Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

and your friendly cat sucking the breath out of infants.

Garfield would never do such a thing.

 

[richardlowellt]

Can you elaborate on the steps?

[/QUOTE]Sure

step #1.) Examine whatever evidence there is.
#2,) If no reasonable evidence can be found, use reason.
#3.) If reason fails, then try logic.
#4.) If lack of reasonable evidence is found and neither reason or logic
Support the hypothesis then a non-belief exists.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

This seems to be an argument for the pointlessness of argument. Imperfect information is not a reason for abandoning debate using the information we do have. We could speculate on all manner of weird and wonderful things, but without evidentiary support those things remain speculation. Humility doesn’t have any bearing on truth values.

Humility has bearing on how attached you are to truth values. For someone who claims to be an "extreme skeptic/nihilist" (not sure which based on your other post) you certainly do seem to be attached to objective truth and falsifiability when an extreme skeptic recognizes neither as being possible. An intellectually humble individual gives all options equal chance at being true from the outset. Just because your favorite institution says something is true, does not mean that that is true. Some 5 years ago mainstream science said it was false that warm water freezes faster than cold water, and yet popsicle vendors said otherwise. Guess which side won out?

Agreed with the first part but disagreed with the second. Design is almost synonymous with purpose, so to introduce design in this way is almost antithetical to the scientific approach. Spotting patterns =/= inducting design.

How do we identify something which has purpose? All things function in some way. But what is it about the way something functions that portends it having a purpose? Specialization, efficacy, elegance, etc. We are still pattern finding, but it is a heuristic method rather than scientific method...

I would tend to agree.

They are not the same thing. Science only really does the former. The latter is subjectivity which plenty of scientists are entitled to, but isn’t part of the science itself. The complexity addition you have made here seems rather odd since it would be covered by parsimony if you want to use that term.

My point here is all of us are "guilty" of using our own judgment at some point or another. And it is not improper to do so. Science by itself is only concerned with results/applicability. If how you locate the ability to do something is because of intuition, statistics, aesthetics, etc it hardly matters so long as what you find is reproducible and thus able to be applied.

Symmetry, as I understand it, is the observed pattern of symmetry in elementary particles, and super symmetry is this extrapolated to cover all known particles in the standard model. Predictions using symmetry that have been verified include anti-protons and anti-neutrons. Super symmetry is taking this idea further – but this is an idea that has a pretty good experimentally verified track record. Are we talking about the same thing?

Clearly there is a miscommunication here. Perhaps I should have defined my terms previously. Here is what I am talking about.

This is true. But it doesn’t mean that such other evidence actually exists or supports the contentions some people are attempting to use it for.

Agreed. I am not a religious apologist. I think all institutions are "wrong" after a fashion, but I believe that most religions are "more wrong" than say science or philosophy.

This is true, but the currently available evidence/argument and counterevidence/counterargument certainly allows us to make a decent determination of a given idea’s falsity.

Alright, sure. But what evidence do you purport shows the inapplicability of this particular ideology to society or the human condition in general? I think much of the problem you have with this ideology is its gross misuse. Religions are very often so far from personal truth as to be its very antithesis. Religions in most cases are other people's truths imposed upon us when we are children. And when we are grown up we do not question this "truth" because it is just something we have "always believed" or because "everyone else believes it." Finding and clinging to personal truth is no where near as easy as it sounds...

Also - can you use a different colour or font to when you quote me or use quotes because it is hard for me to follow when it all looks the same.

Thanks for the suggestion on color. I will remember that in the future.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

For someone who claims to be an "extreme skeptic/nihilist"

?????? When and where have I indicated this??????

An intellectually humble individual gives all options equal chance at being true from the outset.

I take issue with this for three reasons:
1) When I first started considering these issues I was the polar opposite from where I am now.
2) When presented with an unsubstantiated claim it is not reasonable to assume that claim has an equal chance of being true/false. Null hypothesis is always a reasonable starting point for analysing claims.
3) Even if your premise were granted, it in no way requires that after analysis different claims be considered to be equally probable.

Just because your favorite institution says something is true, does not mean that that is true.

