Arriving at a Theistic Belief

[1213]

Someone telling you an event happened is not evidence that the event happened.

If there is evidence that shows the event happened, then it is reasonable to accept that it happened.

"Evidence" is something that can be independently corroborated, tested and verified. It is not simply a claim.

"Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true...."
Evidence - Wikipedia

If person tells a story, it indicates that the proposition is true, which is why it can be called evidence. We wouldn't have the story, if it would not have happened. However, I understand it is not very good evidence, because person could just lie, or may have misunderstood.

 

[KWED]

"Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true...."
Evidence - Wikipedia

If person tells a story, it indicates that the proposition is true, which is why it can be called evidence. We wouldn't have the story, if it would not have happened.

So you are claiming that simply saying an event happened is evidence that the event actually happened?

However, I understand it is not very good evidence, because person could just lie, or may have misunderstood.

Or in other words "a claim" or "statement".

 

[KWED]

No, they don't. There are no laws of all of nature in a scientific sense.

Laws of science/physics/etc, if you prefer. I was quoting Hume.
The fact that I specifically referred to them as "describing how things work" should have avoided your little diversion down Semantics Close. Or maybe not

 

[DNB]

Firstly, that is just an argument ad populum. (IOW, "Eat ****, 100 billion flies can't be wrong".)
Second, You cannot lump all belief in gods into the same homogeneous mass. Most of them are mutually exclusive. So your numbers are actually "Percentage following god X vs everyone else", which makes every religion a minority.
Lastly, irreligion is way more than 1%, and has been in the past. At the last census, 0ver 60% of UK respondents stated that they were not religious. Even 6% of Saudi Arabians claim to be "committed atheists".

Careful with that irony. It burns!
As JP Moynahan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts".

Man is a spiritual being, the facts do not lie, case closed.

 

[DNB]

Your attempts at humour do not hide your inability to address my points.
You were simply wrong in your claims. That's what comes from assuming that what you think is actual fact rather than doing a little research.

No facetiousness here, ....so, you've seen a Christian mongoose or whale?

 

[DNB]

Sorry, no idea what you are on about here.

If man is the most intelligent creature on the planet, why does his social behaviour tend to indicate otherwise?

 

[DNB]

Fallacy of composition.

I suggest you read the Bible and Quran. They contain plenty of intolerance, discrimination and supremacist ideology.

Wrong. A famous study by Olds and Milner showed that rats would starve to death in order to keep delivering electronic stimulus to the pleasure centre in their brain.

Or maybe just stop indoctrinating children into ancient superstition?

You make a claim. I respond to it. It's kinda how debate works.


You: "I reckon x is true"
Me: "Here's some data showing x is not true"
You: "Give up on the stats"

If what you are saying here is that you are not interested in evidence or rational argument, I'd kinda realised that already.

Why is there so much inexplicable, gratuitous, and ruthless evil in the world?

 

[rational experiences]

Man said. The phi fallout sacrificing as gas light constants fall hurt lots of humans.

Yet blind humans were made to see. The sick got healed. Proving that bio life depended on a holy fixed state water constant.

Holy water life's baptism.

Story told. Life sacrificed being sacrificed was then changed also. Miraculous event.

Reason saviour.

Ice water life body mass melted. Flooding put back heavens life water as mass.

Humans still sick though. Sex by irradiated DNA continued allowing sick babies. To be born sacrificed.

Humans said stop torturing babies so stop having sex.

Witnessed and reasoned why.

So men said Jesus was sacrificed. It was taken down. The body fall was the cause sink hole entombed gas gone.

Sin of man of science. Fallout. Caused by man's machine. Machines don't own any life. As energy in reality.

His space womb mother re cooled re wrapped the gases with his holy baby life water gone. Off earth face. To keep earth human life safe but sacrificed.

Why we cry looking up to heavens little babies lost their life.

As the space increased by mass O earth gone. Space the holy mother saved human babies life continuance.

The true real scientific teaching.

Pressures changed in womb space void.

Why life's light was taken out of earths heavens.

Everyone thought they would die.

Biggest human world scare ever witnessed. Closest to dark space not wanted.

Why everyone believed in the teaching of science Jesus fallout attack.

As it was real.

Babies born by sex still life sacrificed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Laws of science/physics/etc, if you prefer. I was quoting Hume.
The fact that I specifically referred to them as "describing how things work" should have avoided your little diversion down Semantics Close. Or maybe not

There is no laws of science for human society as such. Or in other words you got laws of science for the physical, but not for the social.

 

[rational experiences]

I am born by sex.

Human teaching sex allows babies firstborn of two human beings to be advised. By the sin inheritance of changed biology.

