On Faith, Doubt, Certainty, and Uncertainty {poll added}

[viole]

Atheists are also a part of the humanity, so there is nothing wrong in having focus on them. I never maintain that all and every believer cannot be wrong.
There are two aspects to the issue. One is within the believers, the others is outside the belief, as the nature of the issue changes as to who is being addressed.
Regards

You would have a point if you all agreed on the same God. Last time I checked, you cannot even agree whether he can look like an elephant, have a godly son, prohibit alcohol and sausages, etc. You are not even sure what book He authored, if any.

If you guys were members of a jury, there would be many more criminals around. 100% certainty to be acquitted. Every time.

For, who would believe the reliability of a jury that cannot even agree on the basics about the case?

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

Guess you never head of false evidence, misinformation or unjustified beliefs. By your claim people that believe in hoax of giant bones is actually evidence of giants rather than a failure in their thinking or accepting hoaxes as evidence.

Actually I have.
Unlike you, you do not apply it to everything I dislike.
I actually use the definitions of the words.

I do.

You have just shown that you do not.

You just attach the word to anything people claims as if it were actually evidence. Do note your own definition include the parameter of proof.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
You do know what a semi-colon is, right?

No religious text is held as a proof outside those that already accept their presuppositional claims. Thus is completely subjective, subjective evidence is an opinion not evidence. Neither do the text make plain and clear their claims are factual. Seems like you can read but are unable to apply comprehension and application to what you have read.

perhaps you should try re-reading that second sentence....
Funny how you are the one guilty of "unable to apply comprehension and application to what you have read."

What is more odd is based on what you have posted over time you are an atheist but accept all these claims as evidence of God.

Bold faced lie.
Perhaps you stop trying to dictate to me what I do and do not accept...
Not only do you suck at it, it makes you look even more of an arse than you did before you tried it.

However if you are an atheist, correct me if I am wrong on your stance, then either you are playing words games or are inconsistent in your views. If X is evidence of God than you have undermined your own stance, if true.

Your inability to understand the definitions of the word is not my problem.
It is yours.

Now that you have shown that you in fact do NOT "treat evidence as what the word means"....

 

[paarsurrey]

this just does not make any sense without playing games with definitions

I don't play with definitions. I know the definition keep on changing.
Regards

 

[Shad]

Actually I have.
Unlike you, you do not apply it to everything I dislike.
I actually use the definitions of the words.

Except you failed to apply the criteria in the definition for what is considered evidence.

You have just shown that you do not.

Not really. I didn't ignore the words "proof" or "facts"

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills.
You do know what a semi-colon is, right?

Yes. Do you know what proof and fact means?

perhaps you should try re-reading that second sentence....

Which covers opinion which you confuse as evidence

Funny how you are the one guilty of "unable to apply comprehension and application to what you have read."

Not really. What is proof? What is a fact. When you figure both of these out then you will see how religions present none of these.

Bold faced lie.

Not really. You just hold one position that contradicts your claim there is evidence for God. So either you are confused or have no idea what you imply when you put word together such as "evidence of God"

Perhaps you stop trying to dictate to me what I do and do not accept...

Showing your lack of reading comprehension again. After all I said if you were not an atheist as I believed my argument does not work. However if you are you have only demonstrated your ability to contradict yourself. I said correct me if I am wrong about you being an atheist.

So are you an atheist? If so my argument applies, if not ignore the argument.

Not only do you suck at it, it makes you look even more of an arse than you did before you tried it.

Spending more time reading and less time giving into your emotions, especially consider I did provide a disclaimer.

Your inability to understand the definitions of the word is not my problem.

What is proof? What is a fact? Also you confused grounding for a belief, which is just evidence for the belief, which evidence of God, which is not a belief.

It is yours.

Not really, maybe use your dictionary to look up words such as proof and fact.

Now that you have shown that you in fact do NOT "treat evidence as what the word means"....

Again not applying your own citation. What is proof? What is a fact?

Here is another definition. Lets see if you know what these words mean...

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

 

[McBell]

Except you failed to apply the criteria in the definition for what is considered evidence.
Not really. I didn't ignore the words "proof" or "facts"
Yes. Do you know what proof and fact means?
Which covers opinion which you confuse as evidence
Not really. What is proof? What is a fact. When you figure both of these out then you will see how religions present none of these.
Not really. You just hold one position that contradicts your claim there is evidence for God. So either you are confused or have no idea what you imply when you put word together such as "evidence of God"
Showing your lack of reading comprehension again. After all I said if you were not an atheist as I believed my argument does not work. However if you are you have only demonstrated your ability to contradict yourself. I said correct me if I am wrong about you being an atheist.
So are you an atheist? If so my argument applies, if not ignore the argument.
Spending more time reading and less time giving into your emotions, especially consider I did provide a disclaimer.
What is proof? What is a fact? Also you confused grounding for a belief, which is just evidence for the belief, which evidence of God, which is not a belief.
Not really, maybe use your dictionary to look up words such as proof and fact.
Again not applying your own citation. What is proof? What is a fact?
Here is another definition. Lets see if you know what these words mean...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination

**yawn**

evidence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.​

**yawn**

 

[Shad]

**yawn**

evidence
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; grounds for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.​

**yawn**

You have equivocated evidence for the belief in God with evidence for God. I never said evidence for the belief. Also a belief can be false or unjustified thus the grounding is not evidence but misinformation, invalid inferences, distortions or just fake. Such as with my example of a hoax. Hence an unjustified belief lack supportive evidence for the belief being true.

 

[McBell]

You have equivocated evidence for the belief in God with evidence for God. I never said evidence for the belief. Also a belief can be false or unjustified thus the grounding is not evidence but misinformation, invalid inferences, distortions or just fake. Such as with my example of a hoax. Hence an unjustified belief lack supportive evidence for the belief being true.

until you can comprehend the definition of the word evidence, discussion with you on the topic will be meaningless.
No pun intended.

 

[Shad]

until you can comprehend the definition of the word evidence, discussion with you on the topic will be meaningless.
No pun intended.

I understand what evidence means and how it is applied. Evidence that is false is not evidence. Evidence that does not prove the claims to be true is not evidence. Since no religion actually has evidence of God I made my point long ago..

However since you claim there is evidence for God lets hear what this evidence is. Lets see some examples.

 

[paarsurrey]

Mestemia said: ↑
this just does not make any sense without playing games with definitions

I don't play with definitions. I know the definition keep on changing.
Regards

As the humans progress in knowledge in all disciplines, the language/s which is a mode of communication between them, also change and of course the definitions also.
Regards