Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Yorutenchi]

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.

Wrong.

One cannot make a claim with no supporting evidence and then claim that evidence shouldn't be used because it would be irrelevant. The correct corse of action is to throw out the un-supported claim.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.

Great, but you don't seem to understand that you have evidence to ''present'' as well. You have to refute my evidence, then. Obviously you can't, because you would have already provided a better argument against the OP. imo.

 

[Desert Snake]

Wrong.

One cannot make a claim with no supporting evidence and then claim that evidence shouldn't be used because it would be irrelevant. The correct corse of action is to throw out the un-supported claim.

Dude. You haven't refuted my position, so there is something ''wrong'' with your argument. It means that you don't know the methods for refutation of an argument such as the OP. It has nothing to do with me not presenting evidence, it has to do with you, not knowing the subject.

 

[McBell]

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.

Yes, there are objective standards for evidence.
The science fields use them.
However, and this is the part you seem to not be understanding, there are also standards for evidence that objectivity has no play in.
Now seeing as most people present their evidence based upon their own standards for evidence, the first thing people do is see where the presented evidence lines up with their standards for evidence.
If it falls below their standard they reject it.
Some even go so far as to reveal their egotism by claiming it is not evidence simply because it does not meet their standards for evidence.

I noticed you yourself added a conditional modifier to the word evidence in another thread...
You added "convincing" to the word evidence.

My question is, if you think there is some universal "objective stand" for evidence that everyone must adhere to, why the need for the conditional modifier "convincing"?

 

[Yorutenchi]

Great, but you don't seem to understand that you have evidence to ''present'' as well. You have to refute my evidence, then. Obviously you can't, because you would have already provided a better argument against the OP. imo.

I have not made the claim.

Dude. You haven't refuted my position, so there is something ''wrong'' with your argument. It means that you don't know the methods for refutation of an argument such as the OP. It has nothing to do with me not presenting evidence, it has to do with you, not knowing the subject.

Have you presented evidence for it?

 

[Desert Snake]

I have not made the claim.


Have you presented evidence for it?

Huh? You have made a claim if you are saying that my position is incorrect. You have provided no 'reasons' for this position you hold. Your logic for argumentation, would mean that anything that you personally believe, is the standard for all arguments or beliefs. This is ridiculous , of course, and has no part in debate.
It's a de facto claim on your part, but it clearly makes no sense, because you don't even have an argument for it. The argument you gave is fine as evidence for your own disbelief, but it is unconvincing to me/

 

[Yorutenchi]

Yes, there are objective standards for evidence.
The science fields use them.
However, and this is the part you seem to not be understanding, there are also standards for evidence that objectivity has no play in.
Now seeing as most people present their evidence based upon their own standards for evidence, the first thing people do is see where the presented evidence lines up with their standards for evidence.
If it falls below their standard they reject it.
Some even go so far as to reveal their egotism by claiming it is not evidence simply because it does not meet their standards for evidence.

I noticed you yourself added a conditional modifier to the word evidence in another thread...
You added "convincing" to the word evidence.

My question is, if you think there is some universal "objective stand" for evidence that everyone must adhere to, why the need for the conditional modifier "convincing"?

Totally subjective standards of evidence have no more meaning than the evidences they may or may not subjectively or arbitrarily represent. They are useless in debates where both parties don't already uphold the same standards.

I added convincing because evidence itself even after passing the standard to be called "evidence" have varying levels of strength.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Huh? You have made a claim if you are saying that my position is incorrect. You have provided no 'reasons' for this position you hold. Your logic for argumentation, would mean that anything that you personally believe, is the standard for all arguments or beliefs. This is ridiculous , of course, and has no part in debate.
It's a de facto claim on your part, but it clearly makes no sense, because you don't even have an argument for it. The argument you gave is fine as evidence for your own disbelief, but it is unconvincing to me/

I said that your position was untenable and not based upon logic. My position is that such positions should not be upheld without evidence. Do you want evidence for why I hold that to be true?

I do not argue "for" atheism. I argue against the structure of support for theism.

 

[Desert Snake]

I said that your position was untenable and not based upon logic. My position is that such positions should not be upheld without evidence. Do you want evidence for why I hold that to be true?

I do not argue "for" atheism. I argue against the structure of support for theism.

This merely brings us back to the problem of unprovable evidence. It is not useful in a debate such as this to try to 'guess' if the evidence is good or not, /what if the person is lying etc/? It has nothing to do with my evidence, it has to do with your arguments outside of my or someone elses, personal evidence, //

 

[Desert Snake]

I said that your position was untenable and not based upon logic. My position is that such positions should not be upheld without evidence. Do you want evidence for why I hold that to be true?

...

I do not argue "for" atheism. I argue against the structure of support for theism.

I don't know what this means. Sounds a tad dubious tbh.

 

[Demonslayer]

Yes, there are objective standards for evidence.
The science fields use them.
However, and this is the part you seem to not be understanding, there are also standards for evidence that objectivity has no play in.
Now seeing as most people present their evidence based upon their own standards for evidence, the first thing people do is see where the presented evidence lines up with their standards for evidence.
If it falls below their standard they reject it.
Some even go so far as to reveal their egotism by claiming it is not evidence simply because it does not meet their standards for evidence.

I noticed you yourself added a conditional modifier to the word evidence in another thread...
You added "convincing" to the word evidence.

My question is, if you think there is some universal "objective stand" for evidence that everyone must adhere to, why the need for the conditional modifier "convincing"?

