Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Demonslayer]

This is setting the standard for evidence so low as to make it useless beyond yourself and your choir.
But it is still evidence.

Good, than you have admitted that your defintion of evidence, which you completely made up and is not supported anywhere other than in your mind, renders the word useless.

That's all I'm saying. So you go on living with your useless defintion that you made up, and I'll go on with the real defintion that the rest of the world agrees on and is supported by the actual English language.

 

[McBell]

So tell me how your definition of the word "evidence" differs from the definition of the word "thought."

Also, please provide any link at all to anywhere that accepts the defintion of the word "evidence" as "anything anyone thinks" which is how you define it.

It is not me changing the defintion of the word it's you fellas. It's not a gut feeling, there has to be some connection, strong or weak.

Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a: an outward sign : indication
b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter

More strawmen.

 

[McBell]

Good, than you have admitted that your defintion of evidence, which you completely made up and is not supported anywhere other than in your mind, renders the word useless.

That's all I'm saying. So you go on living with your useless defintion that you made up, and I'll go on with the real defintion that the rest of the world agrees on and is supported by the actual English language.

You shoudl probably stop posting until you get your emotions back under control.
Cause now all you are doing is making a fool of yourself.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Says who?
I mean, other than your personal standard for evidence?

Says who to what part?

 

[Demonslayer]

Please see post #237

I see it clearly and it damns your argument. It says an OUTWARD sign, something that FURNISHES PROOF, something legally submitted to ascertain the truth of the matter.

No where does it say "anything anyone thinks; a hunch; a gut feeling."

Heck if you copied the next part down from what you pasted it lists "proof" as a synonym for evidence!

 

[Demonslayer]

You shoudl probably stop posting until you get your emotions back under control.
Cause now all you are doing is making a fool of yourself.

You're the one calling me a hypocrite and categorizing my argument as "whining" who is getting bent out of shape here? Show me where I personally attacked you like that.

 

[Demonslayer]

You should go over to the Ray Comfort thread and tell everyone you agree with Ray that the shape of a banana is evidence of God.

That's where your opinion is on this topic...you align with Ray Comfort. Good for you, bananas are evidence of God.

 

[McBell]

I see it clearly and it damns your argument. It says an OUTWARD sign, something that FURNISHES PROOF, something legally submitted to ascertain the truth of the matter.

Try reading the first definition completely and for comprehension:

1. sign or proof: something that gives a sign or proof of the existence or truth of something, or that helps somebody to come to a particular conclusion ​

No where does it say "anything anyone thinks; a hunch; a gut feeling."

This is your strawman to beat up.
Unless of course you can show where anyone in this thread made that claim...

Heck if you copied the next part down from what you pasted it lists "proof" as a synonym for evidence!

Again with ignoring the parts you dislike.
This is known as the count the hits, ignore the misses fallacy.

 

[McBell]

You're the one calling me a hypocrite and categorizing my argument as "whining" who is getting bent out of shape here? Show me where I personally attacked you like that.

I see you have decided to continue your emotional rant.

 

[Demonslayer]

Bananas are evidence of God, you and Ray, two geniuses.

 

[Demonslayer]

Lamp is evidence of Zebra, weeeeeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Yorutenchi]

Even if you were right, your losing the argument. Good grief.

I do not see how you have come to that conclusion. If you would be so kind as to point it out. I am confused as to what portion of my post he felt was incorrect as most of it objectively is. My only concern is that I am not clearly stating what I mean.

 

[McBell]

Evidence must always be relevant. Your definition is no different than definition of opinion.

Says who?
I mean, other than your personal standard for evidence?

Says who to what part?

Who, other than your standard for evidence claims:

Evidence must always be relevant.

 

[Desert Snake]

I do not see how you have come to that conclusion. If you would be so kind as to point it out. I am confused as to what portion of my post he felt was incorrect as most of it objectively is. My only concern is that I am not clearly stating what I mean.

The problem with your position is that, since we are talking about something generally 'unprovable', it does not make sense to try to put the debate in that parameter. 'Evidence', because it is or can be subjective or unprovable, is not a practical way to go about disproving deity ideas; even if you were just making up arguments for or against. This is what basically,, is the problem with the insistence on evidence from the OP, is about.

 

[Desert Snake]

Evidence can support the claim or claims, but is not necessarily practical for arguing positions.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Who, other than your standard for evidence claims:

​

I mean that evidence must always, by its nature, be relevant. The sun does not rise because the Chicken crows. It also has to have meaning and weight. If someone say something that has no bearing on the subject at all then it is not evidence for it. If the something mentioned has no meaning laid against it then it would not be evidence for it. It was not "the" standard of evidence but one quality of evidence.

 

[Yorutenchi]

The problem with your position is that, since we are talking about something generally 'unprovable', it does not make sense to try to put the debate in that parameter. 'Evidence', because it is or can be subjective or unprovable, is not a practical way to go about disproving deity ideas; even if you were just making up arguments for or against. This is what basically,, is the problem with the insistence on evidence from the OP, is about.

The fact one would debate FOR something unprovable without evidence shows its weakness and meaninglessness.

That is the basis of the argument. The only reason you wish to abandon evidence is because there is none ot support your position. Logically that means the position should not be supported. However you take it as "we shouldn't argue with evidence". This is backwards to how it needs to be.

 

[McBell]

I mean that evidence must always, by its nature, be relevant. The sun does not rise because the Chicken crows. It also has to have meaning and weight. If someone say something that has no bearing on the subject at all then it is not evidence for it. If the something mentioned has no meaning laid against it then it would not be evidence for it. It was not "the" standard of evidence but one quality of evidence.

Not meeting your standard for evidence does not make another's evidence not evidence.
It simply means it does not meet the standard you have set for evidence.

 

[Desert Snake]

The fact one would debate FOR something unprovable without evidence shows its weakness and meaninglessness.

That is the basis of the argument. The only reason you wish to abandon evidence is because there is none ot support your position. Logically that means the position should not be supported. However you take it as "we shouldn't argue with evidence". This is backwards to how it needs to be.

Lo,no, your completely incorrect. Because we aren't dealing with a provable subject, necessarily. So, ''evidence'' becomes not very good for the arguments, for. or against. There are various reasons for this, and in fact is why I kept the OP plain, without presenting ''evidence'', in the first place. You have the concept right, but you've reversed the equation.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Not meeting your standard for evidence does not make another's evidence not evidence.
It simply means it does not meet the standard you have set for evidence.

There are objective standards of evidence. There are whole schools of thought on how to define them. It is not purely arbitrary to see what evidence one takes and what one doesn't.