Does a belief in a god show lack of education?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course they are irrational.

I can prove a negative, "Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge" by simply opening the fridge and having a look.

You are claiming that NOWHERE in the UNIVERSE is POSSIBLY a God, which is a statement of eyes big enough to see the whole fridge (omniscience) and is utterly, of course, irrational.

I'd consider you rational if you were agnostic or just like me, a lover of Jesus Christ, or somewhere between.

I always find it strange when theists retreat to "yeah, but you can't prove my god doesn't exist!"

I mean, they've basically abandoned any argument that their beliefs are justified and are hedging their bets on the fact that sometimes - rarely, but not never - claims that we just pull out of our butts wind up being coincidentally true even though we had no reason to presume that they would be.

It's... interesting to hear stuff like this from someone who has made a theistic religion the centre of their whole life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not care to explain to you, you dont listen to what belivers saying to you what they believe. I just dont care to go in circle with you anymore..

I'm just responding to what people say.

I explained how believing things on bad or no independently verifiable evidence is irrational.
Then @muhammad_isa said that he agree BUT that he disagreed that this evidence would need to be empirical.

I then asked for an example of independently verifiable evidence that isn't empirical, so that he can demonstrate the truth of his assertion.

Not only is that "listening" to believers, it's actively asking questions to actually better understand what the believer is saying.

So once again, it seems you are incorrect.

I would still like to have an answer to my question: what kind of independently verifiable evidence is not empirical?


Also, if you are just looking for an echo chamber where everybody always agrees with you and never challenges any statement about anything, then a public discussion forum filled with people who believe differently then you do, is not the place for you. You might want to think about that.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm just responding to what people say.

I explained how believing things on bad or no independently verifiable evidence is irrational.
Then @muhammad_isa said that he agree BUT that he disagreed that this evidence would need to be empirical.

I then asked for an example of independently verifiable evidence that isn't empirical, so that he can demonstrate the truth of his assertion.

Not only is that "listening" to believers, it's actively asking questions to actually better understand what the believer is saying.

So once again, it seems you are incorrect.

I would still like to have an answer to my question: what kind of independently verifiable evidence is not empirical?


Also, if you are just looking for an echo chamber where everybody always agrees with you and never challenges any statement about anything, then a public discussion forum filled with people who believe differently then you do, is not the place for you. You might want to think about that.

I am here to discuss with people who want to discuss and share religious understanding, not to discuss with people who dont care to listen

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can prove a negative, "Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge" by simply opening the fridge and having a look.

False. That wouldn't prove that Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge.
It would just prove that there currently is no butter in the fridge.
Sheldon, or anyone else, could have taken it out of the fridge after Sheldon put it in there.

You are claiming that NOWHERE in the UNIVERSE is POSSIBLY a God,

Ow? Where has @night912 claimed that exactly.
Please link me to the post where this was said.

I'd consider you rational if you were agnostic or just like me, a lover of Jesus Christ, or somewhere between.

I don't think I know of a single gnostic atheist.
All atheists I know are agnostic atheists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am here to discuss with people who want to discuss and share religious understanding, not to discuss with people who dont care to listen

So what's wrong with me asking questions?
@muhammad_isa made a statement. I asked a question about said statement.

What's the problem?
Should I just accept what he said without further clarification eventhough I see problems with it?
Should I not ask questions?

What do you expect from me?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What evidence is not empirical yet independently verifiable?

verifiable - able to be proved.
independent - not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

..so an independent proof does not have to be empirical, as in scientific proof.
It can refer to an independent witness, for example.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

verifiable - able to be proved.
independent - not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

..so an independent proof does not have to be empirical, as in scientific proof.
It can refer to an independent witness, for example.

How would you confirm that a witness is reliable without empirical evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

verifiable - able to be proved.
independent - not influenced or controlled in any way by other people, events, or things.

..so an independent proof does not have to be empirical, as in scientific proof.
It can refer to an independent witness, for example.

1. testimony is not verifiable. if it were then there is evidence and then we don't need the testimony
2. a testimony is not independent


3. testimony = CLAIMS

Claims in need of evidence.

I can only repeat my question: what type of independently verifiable evidence is NOT empirical?
Your answer of "testimony" is laughable at best.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How would you confirm that a witness is reliable without empirical evidence?

That is the whole point, I would have thought..
If one has many "independent" witnesses, then that can convince a court of it being reasonably likely to be true.

This is why atheists claim that the Abrahamic G-d has been copied
by different generations. In other words, it is all one big fraud.

I happen to think otherwise, and am satisfied that is too incredible to be true.
..just as I am not satisfied that this universe hasn't evolved without a cause. It is too incredible to be true.
The reversion to empirical, scientific evidence, is purely a smokescreen to avoid the main issues.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is the whole point, I would have thought..
If one has many "independent" witnesses, then that can convince a court of it being reasonably likely to be true.

Wait... convince a court of what exactly?

If many witnesses observed an event, then those observations would be empirical evidence.

What are these witnesses testifying to that:

1. Isn't empirical in nature, and
2. Would be accepted by the court?

This is why atheists claim that the Abrahamic G-d has been copied
by different generations. In other words, it is all one big fraud.

I happen to think otherwise, and am satisfied that is too incredible to be true.
..just as I am not satisfied that this universe has evolved without a cause. It is too incredible to be true.

Do you think that God is more or less incredible than his creation?

The reversion to empirical, scientific evidence, is purely a smokescreen to avoid the main issues.

OTOH, I see objections to empirical evidence as mostly sour grapes from people who don't have empirical evidence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

False. That wouldn't prove that Sheldon didn't put butter in the fridge.
It would just prove that there currently is no butter in the fridge.
Sheldon, or anyone else, could have taken it out of the fridge after Sheldon put it in there.



