A VERY common misconception I see being expressed around here all the time regarding evidence is that; "if it's not convincing, it's not evidence".
People are often careless with their use of language. That comment should be understood as saying that the evidence presented or available doesn't sufficiently support the conclusion drawn from it to justify belief by the standards of critical analysis.
Meaning, essentially, that I get to decide what is evidence and what isn't according to whether or not it supports my conviction.
Meaning that the critical thinker reserves the right to determine the soundness of an argument himself according to academic standards. Believers typically feel a need to couch their beliefs in the language of reason and evidence, which is where they go wrong with the critical thinker, who would have no argument with the believer who says that he believes because it feels right. But if you go making flawed arguments, expect to see them rebutted according to the rule that define all academic pursuit of truth including peer review and legal proceedings. When a jury is asked to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reasonable means according to those rules and standards.
And that is clearly a grossly biased position and standard.
Yes, it is, but that's a good thing. Accumulating rational biases is called learning. I have a bias against drunk driving, one you might call grossly biased. Mea culpa. I just won't do it, and approve of the punishment of those who do. It's irrational biases like racial bigotry that are the problem. The same bias against pedophiles, however, is rational and constructive - not bigotry. Maybe you should start making a distinction between bias, rational bias, and irrational bias. Two are subsets of the third, one desirable and the other undesirable.
Mostly from atheists proclaiming endlessly and vociferously that there is no evidence at all to support the contention that God/gods exist. Which is clearly and patently false.
What's your point? Do you think those people don't mean that the offered evidence is insufficient to justify belief? If you want to argue a semantic argument, which is correct technically but misrepresents what is actually being claimed inarticulately. Critical thinkers are going to tell you when they disagree with your arguments if you make flawed arguments. Though vexatious to those who want their flawed reasoning accepted as a valid alternate magisterium anyway, consider identifying and naming fallacies a public service for those who are interested in learning critical thinking.
They have set themselves up as the deciders of what is and is not evidence, based on whether they have been convinced of it's voracity, and they are not about to give up that absurdly biased advantage.
You'll need to meet their standards, or they will tell you in what way you didn't.
The depth of your blindness is awsome!
This is a common claim from you. Others, you say, are blinded by their intellectual discipline, which you call scoffingly materialism and scientism. If only they remove their blinders and would relax their standards for belief, they could join you in seeing further. I won't ask you again to tell me what you see and what advantage it confers for you. I don't need to. I know, and it's nothing I need or want. You imply that those living without gods and religions would benefit by changing that, but isn't it really the other way around? Wouldn't you be better off if you didn't have any need that that kind of thinking meets? You're like a smoker praising the refreshing relief of a cigarette to a nonsmoker, chiding him for not his blindness for not expanding his horizons.
We humans are not comfortable with the unknown
It's an acquired skill.
Here's an example that from another thread that is only about an hour old:
He: "If you could only go on an investigation with him, where they [spirits] manifested themselves! Or with a poster on here,
@Sgt. Pepper . It would no doubt change your worldview understanding."
Me: "Maybe, but if spirits exist, that knowledge has been unavailable to me, and I don't see much benefit there even if such creatures exist and can be contacted, for example. This area is compelling for many, who spend thousands of hours investigating the paranormal, but I'm not one of them."
He: "Which means that they (the spirits) probably wouldn’t reveal themselves… they wouldn’t want to alter your atheistic worldview. They are content with you claiming there is no God."
Me: "Then there's no issue even if they exist. I'm more than happy to never know the answers there, or to know them in the future if that happens."
Science cannot investigate any evidence that is not physical phenomena.
Everything known to exist is physical, and nothing that doesn't manifest in nature can be said to exist or to matter if it did. Why would we care if there is a reality causally disconnected from this one? If there is no physical manifestation of a god, there is no reason to posit the existence of one.
And science and empiricism can only determine the universal functionality (repeatability) of a proposition. That leaves out the large and significant realm of subjectively perceived and experienced and evidence.
We determine those things empirically as well. Subjective experience is evaluated by the same standards as one evaluates evidence evident to all. Useful inductions that predict outcomes are the goal in each case. In one case, the rules are the same for everybody. Go out in the rain and get wet. For some, the rules don't apply to everybody, such as that Brussels sprouts create a dysphoric experience (or the opposite) when tasted. It's all empiricism, and you can call it informal science, since the method is the same - observation -> induction (learning) -> deduction (effecting desired outcomes through specific action informed by the induction).
I've yet to see evidence that all of natural life is due to mindless, blind processes. No one feels obligated to show forth anything on the matter.
What evidence would you expect to see if that were the fact? What evidence do you have that mindless nature isn't up to the task?
It's simply a philosophy posed as fact.
The philosophical component is Occam's parsimony principle. We don't make the narrative any more complex than is necessary to account for all relevant observation. An intelligent designer, even if one exists or existed, isn't needed to explain anything yet. If that changes, the narrative will change accordingly.
Life follows natural laws and works within the constraints of natural laws therefore that is all there is to it because the naturalist says so and nothing more.
That's not what this naturalist says (or just said). What I say is that I see no need for more than natural law.
They despise the implications of teleology because it implies more than what appears.
That's a good thing. Why do we want to imply more than appears? Once again, when we make a discovery that requires a teleological explanation, then the matter can be revisited. Until then, it has no utility. It explains nothing that hasn't already been explained or cannot be explained without it. We have naturalistic hypotheses for origin of the universe if any and for the origin of life. None of this requires a teleological approach to nature. It also doesn't rule one out, but if reality is being pulled to a specific place from the future rather than being only being pushed there by the past, we'll need to discover evidence best explained teleologically before seriously considering it.
