The problem with religious debates is that both sides play by different rules. It has nothing to do with "ego" or whatever you wish to blame for it.
It's all about ego for those who think that the purpose of debate is to "win it", and thereby confirm the imagined superiority of their chosen position.
The fundamental difference between the religious believer and the non-believer in a "debate" about the religious claims, is how both sides justify belief. Or rather, what methodology is used to decided if a belief is justified.
Theism is not a belief. It's a philosophical proposition about reality and our relationship with it. Who believes what about that proposition is their own business. And regardless, it lends no credibility to the proposition either way. So arguing with other people about what they "believe in" is not actually debating theism. Its debating individual beliefs about theism which neither support nor detract from the validity of the theist proposition, itself.
But our egos rule us much of the time, and so the battle of belief rages on, and on, and on, and on, with no possible resolution.
In this case, it all comes down to what is and is not considered evidence.
In think for most people it all comes down to the results gained from the determination made. The "evidence" is, does it work for them in their lives sufficiently enough for them to continue holding onto this determination.
For me, evidence requires independent verifiability. Evidence furthermore requires a falsifiable hypothesis.
This is true for everyone. But most people determine these via practical personal experience. And those results will, of course, differ. Sometimes significantly.
Without such, evidence is not evidence. It's just data. Data only becomes evidence once it can be evaluated against predictions naturally flowing from a hypothesis / claim.
This is true for everyone. But you're trying to treat it like it's a science experiment, and that's not how it is for the huge majority of people. They don't "predict" rersults, they just hope for something they deem valuable. And then they act on that hope and see what results from it. If the results are favorable to them (even if not what they'd originally hoped for) they will trust in that process and act on that meme, again. Over time they develop a "world view" based on a succession of those hopes, actions, and results.
And as stated above, these vary widely from person to person. Not the process, but the hopes, the actions, and the results. And too, then, the world views being generated by them.
To the religious believer, that is far to restrictive as an understanding of what is and is not evidence.
I think you're the one with a far too restrictive view of what is and isn't evidence.
On forums such as this, religious believers will claim all kinds of things as being "evidence" which simply doesn't match the above criteria:
- anecdotes
- supposed "testimony"
- the fact that there are people that believe the claims
- the claims themselves (ie: the bible is evidence of the bible)
Of course they will, because all those things ARE evidence. It's only in your own private kangaroo court that they get tossed out as non-evidential.
Such thing simply don't compute as valid evidence to me.
Yes, and that's too bad, I think, because your absurdly narrow criteria for evidence closes you off to a lot of very interesting and potentially useful possibilities that are still open to a lot of other people. They are learning about life in ways that you cannot, because you are denying yourself the use of a much broader range of experience (evidence).
And, I would argue, it also doesn't compute as valid evidence to them when it comes to any other subject then their own religion.
That's nonsense. All these people negotiate with life via trial and error, just as you do. We have no choice. But as we all develop our own world views as a result of this, and we choose our own goals and paths to attain them, it begins to look to each other like everyone else of doing it "wrong". Or at least differently. When in fact we're all doing it the same, but getting somewhat different results relative to the results we are seeking.
Because every one of such types of "evidence" also exist for other religions that they don't believe. But then it doesn't count, for some reason.
All our gods are "God". All views of the world are the world. Everyone's life is a process of trial and error. Everyone is both right and wrong about everything all the time. It's innate to the human condition. And what we believe about it all is irrelevant to anyone but ourselves.
I simply try to be consistent in what I deem to be valid evidence and what not. In all areas. Be it religion or anything else.
How much "deeming" do any of us really need to be doing, though. A hoped in possibility either works for us or it doesn't when we act on it. That's as much truth as we're ever really going to get. So why all the "I deem this or that to be true!" "I deem this or that to be right!" "I deem this or that to be real!" That's just the ego blowing hot air around to make us feel important.
Yes, this means that whenever a debate comes up regarding pretty much any and all religious claims, chances are rather ENORMOUS that they will end up in the same way as all others: me not being convinced because the "evidence" offered will not meet my standard of evidence (independent verifiability of a falsifiable hypothesis).
If you're looking to be convinced (especially against your will) or to convince someone else (especially against their will) then I think you've totally missed the value and purpose of debate. The value and purpose of debate is to try and get a glimpse at the world through the other person's understanding and experience. Not to reject, defeat, or dismiss it!
I can not convince myself to believe unfalsifiable extra-ordinary claims.
That's because you've already convinced yourself they are false (you've become a true believer in your own righteousness). That's the poison of an unchecked ego. I'm not saying this to insult you. This is true for all of us when we succumb to "belief".
You like to fault me for this stance. You like to "accuse" me of "kangaroo court" and what-not.
But to me it just comes accross as you being butthurt of being unable to provide me with rational evidence or alike.
Yes, "true believers" love the "kangaroo court" method of "debate" because they can never be found wrong, or even questioned, while they are playing judge, and jury, and executioner over someone else's life experience and world view all at the same time. Certainly we see the religious fundamentalists doing this. But the scientism fundies never see themselves doing it. But it's common enough among any group of people. I keep thinking of that Star Trek Next Generation episode with "Q" hovering over his "courtroom" in a hydraulic cherry-picker throne and shouting his accusations at the Enterprise crew. And when they try to speak he shouts "SILENCE MORTALS!"
I actually don't really understand why me having such a standard of evidence annoys you so much....
I am not in the least bit annoyed. If I weren't enjoying this conversation I wouldn't be engaging in it. You're helping me to better understand your world view. And since you keep responding, I have to assume I am doing somewhat the same for you. My sometimes pointed responses are not intended to convey any anger on my part, but rather to poke at you a little harder to see how you'll respond. I have many years under my belt related to the art of critique and I don't become easily rattled or confused in these situations. I promise.
It seems to make you very bitter for some reason.
It really isn't and it doesn't. I feel a little sad that you have apparently trapped yourself is such a constricted concept of trial and error and so cannot learn much from the trials and errors and world views of others. But can only "reject" them. But that's just my perspective. I'm sure you're quite happy with it, from your perspective.
To the point that you feel like creating threads like this, where you try to paint people off as "closedminded" and "full of ego" and "intellectual failures" and what not.
I do sometimes try to "poke at people" to see if perhaps I can wake them up, a little. But not because I'm angery with them. Just the opposite. I consider it more like giving them a gift that they didn't ask for and didn't know they needed.
But they just might realize, in time, that it was useful.
It seems like badmouthing people simply because they have a standard of evidence that you can't meet.
It's only "badmouthing" to our ego; that of course wants to present us to ourselves in the brightest light posible at all times regardless of the the truth of things. Our egos are rarely our friends. We should be grateful whenever someone bothers to take a poke at it. They are doing us a service. Even if they're completely wrong in their criticism, seeing that can still help us to see when our egos or lying to us. Which is most of the time.