Reasoned. Life has been evicted by the earth's nature gardens oxygenation of life blood cell bone support. DNA human born never been the same since.

Science destroyed stone and stones dirt as dirt changed its substance by radiation the nuclear occult into sand.

Then a community of groups as human natural first brain changed spruik mind opinions.

I am equally as chemically brain changed as anyone who says science my intelligence quotes you are hallucinating mind effected.

Have you had the experience yet is the question? Self says no. Oh is that termed teaching?

Okay smart scientist what about I see manifestations with my eyesight that sees everything I look at?

Why did it change and please explain oh greatest mind state? What I see.

The scientific I am not intelligence says I caused it by machine AI design controlled by my not intelligent thinking daily. Machine owners theist space history.

The type of human who taught science owns mysteries.

The teaching that said god in the heavens caused a seen manifestation.

A large enlarged manifestation that machines no longer controlled. As small transmitters of images.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You are not me. Leave me alone for your personal beliefs as how you do your life. I will do that same when it comes to you as you.

I will at RF, if we meet offline, I care about you, and so would evangelize you.

If we never meet, I've again met a non-Christian who wants to ignore me, not include me with them as a child of Adam, shows no love for me--these three things again affirm the truths of the Bible IMHO.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will at RF, if we meet offline, I care about you, and so would evangelize you.

If we never meet, I've again met a non-Christian who wants to ignore me, not include me with them as a child of Adam, shows no love for me--these three things again affirm the truths of the Bible IMHO.

Okay, then I will try to turn you into a global skeptic.

 

[Sheldon]

Which is why you shudder at "we". You want to separate from me--but I want you to have eternal life, per the Bible, not separated from me, God and others forever.

If this is something you really want, you had better offer something beyond bare subjective assertions, and irrational arguments. As I remain dubious.

 

[Sheldon]

KWED said: ↑
We know that the brain can produce experiences that are not real, despite seeming completely real to the subject.
Therefore any "personal psychic experience" cannot be claimed as "evidence".
To paraphrase Hume, if you experience something that means the laws of nature are meaningless, it is more likely that you simply imagined it.

Thanks for your typical Atheist lecture, Mr. Know it all. It takes a lot of balls to arrogantly spew your theories by validating it as the "right one."

"Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

 

[Sheldon]

To answer my own question:

(Sorry @Sheldon , I am dubious about trusting any source quoted by you on this subject)

Source: Scientists data from Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey, conducted in May and June 2009; for complete question wording, see survey topline. General public data from Pew Research Center survey conducted in July 2006; for complete question wording, see survey topline. Numbers may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

You doubt any source just because I've cited it? That's pretty closed minded, especially since I usually hyperlink any sources I quote, which anyone can fact check. Also your own link shows religiosity is lower among scientists than in the population generally, and among elite scientists it drops off even more sharply. I'm pretty sure my link was from the Pew research centre as well, so you seem to be quoting the same source as I used.

 

[Sheldon]

It seems perfectly logical to me that agnosticism, not atheism, is the epistemic default; which is why I asked if you made the distinction.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I don't know about you but I generally don't believe claims when nothing can be known about them. Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You doubt any source just because I've cited it? That's pretty closed minded, especially since I usually hyperlink any sources I quote, which anyone can fact check. Also your own link shows religiosity is lower among scientists than in the population generally, and among elite scientists it drops off even more sharply. I'm pretty sure my link was from the Pew research centre as well, so you seem to be quoting the same source as I used.

So science can give evidence for the fact that the world is natural?

 

[Sheldon]

"Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true...."
Evidence - Wikipedia

From your Wikipedia link, you missed this bit:

"What role evidence plays and how it is conceived varies from field to field. In epistemology, evidence is what justifies beliefs or what makes it rational to hold a certain doxastic attitude."

If person tells a story, it indicates that the proposition is true, which is why it can be called evidence.

No it doesn't, if I tell you a story that I flew unaided to the moon, after making myself invisible and empirically undetectable, are you seriously suggesting that the bare claim is evidence for itself? A proposition cannot be evidence for itself.

We wouldn't have the story, if it would not have happened.

Wow, so Harry Potter and The Lord of The Rings books are true then? This is asinine nonsense sorry.

However, I understand it is not very good evidence, because person could just lie, or may have misunderstood.

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I'd start with the basic dictionary definition, as labelling a bare subjective claim evidence, is woeful nonsense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I don't know about you but I generally don't believe claims when nothing can be known about them. Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity.

So is it a fact that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity or is it just a definition or rather a belief/opinion?

 

[1213]

...Wow, so Harry Potter and The Lord of The Rings books are true then? ...

Those who told the stories have not claimed them to be true stories.

Still, I think the Lord of The rings is very good and truthful story about how power corrupts.