Please tell me which ‘institution’ told me that the god concepts I have encountered do not exist. To put this in perspective, I was an atheist long before I even knew there was a term for what I was – so which institution affected my deconversion?

Some 5 years ago mainstream science said it was false that warm water freezes faster than cold water, and yet popsicle vendors said otherwise. Guess which side won out?

Given that I knew the science behind this when I was still a teenager over ten years ago I am quite content to simply call bs on this.
And even if this claim were true, what the **** does it have to do with this topic other than presenting a false dichotomy mixed in with a red herring crossed with an argumentum ad ignorantiam?? I’ve never encountered a single god concept that proposed to be an explanation for this phenomenon, so what does this have to do with this topic??? The answer to those question is absolutely nothing, and I suspect we both know that.

We are still pattern finding, but it is a heuristic method rather than scientific method...

This doesn’t hold up. Spotting a pattern and extrapolating it to produce non-trivial testable predictions seems like textbook scientific methodology to me. Any hypothesising that lends itself to being tested is scientific regardless of whether it was heuristic based, dreamed up or divinely inspired.

If how you locate the ability to do something is because of intuition, statistics, aesthetics, etc it hardly matters so long as what you find is reproducible and thus able to be applied.

I would agree with this if you added a few extra conditions to reproducibility and applicability. As it stands Scientology would qualify here.

Here is what I am talking about.

How does this differ from what I wrote? The concept of symmetry has produced testable predictions that have been verified, and supersymmetry is taking the same idea further. Am I wrong here?

But what evidence do you purport shows the inapplicability of this particular ideology to society or the human condition in general?

I would present myself and others who attain the same benefits without religion as people with religion. I would present the multitude of different ideologies (many of which contradict each other) that seem to obtain similar benefits independent of the ideology used. In this situation I am drawing the distinction between ‘an idea’ and the ‘benefits of that idea’ in order to ascertain whether such an idea is or isn’t true.

I think much of the problem you have with this ideology is its gross misuse.

Could it be rather more simple than this? That I simply care about what is true or not? My first post in this thread is on page 7 and I don’t think I have made any such post in this thread that would have given you the above idea.

 

[Willamena]

Frankly, I was never impressed with this intellectualizing of reality. ( I got a "B" on my Hume paper in college. It isn't that I don't understand the argument.) It may be true as a logical argument devoid of any hard reality. But we have have built civilizations and gone to the moon based on assuming what we perceive to be out there is real.

I simply accept it as axiomatic that an external reality exists independent if me and independent of my perception of it. And as evidence I point to the fact that whatever our ideas about we can or cannot know we can agree on and define in universal terms most of what we perceive out there. If it is all imagination then we all share much the same imaginings.

So as a practical matter what difference does it make?

No practical difference whatsoever. Whether it is understood that "out there is real," or that "in here conforms with what is out there," or that "there is no spoon" (no "in here" different from "out there"), the world is still the same world.

And the person who has an experience deemed spiritual and undemonstrable to others, for them it is the same world.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The problem with your analogy is that you have tests that show that there is no streptococus bacteria in your throat. That IS evidence. It's evidence because there is a finite search area, and a specific item to search for. The search was done and a conclusion was rendered. In the theological debate regarding the existence of God, the search area is far beyond our reach, and the item being searched for is not specified. As a result, no search can be done, and so no evidence whatever exists.

I see. So, if I know what I'm looking for (God) and have an area to search (the world I live in) and I see no evidence for His existence (there is none) wouldn't that be evidence God does not exist? Or are you saying that God is not a specific item to search for, or that He does not exist in the finite world we experience?

No evidence is no evidence.

Unless it is. My daughter tested negative for strep yesterday.
First of all,

 

[PureX]

I see. So, if I know what I'm looking for (God) and have an area to search (the world I live in) and I see no evidence for His existence (there is none) wouldn't that be evidence God does not exist? Or are you saying that God is not a specific item to search for, or that He does not exist in the finite world we experience?

I don't know exactly what "God" is. All I have is an idea and an experience of God, and that constantly changes.

But then that's all I have of beauty, and art, and love, too. Yet they all seem real enough. And we have ideas like 'infinity' and a 'void' that we can't even experience. Yet these are considered 'real' enough just because they work for us conceptually. So why should we treat the concept of God any differently?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I don't know exactly what "God" is. All I have is an idea and an experience of God, and that constantly changes.

