical thinking that I have realized recently here on RF: not just that many people aren't critical thinkers, but that many don't know what that is. If one is unaware that there is a correct way to interpret evidence, he cannot be aware that there is an incorrect way, and all interpretations are equally valid. How often do we see that here on RF, "well, that's just your opinion," as if all opinions are arrived at in the same method.

Faith and intuition are both based on trust and action, not on knowledge and explanations. You want it all explained to you in advance, but it doesn't work that way. Sometimes have to make a choice and take action without knowing why or what will happen. In fact, that do this a lot in life. And we humans have an innate ability in that regard, because acting on faith and instinct tends to be much more holistic, far faster, and often more effective than science or philosophy. This is the realm of being better suited to the artist. A methodology marked by a combination of practice and courage, rather than plodding study and laborious experimentation. or endless debate and usually inconclusive debate. The artist just follows his desires and trust in his instincts.

I asked you as I have a half dozen times in the past what your basis is for telling empiricists that their epistemology is too narrow, as I will every time you make that claim, since you failed to answer the question. You have never offered me a reason to modify my epistemology. You extol your ways and demean the critical thinker's epistemology, but offer nothing that your has done for you to make others think you might be on to something.

Do you really think all the mysteries are solved, now, and nothing more is affecting us that we haven't recognized and detected?

No. Nor did I indicate that I do. I will say that all of the mysteries that are going to be solved by faith are solved, which is none. Knowledge only comes from evidence properly understood then empirically tested. Beliefs that are arrived at by faith or intuition are not knowledge as I define the word..

 

[YoursTrue]

If you were raised in a religion where that was a core element of doctrine, you would probably find it easy to believe.

But anyone who has been raised to believe in a different religion will dismiss it as nonsense in the same way you do with other religions.

If you were raised in a religion where that was a core element of doctrine, you would probably find it easy to believe.

But anyone who has been raised to believe in a different religion will dismiss it as nonsense in the same way you do with other religions.

For a while, actually quite a while, I did not believe in God. I did look at various religions. Circumstances happened that drew me to Him, He helped me.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, there is more than what is apparent: ultraviolet light, radio waves, ultrasound, neutrinos, atoms, etc. None of those is apparent, but we know they exist.



The most significant thing about existence is that something exists.

My reaction: while we're alive, some of us realize that some horrible and saddening experiences happen.

 

[KWED]

For a while, actually quite a while, I did not believe in God. I did look at various religions. Circumstances happened that drew me to Him, He helped me.

What were those circumstances, and what was it about your religion that convinced you it was true?

 

[KWED]

I will say that all of the mysteries that are going to be solved by faith are solved, which is none. Knowledge only comes from evidence properly understood then empirically tested. Beliefs that are arrived at by faith or intuition are not knowledge as I define the word..

I have a challenge that I sometimes propose to religionists and those who reject that evidence, experiment and rational thinking are the best ways to arrive at accurate explanations for the mysteries of the universe and claim that religion or other 'spiritual' methods are somehow better.

I ask them to make a list of all the known and demonstrable supernatural explanations that were once had a valid natural explanation.
I will make a list of all the known and demonstrable natural explanations arrived at through evidence, experiment, rational thinking, etc that were once attributed to the supernatural.
I offer to give then £1000 for every item on their list if they agree to give me £10 for every item on mine.
I have had no takers yet.

 

[KWED]

That's like equating apples with oranges.

Indeed. If you want to make an apple pie, you don't use oranges.
Similarly, if you want to know something you use evidence and critical thinking, not religion.

All knowledge has benefit to mankind..

Hmm, not sure about that.

..but religious knowledge is the most beneficial of all.

Obvious nonsense. Religious claims don't feed the hungry or cure the sick or lead to any kind of discovery, invention or development of beneficial methods or technologies.

Naturally, satan will ridicule religion,

Satan only exists in your imagination. Religion is usually ridiculed when it insists on making ridiculous claims. Basic religious belief is only to be expected under the circumstances and most religionists deserve sympathy rather than ridicule (if they deserve any reaction).

because he wishes for our destruction through division and hatred.
Those with sound religious knowledge promote peace.

It is often religion that sows division and hatred (especially the Abrahamics). Have you read the Quran? Part of its core message is the dehumanisation of non-Muslims and exhortations to religious supremacism and the subjugation of all people through coercion or violence. Only then is "peace" achieved.
Remember that the British Empire brought "peace" to the Indian subcontinent, as did European settlers to North America.

Don't confuse religion with politics. It is a common mistake.

Not with Islam, because Islam is as much a political, legal and social ideology as it is spiritual. It describes itself as the perfect system for all humanity to live by.

 

[KWED]

I don't worship evidence as if it were God.

Maybe you should. Sounds like it might help you understand things better.

And I sure don't wait for conclusive evidence to tell me what to think or how to live a life. That's what hope, courage, and faith are for. And the results don't need any evidence, they can speak for themselves.

So you decide what is "true" through hope, courage and faith? Interesting. How does that work, exactly?
And on what basis do you claim that it is the best method by which to arrive at explanations?

 

[Tiberius]

yeah...that's right.

Then I'm confused as to your apparent anti-science position in post 370.

 

[PureX]

Maybe you should. Sounds like it might help you understand things better.

So you decide what is "true" through hope, courage and faith? Interesting. How does that work, exactly?
And on what basis do you claim that it is the best method by which to arrive at explanations?

I discover what works. Same as everyone else. I just don't pretend it's the one and only way that works, or that because it works for me, according to my criteria, that it's the "truth" for everyone else.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You think that all these religious beliefs can be right at the same time?

- Jesus is a projection by God and only appears to be a man
- Jesus is fully God and fully man
- Jesus is not God, but is the son of God
- Jesus is not the son of God, but is a prophet
- Jesus is not a prophet

(As just one example)

Huh? The Bible is univocal that Jesus is fully God and fully man. You have a false equivocation that many false beliefs invalidate a true fact of a text.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Given that the various beliefs contradict each other, they cannot all be right.

That's untrue. False beliefs do not invalidate truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The superiority of ones favorite sports team.

Are you saying people universally really believe their team is the best? They do not. A "booster" LIFTS above actual state.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Or because their ancestors made up stories to stop the kids from asking why all the time.

Is that what you do with children as an atheist? That is ridiculous on its face, "Everyone is an atheist then makes us stories to stop kids from asking why ALL THE TIME." I guess the kids are born atheists but find God at age 5, is it?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't be silly.
A polytheist religion and a monotheist religion cannot with be right. Once necessarily excludes the other.

What I actually wrote:Or they can all be right, so please back up your faith-based claim here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Firstly, they don't all believe in the same god, so you are not talking about "nearly everyone".
Second, argument ad populum. Popularity is not an indicator of truth.

The reality is that "nearly everyone" irrationally believes in something, even if it's that they will win the lottery or that person at work fancies them. Religion has just had a massive head start and been given favourable terms by society for millennia.

Name one thing in the known universe outside religion that nearly everyone believes despite contrary evidence.

THE KNOWN UNIVERSE. You cannot!

 

[BilliardsBall]

That seems a bit mean. Why call them if you are going to reject them, especially if you are omnipotent. Sounds like a bit of a dick move.

Free will is not mean. YOU get to accept or reject God per the Bible. Perhaps God has given you too much power!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No. Everyone is born without any notion of religion. That are then taught it by family and community, and the cycle continues.

There was no "Adam and Eve". Fact!

You mean, everyone is born atheist and then when YOUNG CHILDREN ASK who were BORN ATHEIST, we fill in the gaps?!