SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yep. And that's why faith is useless.
And we're back to my Matt Dillahunty quote again:
"Faith is the excuse people give for believing something without good evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence."
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Evidence -- making it useful
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
And we're back to my Matt Dillahunty quote again:
"Faith is the excuse people give for believing something without good evidence. Otherwise, they'd just give the evidence."
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
People of sound mind can also be mistaken.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I have never seen anyone else constantly claim to have evidence and yet never post any or even define the concept properly. I do wish that he would post some. He could even be right.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Me too.
It is a journey you may indeed choose to partake of, that is, the examination of the available evidence, as previously noted many times in the OP
I finished offering where you will find it, quite some tine ago in this OP.
I see that concludes our exchanges.
Regards Tony
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
As I thought, you are ignorant of religion.
What you are in effect saying is that the chances that there is a Creator of the universe is practically non-existent.
I can't agree with that. It cannot be scientifically proved that this universe is just a huge cosmic accident.
..so where do you get your 99.9% chance that it is from?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is just a weak excuse. You are not fooling anyone here. Maybe yourself, but even that is dubious.
You can only appeal to those that reason irrationally with such a plea. Circular reasoning is not rational and that appears to be all that you have.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where did she ever calculate an odds figure? I only saw her ask your for one in response to your claims.
Are you strawmanning? Again? Do you think that will fool her?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
Do you believe there is only evidence that confirms the Baha'i Faith? Or do you believe there is also evidence that disproves it? I would hope you accept that there is evidence against the Baha'i Faith being true... In your investigation, how and why did you determine that evidence against the Baha'i Faith was incorrect and only the evidence that supports the Baha'i Faith was true? And while you were evaluating all the positive and negative evidence, you at all times were unprejudiced and unbiased?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Actually, no, I'm not. I used to be a Christian. As I've already told you. But I don't need to know anything at all about religion, to understand how probabilities work.
This doesn't come anywhere near addressing what I said.
We are talking about probabilities, remember. And you had no response to my demonstration that your probability claim about your god(s) is empty.
I'm saying, exactly what I said, "Your god (and thousands of other gods humans have believed in over the centuries) has the same chance of being correct as universe-spitting pixies or invisible dragons or anything else you can dream up.."
When it comes to calculating probabilities, this is true. You haven't demonstrated otherwise, and you were the one making a claim about probabilities. I'm just pointing out that apparently you haven't done any calculations whatsoever, and therefore your claim to your god being most probable, is an empty one. It's just as good as the claim that universe-spitting pixies created everything we see. Why? Because you have no numbers to plug into your calculations. You haven't done your work. All you've done is made a claim.
I gave you no numbers whatsoever. I said nothing about 99.9%.
YOU made probability claims that you have utterly failed to back up. I was making a point about that. You've missed it because instead of reading what I actually said, you're trying to dodge.
What you call evidence I call probable fraud. It's your choice to be a deliberate victim of fraud.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
F1fan said: There are no facts and probabilities about any gods..
..and I replied: If that was true, then there would be nothing to talk about..
..but then, as far as your concerned, there is only fiction .. or historical fiction.
post #259
Now you want to make it all about probabilities.
I've already stated that "as far as you are concerned, it's all fiction", acknowledging that you think that the probabliities are all equal. i.e. next to nothing
This is incorrect. You purposely ignore all data, and make a claim .. that is all .. nothing more, and nothing less.
You don't have to.
..so if you are right that the probablities are all equal, them give us a rough idea of what that might be?
If you can't do that, or refuse to do that, then why bother asking me what mine are?
Last edited:
And I replied that your assessment and conclusion is false because that anyone discusses literature it does not have to be factual or true. It can even be partially true, like a class studying the novel For Whom the Bell Tolls. It was based during a real event, but the characters and events are all fictional.
To read the Bible stories does not strike any well educated person as being history, but as invented stories, or at best, embellishments. The faithful just brush by this problem by using faith and assuming the stories are true, insofar as needed to justify belief in whatever given believer believes. This is why we have creationists along side liberal Christians, and neither will agree on much.
The really bad faith example here is how you, among other religious believers, really demand evidence from skeptics but have no problem making fantastic religious claims that you not only offer no evidence, but are also improbable given what well educated people understand of reality.
Yes fraud has been warned against and we must be aware there are many fraudulent peoples when it comes to faith.
That is why God gives the Evidence in a way that we need to determine it is the truth, so we can distinguish the true prophets from the frauds.
God is most Just.
Regards Tony
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Which implies that there are facts and probabilities about God.
No. I still want to talk about probabilities.
And I've already responded to it. Why repeat?
Oh right, this is that thing you do where you shift the burden of proof so you never have to back up anything you say.
I have been asking your for your data. Repeatedly.
You just claimed that I gave a 99.9%. I didn't. We are talking about your claims about probability. Quick trying to shirk your responsibility.
Can we get serious here and stop playing around already so we're not just wasting time?[/QUOTE]
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It certainly implies that there are facts about God, of course .. because there are.
..as I say, if there were not, we would have nothing to discuss.
Why?
It is subjective, unlike the facts, isn't it?
It is dependent on what we know, and how we evaluate it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It certainly implies that there are facts about God, of course .. because there are.
..as I say, if there were not, we would have nothing to discuss.
Another logical fallacy. This time it is Begging the Question:
Begging the Question - Definition and Examples
The odds claim was yours. You tell us.
And you post all the facts you have: zero.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
I refer you to my post that I made recently..
Look them up on wikipedia .. they are there for all to see.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
Mmm .. let's have a discussion about discussion.
..anything other than the topic at hand.