Can you make any definitive statements about God whatsoever?

 

[PureX]

Can you make any definitive statements about God whatsoever?

Sure, I envision God as generous because i see the universe is ordered in such a way as to allow for the greatest diversity of energy forms. I envision God as fair because these forms have to compete to exist, and they all will eventually pass away to make room for more. I envision God as loving and forgiving because these traits heal and save we humans, spiritually. I envision God as caring because when I was very young I had a "God-experience" and the overwhelming sense of that experience was of great and deep care for me. And I envision God as conscious and thoughtful because I see the universe as ordered and purposeful, and I believe that God is the source and sustenance of all that exists.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

?????? When and where have I indicated this??????
I take issue with this for three reasons:
1) When I first started considering these issues I was the polar opposite from where I am now.
2) When presented with an unsubstantiated claim it is not reasonable to assume that claim has an equal chance of being true/false. Null hypothesis is always a reasonable starting point for analysing claims.
3) Even if your premise were granted, it in no way requires that after analysis different claims be considered to be equally probable.
Please tell me which ‘institution’ told me that the god concepts I have encountered do not exist. To put this in perspective, I was an atheist long before I even knew there was a term for what I was – so which institution affected my deconversion?
Given that I knew the science behind this when I was still a teenager over ten years ago I am quite content to simply call bs on this.
And even if this claim were true, what the **** does it have to do with this topic other than presenting a false dichotomy mixed in with a red herring crossed with an argumentum ad ignorantiam?? I’ve never encountered a single god concept that proposed to be an explanation for this phenomenon, so what does this have to do with this topic??? The answer to those question is absolutely nothing, and I suspect we both know that.
This doesn’t hold up. Spotting a pattern and extrapolating it to produce non-trivial testable predictions seems like textbook scientific methodology to me. Any hypothesising that lends itself to being tested is scientific regardless of whether it was heuristic based, dreamed up or divinely inspired.
I would agree with this if you added a few extra conditions to reproducibility and applicability. As it stands Scientology would qualify here.
How does this differ from what I wrote? The concept of symmetry has produced testable predictions that have been verified, and supersymmetry is taking the same idea further. Am I wrong here?
I would present myself and others who attain the same benefits without religion as people with religion. I would present the multitude of different ideologies (many of which contradict each other) that seem to obtain similar benefits independent of the ideology used. In this situation I am drawing the distinction between ‘an idea’ and the ‘benefits of that idea’ in order to ascertain whether such an idea is or isn’t true.
Could it be rather more simple than this? That I simply care about what is true or not? My first post in this thread is on page 7 and I don’t think I have made any such post in this thread that would have given you the above idea.

You indicated this on the other thread we are debating on. I posited that anyone who advocates extreme skepticism, nihilism, and/or sollipsism fails at life. To which you immediately responded by claiming that I was asserting you were a failure at life. The tacit assumption there is that you avow some form of extreme skepticism/nihilism/sollipsism.

Not reasonable... in light of evidence of some kind. Intellectual humility is about giving things equal opportunity not equal probability. So agreed equal probability is not necessarily warranted. But enough openness to not believe you are absolutely correct is warranted.


Can't speak to your personal history; But you talk as though you have a thorough background in science. Null hypothesis as a starting point? Certainly sounds like science is an institution to which you lend great credence. If I am wrong, then please say so; as I said on the other thread I am guilty of some projection...


Considering I watched a documentary on discovery several years back and they interviewed scientists who admitted that they were convinced that it had to be false I can safely say there is evidence for this (and as far as the chemistry is concerned at least according to wikipedia we still do not have a satisfactory answer for why this occurs...). The "relevance" would be a matter of attachment to our ideas. Attachment to ideas "just because they are our best fit" is just as intellectually hubristic as the believer who refuses to consider the possibility that "God"/"gods" do not exist.


I am glad that you see that it makes no difference what source your "information" has. The "golden standard" of science is usability. Hence, testability as the crux of value judgment. There is nothing wrong with this. But it ignores the human element. We are not robots which can simply be "reprogrammed" every time our "best fit" changes due to some new insight/information. Also some things we have are not currently testable...