Now you're losing the same argument to someone else.

You never answered this question: How is your defintion of evidence any different than the definition of the word "hunch" or "feeling?"

 

[Yorutenchi]

This merely brings us back to the problem of unprovable evidence. It is not useful in a debate such as this to try to 'guess' if the evidence is good or not, /what if the person is lying etc/? It has nothing to do with my evidence, it has to do with your arguments outside of my or someone elses, personal evidence, //

You shouldn't have to "guess" what evidence is useful or not.

...

I thought it would be rather obvious why we should only take up positions that are supportable by evidence. Without evidence no one will ever know if their position has merit or has truth to it. Without that it is aimless. I innately desire progress and understanding. You can't achieve that without evidence.

I don't know what this means. Sounds a tad dubious tbh.

I don't think there is evidence atheism is correct. But atheism is what remains when theism is absent.

 

[Demonslayer]

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

How many times are you going to be nasty with your comments of "you must have a problem with reading comprehension?" Perhaps you are the one who needs to get your emotions under control?

I guarantee I'm more educated than you, so how about you don't insult my intelligence OK?

If you read and comprehend what you posted, the part you underlined is in reference to the part before it. So it is a sign or proof that helps somebody come to a particular conclusion. A gut feeling is not a sign, nor proof.

Try again.

 

[Pudding]

It doesn't actually work like that. God proves, not man. If he opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are. You are foreknown. That is not to say you do not have freewill....it is just hard to use.

Do you have any evidence to proves only God proves, not man?

If (insert names of any God) opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are. You are foreknown. That is not to say you do not have freewill....it is just hard to use.

Still doesn't proves which God is the true God... or whether any of them are telling the truth...

We follow who we are you see....hard to change that.

You follow who you are, you also follow your God, so you're your God ?
You follow who you are, you follow your God, you're your God, you also are human, so human is your God?
I see...

 

[JustWondering]

Evidence is ALSO that which convinces someone of something.
So yes, they have evidence for god.

the problem is that you want objective empirical evidence for god.
Please notice the conditional modifiers.



As written this is flat out wrong.
You may disagree with their evidence, but your disagreeing with it does not make it disappear.


There has been all manner of evidence presented on Religious Forums in support of the existence of several different gods.
That you disagree with said evidence does not make said evidence disappear.


I don't know, would it?

We can argue over what evidence is all day long. A blurry picture of a man in a gorilla costume in the woods somewhere may be considered evidence for some for big foot's existence. You can call that "evidence" if you like and I will call it garbage. When all is said and done, I asked for evidence and the person making the claim provided nothing. So it's a moot point anyway.

 

[McBell]

Totally subjective standards of evidence have no more meaning than the evidences they may or may not subjectively or arbitrarily represent.

This is only your opinion because your standards for evidence are higher then totally subjective evidence...
It is still evidence.

They are useless in debates where both parties don't already uphold the same standards.

I agree.
I am not arguing that point.
I am arguing that though you and I see them as useless, they are still, in fact, evidence.

I added convincing because evidence itself even after passing the standard to be called "evidence" have varying levels of strength.

That is my whole point.
Not everyone shares the same standard for evidence.
The only reason to include "convincing" is because you know that there are differing stndards for evidence.

 

[McBell]

Now you're losing the same argument to someone else.

Your standards for Pigeon Chess are embarrassing.
You should really do something about it.

You never answered this question: How is your defintion of evidence any different than the definition of the word "hunch" or "feeling?"

The word "convinces"

 

[McBell]

How many times are you going to be nasty with your comments of "you must have a problem with reading comprehension?" Perhaps you are the one who needs to get your emotions under control?

I guarantee I'm more educated than you, so how about you don't insult my intelligence OK?

If you read and comprehend what you posted, the part you underlined is in reference to the part before it. So it is a sign or proof that helps somebody come to a particular conclusion. A gut feeling is not a sign, nor proof.

Try again.

With all that intelligence you should know about colons....

Still waiting for you to point out who, other than yourself in creating a strawman to attack, has claimed that a gut feeling is evidence.

 

[McBell]

We can argue over what evidence is all day long. A blurry picture of a man in a gorilla costume in the woods somewhere may be considered evidence for some for big foot's existence. You can call that "evidence" if you like and I will call it garbage. When all is said and done, I asked for evidence and the person making the claim provided nothing. So it's a moot point anyway.

I am not arguing over the the definition of the word evidence.
I am merely pointing out to certain members that they are just flat out wrong when they dismiss evidence claiming it is not evidence.

 

[Pudding]

It doesn't actually work like that. God proves, not man. If he opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are. You are foreknown. That is not to say you do not have freewill....it is just hard to use. We follow who we are you see....hard to change that.

Some believer from religion A: Do you believe my religion's God A exist?
Unbeliever: I don't believe as there is no convincing evidence for me to believe it is so.
Some believer from religion A: If my God A opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are.

Some believer from religion B: Do you believe my religion's God B exist?
Unbeliever: I don't believe as there is no convincing evidence for me to believe it is so.
Some believer from religion B: If my God B opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are.

Some believer from religion C/D/E...etc: Do you believe my religion's God C/D/E...etc exist?
Unbeliever: I don't believe as there is no convincing evidence for me to believe it is so.
Some believer from religion C/D/E...etc: If my God C/D/E...etc opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are.

With using the argument of "If (insert names of any religion's God) opens your eyes, you believe, if not, you don't. Now you will ask why doesn't he. Because it depends on who you are", it has been proven that every religion's God exists.
...