Ow? Where has @night912 claimed that exactly.
Please link me to the post where this was said.



I don't think I know of a single gnostic atheist.
All atheists I know are agnostic atheists.

Your butter point implies that there may have been a God who was active on the Earth but not now active.

I never said "gnostic atheist". I recognize that the thousands of snippy, mean-spirited "why bother with X, there's no god" post from RF atheists indicate nothing but "omniscient" atheism here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I always find it strange when theists retreat to "yeah, but you can't prove my god doesn't exist!"

I mean, they've basically abandoned any argument that their beliefs are justified and are hedging their bets on the fact that sometimes - rarely, but not never - claims that we just pull out of our butts wind up being coincidentally true even though we had no reason to presume that they would be.

It's... interesting to hear stuff like this from someone who has made a theistic religion the centre of their whole life.

That's not what I said, although a modifier would be "you cannot disprove that inside my conscious mind, God interacts with me."

My argument is this, restated:

Is it that most humans are looney (living lives to attempt to please nonexistent beings) or is that a tiny fraction of humans either haven't yet experienced God or are willfully disobedient?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your butter point implies that there may have been a God who was active on the Earth but not now active.

It implies the same about undetectable dragons and graviton fairies.

I never said "gnostic atheist".

True, you talked about agnostics and were implying that the person you were responding to was a gnostic instead. A gnostic would be the opposite of an agnostic.

I recognize that the thousands of snippy, mean-spirited "why bother with X, there's no god" post from RF atheists indicate nothing but "omniscient" atheism here

Thousands ey?
Then you should have no problem finding me... let's say... 3.

Can you? Please leave 3 links linking directly to those posts in your reply.

 

[Sheldon]

I have many minutes, and am using many of them to see if you will answer any of my queries short of handwaving and misapplied fallacies. For example, not only do most people believe in at least one god (ad populum) but there is much evidence for a god(s) who exists and exceptional evidence that most people accept mostly rational (evidenced) facts. But I'm hesitant to pour evidence upon you before you handle a simple question as in the other thread, posted just a moment ago.

Thanks.

I don't see any question? There is only a string of claims, and I have given expansive and candid answers to every question you have put to me. Which of course you have roundly ignored, as you have here again.

 

[Sheldon]

your quote:
I just don't accept bare unevidenced claims that things are possible. If you have evidence present it and I'll take a look.

My Answer: Don't you even see it?? You are wanting those beliefs to be served up just as religion does every day. Your goal is whether to accept or not.

If I saw it would it be likely I'd asking for it here again?

Once again I will say it even though you do not see. The burden of proof rests on the one who seeks the knowledge.

that assertion is still an absurd non-sequitur, what knowledge? All you keep doing is making vague assertions that it exists.

Serve it up?? Not going to happen.

Quelle surprise, you do know what debate means don't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That is the whole point, I would have thought..
If one has many "independent" witnesses, then that can convince a court of it being reasonably likely to be true.

There are literally thousands of "independent witnesses" who claim to have been abducted by aliens and were subjected to anal probing on the space ship.

Do you consider anal probing on spaceships after abduction by aliens therefor to being "reasonably likely"?

Also, a few million people, or billions, reading the same book and then making similar claims, is hardly "independent".
If anything, it is highly suspect.

I happen to think otherwise, and am satisfied that is too incredible to be true.

Argument from awe.

..just as I am not satisfied that this universe has evolved without a cause

Argument from emotion.

It is too incredible to be true.

Argument from incredulity.

The reversion to empirical, scientific evidence, is purely a smokescreen to avoid the main issues.

Psychological defense systems to reject actual evidence in favor of a priori fallacious, yet dogmatic, beliefs.

 

[Sheldon]

If one has many "independent" witnesses, then that can convince a court of it being reasonably likely to be true.

Except eye witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable, and one shudders to think how many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes because of it. This is well known, and many convictions have later been overturned in the light of new EMPIRICAL evidence, such as DNA.

There are all sorts of factors that can make memories too malleable to be reliable, so your unshakeable confidence in it here is baffling,

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Except eye witness testimony can be notoriously unreliable, and one shudders to think how many people have been wrongly convicted of crimes because of it. This is well known, and many convictions have later been overturned in the light of new EMPIRICAL evidence, such as DNA.

There are all sorts of factors that can make memories too malleable to be reliable, so your unshakeable confidence in it here is baffling,

And more importantly, in light of this specific point, an "independent witness" would then have to be someone with no priori knowledge of the religion at all, who then witnesses to something unique of the religion.

But when millions of people get educated in the same religion and they all read the same "holy book" and they all grow up in the same religious culture.... it is hardly surprising that many of them will make similar claims. And that would be the absolute opposite of "independent" off course............

 

[Sheldon]

This is why atheists claim that the Abrahamic G-d has been copied
by different generations. In other words, it is all one big fraud.

Sorry but that facile generalisation is too obviously a straw man. There is ample evidence that Christianity and Islam have been derived from earlier religions and plagiarised some earlier myths from other religions.

I happen to think otherwise, and am satisfied that is too incredible to be true.

Did you search Google for a text book argument from incredulity fallacy? Well kudos as it hard to imagine a better example.

..just as I am not satisfied that this universe has evolved without a cause. It is too incredible to be true.

Now this must be a windup, as you've combined an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy with an argument from incredulity fallacy.

The reversion to empirical, scientific evidence, is purely a smokescreen to avoid the main issues.

I'm always amused that theists spend so much time and energy protesting about established methods their beliefs won't satisfy. Try this and imagine Al Pacino is shouting it:

"Well, what've ya got?"

Beyond bare subjective claims of course.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Your butter point implies that there may have been a God who was active on the Earth but not now active.

Is that the God you're claiming exists?