Super symmetry has not had any positive experimental results. We are still taking a concept which works at a level we understand (better) and generalizing it to a level we do not understand (as well).


So what specifically are the benefits of religion that you claim to have found elsewhere? I am curious to know to what do you attribute your "success" in deriving these "benefits" as well.

And I contend that caring only about truth value and not about the person is a gross violation of morality.

MTF

 

[themadhair]

You indicated this on the other thread we are debating on. I posited that anyone who advocates extreme skepticism, nihilism, and/or sollipsism fails at life. To which you immediately responded by claiming that I was asserting you were a failure at life. The tacit assumption there is that you avow some form of extreme skepticism/nihilism/sollipsism.

I read it as an insult to be honest. Rather than go into a massive whine about being insulted I chose to quickly comment and move on.
If I stopped to correct every preconception or falsity people ascribe to me in these discussions I wouldn’t be spending much time on discussing actual content.

But enough openness to not believe you are absolutely correct is warranted.

Keep filling your boots with this. Is this really adding much to the discussion though?

Null hypothesis as a starting point?

For note I have used this idea as a basis for analysis long before I ever learned the nomenclature to describe it. If you have a problem with the argument in which I utilised this idea then feel free to criticise it.

Certainly sounds like science is an institution to which you lend great credence.

You seem to be bringing science into this discussion rather a lot without ever actually determining the relevancy of this in terms of the discussion. But yes, I place great stock in evidentiary supported propositions which tends to make me favourable to ideas of a scientific nature.

Considering I watched a documentary on discovery several years back and they interviewed scientists who admitted that they were convinced that it had to be false I can safely say there is evidence for this

As I said I’ve known this for years and used as party piece so forgive me for not putting much stock in your documentary.

Attachment to ideas "just because they are our best fit" is just as intellectually hubristic as the believer who refuses to consider the possibility that "God"/"gods" do not exist.

This is why we scrutinise ideas, apply empiricism where possible, look for evidence, etc.

But it ignores the human element.

I tend to do what when it isn’t relevant.

Super symmetry has not had any positive experimental results.

I never said it did. Given what I wrote I do not understand why you felt the need to state this, or why you seem to be dismissing the historical context that I described which led to the idea.

So what specifically are the benefits of religion that you claim to have found elsewhere?

I simply took the benefits that PureX cited. My post on this is back in the thread.

And I contend that caring only about truth value and not about the person is a gross violation of morality.

Then I disagree and don’t care for a morality defined in that way.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"And I contend that caring only about truth value and not about the person is a gross violation of morality."

????

I have NO idea what is supposed to mean.
Perhaps you could provide a real life example.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

"And I contend that caring only about truth value and not about the person is a gross violation of morality."

????

I have NO idea what is supposed to mean.
Perhaps you could provide a real life example.

Yeah, i didn't get this quite either... *puzzled*

 

[Michel07]

We are just biological, I do know how comforting it must be for you to believe you will live forever, its a perfectly understandable, no one wants their life to end, so a religion furnishes you with a way to cheat death, I think that is why religion is so popular, "believe and you will never truly die" a very attractive offer. I do find that mindset to be extremely arrogant, that somehow in the entire cosmos you are so important that your life will continue. Given the planet we inhabit, a planet stuck in the backwaters of the galaxy we could all perish planet and all and no one would ever know and the cosmos would continue as though we and our little planet never existed, and that is the reality of the situation, you nor me, nor our planet are really not that important, I know, "God created earth and all things in it, we are the center of the universe and will never die" Sorry, I just know when your time comes you are going to be very disappointed.

You really did miss the point in my post 745. If we are just biological , when my time comes , as you put it I will simply lose conciousness at death and without that there is no knowledge and I will never know I was wrong. No knowledge no disappointment either. Can't lose. Of course if God does exist I would feel pretty foolish if I had gone my life denying His existence. That would really be embarrassing and possibly inescapable especially when so many people had told me different.

 

[dogsgod]

You really did miss the point in my post 745. If we are just biological , when my time comes , as you put it I will simply lose conciousness at death and without that there is no knowledge and I will never know I was wrong. No knowledge no disappointment either. Can't lose. Of course if God does exist I would feel pretty foolish if I had gone my life denying His existence. That would really be embarrassing and possibly inescapable especially when so many people had told me different.

What if God doesn't exist but leprechauns do, then what?

 

[Michel07]

Again Atheism is a NON-BELIF system. A god is not something I think about at all, except for when I come to this site, a god is not part of my everyday life, never does such a being even enter my mind, as would make sense with something non-existent.

You sure do talk a lot about God for " never does such a being even enter my mind, ".
And according to my dictionary by Collins Gage.. Atheism n. the belief that there is no God.

 

[dogsgod]

You sure do talk a lot about God for " never does such a being even enter my mind, ".
And according to my dictionary by Collins Gage.. Atheism n. the belief that there is no God.

There's no such thing as God but I do believe in him. What does the dictionary say about that?

 

[Vile Atheist]

You sure do talk a lot about God for " never does such a being even enter my mind, ".
And according to my dictionary by Collins Gage.. Atheism n. the belief that there is no God.

Actually, there are a number of both reputable and non-reputable sources that do not correctly define atheism.

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God
• a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Here atheism is both a belief and lack of belief ?

Atheism is a religion that believes that God does not exist in any form.
www.creationkid.org/dictionary.html

Atheism is not only not a religion, but it is a lack of belief.

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Merriam-Webster

I realize the first definition is archaic, but no doubt there are still people who equate atheism with wickedness. The second definition calls atheism a "doctrine". But it doesn't even fit with their own definition of "doctrine":

1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, at its broadest, a rejection of theism. Any baggage after that is implied by individuals. So it isn't really something you teach. What is there to teach? So 2a doesn't apply. Definition 2b does not apply because atheism is not a "system of belief". It's a lack of belief. 2c doesn't apply because atheism has not been established by "past decisions". And I don't need to spell out why 2d and 2e do not apply. The closest it comes to the definition of a doctrine is the "teaching" bit. But I know of no institution that "teaches" specifically atheism. I don't really think it's possible. Atheism is also a position of skepticism towards theistic claims. But we're skeptical of basically anything else in life. So I don't see why atheism is special in that regard.

 

[McBell]

You really did miss the point in my post 745. If we are just biological , when my time comes , as you put it I will simply lose conciousness at death and without that there is no knowledge and I will never know I was wrong. No knowledge no disappointment either. Can't lose. Of course if God does exist I would feel pretty foolish if I had gone my life denying His existence. That would really be embarrassing and possibly inescapable especially when so many people had told me different.

So do you then believe in and worship ALL the possible Gods?
I mean, wouldn't you feel just as foolish if the one particular god you worship happened to be the wrong one?
Talk about embarrassing!
Just think, all your life you were right about god existing, but in your shortsightedness you chose the wrong one...

Funny, isn't it, how Pascals Wager can make a monotheist look rather hypocritical?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Actually, there are a number of both reputable and non-reputable sources that do not correctly define atheism.

• the doctrine or belief that there is no God
• a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Here atheism is both a belief and lack of belief ?

Atheism is a religion that believes that God does not exist in any form.
www.creationkid.org/dictionary.html

Atheism is not only not a religion, but it is a lack of belief.

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Merriam-Webster

I realize the first definition is archaic, but no doubt there are still people who equate atheism with wickedness. The second definition calls atheism a "doctrine". But it doesn't even fit with their own definition of "doctrine":

1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, at its broadest, a rejection of theism. Any baggage after that is implied by individuals. So it isn't really something you teach. What is there to teach? So 2a doesn't apply. Definition 2b does not apply because atheism is not a "system of belief". It's a lack of belief. 2c doesn't apply because atheism has not been established by "past decisions". And I don't need to spell out why 2d and 2e do not apply. The closest it comes to the definition of a doctrine is the "teaching" bit. But I know of no institution that "teaches" specifically atheism. I don't really think it's possible. Atheism is also a position of skepticism towards theistic claims. But we're skeptical of basically anything else in life. So I don't see why atheism is special in that regard.

Actually i would say that at it's broadest it is indifferent to theism.