Threads about Atheism and what it is.

[`mud]

I find a lot of `looseness` in these threads !

 

[ChristineM]

Argue against what fact? That it rained yesterday? Why would I argue against that?
An example of how lack of evidence is examined is not a strawman because you are making a claim about lack of evidence. The point isn't about fridges; it's about lack of evidence.

The fact would be that you reject the evidence people put forward and not that people haven't put forward what they see as evidence.

What do you mean 'group me as religious'?

I don't see the connection between Revelation 19:6 and E=mc^2, but you are free to imagine one.
I don't know of any evidence that confirms a world wide flood. Does that mean there was no flood of any sort? You are free to draw that conclusion, but it is a well-known fact that floods do occur and that there have been large floods in the past.
Biologically a mutation occurs in a single organism and is spread to the rest of the population via sexual reproduction. How that contradicts Adam and Eve (instead of confirming it)... I leave to you to manufacture.

Medical, Military, Cosmological... it would seem the Bible has been elevated (or demoted rather) to the status of a science textbook. Maybe you shall tally the flaws that confirm your rejection of the Bible as evidence. Should I believe that you have examined all the evidence simply because you rejected the Bible? I am amused.

A debate may concern evidence (what to accept and what to reject). This is the point I'm making. I never claimed that 'debate changes evidence'. That is a strawman.

Considering the definition of the word evidence, what evidence?

You wrote, "I'm doubtful that you have examined all evidence before reaching that conclusion" which is why i said don't group me as religious.

You obviously do not understand either the mathematics or the implications of omnipotence.

The bible makes a statement, are you saying, given the physics of water that the bible is wrong?

You also seem to be a little light on the knowledge of genetics. Sure a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve lived, they lived around 100,000 years apart.

I am referring to evidence, not the bible, however you are free to believe whatever massages your sensibilities.

The definition of evidence is clear, i though we had ascertained that.

You said and i quote "These people might even come together and have a debate! In order to reject (or accept) the Bible as evidence,"

Is that not saying evidence is decided by debate?

 

[ChristineM]

I find a lot of `looseness` in these threads !

Its a good way of accepting mythology as fact without asking or recognising the embarrassing questions.

 

[Ponder This]

Considering the definition of the word evidence, what evidence?

You wrote, "I'm doubtful that you have examined all evidence before reaching that conclusion" which is why i said don't group me as religious.

Right. I mean facts and information. In order to assert, 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as a fact (instead of a reasonable conclusion supported by facts and information), all available facts and information have to have been examined. Hence, I am skeptical that you actually performed such an epic feat. You may assert that you have, but I do not believe it. I have no problem with you asserting, 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as a belief supported as a reasonable conclusion from your examination of facts and information. That doesn't make you right or wrong.

I find it curious that you think this (somewhat obvious) limitation somehow forces you to be grouped as 'religious'.

You obviously do not understand either the mathematics or the implications of omnipotence.

Obviously... I do not understand what you mean.

The bible makes a statement, are you saying, given the physics of water that the bible is wrong?

Maybe the bible is wrong... Apparently, the Bible is some sort of physics textbook. To what are you referring?

You also seem to be a little light on the knowledge of genetics. Sure a genetic Adam and a genetic Eve lived, they lived around 100,000 years apart.

I don't profess to be an expert in genetics. Do I have to be to understand your point here? What are you talking about '100,000 years apart'? I don't know.

I am referring to evidence, not the bible, however you are free to believe whatever massages your sensibilities.

Right. The Bible exists; this is a fact. You've rejected it as evidence; this is also a fact. Doesn't change whether or not the Bible is evidence.

The definition of evidence is clear, i though we had ascertained that.

So are you trying to deliberately misunderstand me or was I just not clear enough in what I meant?

You said and i quote "These people might even come together and have a debate! In order to reject (or accept) the Bible as evidence,"

What I mean is that facts and information (which is what evidence is composed of) does not change.
The conclusions that facts and information support follow from our reasoning. I'm sorry for not being clear.

Is that not saying evidence is decided by debate?

Evidence indicates that a belief or proposition is true or valid. But knowing that connection is an application of our reason. Is it not?
I don't contend that debate actually changes what is evidence in the sense that suddenly facts and information support or do not support conclusions where previously it was otherwise.
I mean that debate can change what we believe by revealing the reasons that facts or information indicate a belief or proposition is true or valid.
If we argued for a while and you convinced me that some particular conclusion followed from some facts and information, what changed isn't whether or not the facts and information evidence (verb) that conclusion. What will have changed is that I now believe the facts and information evidence (verb) that conclusion.

---
Let's say I wanted to establish that 'There is no evidence for milk'
I look in the fridge and find... there is no milk there.
I ask my neighbor for milk... and he says he doesn't have any.
I go to the store and discover... there is no milk there.
Perhaps, I would draw the conclusion that 'there is no evidence for milk'.​

 

[ChristineM]

Right. I mean facts and information. In order to assert, 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as a fact (instead of a reasonable conclusion supported by facts and information), all available facts and information have to have been examined. Hence, I am skeptical that you actually performed such an epic feat. You may assert that you have, but I do not believe it. I have no problem with you asserting, 'There is no evidence for a God or gods' as a belief supported as a reasonable conclusion from your examination of facts and information. That doesn't make you right or wrong.

I find it curious that you think this (somewhat obvious) limitation somehow forces you to be grouped as 'religious'.



Obviously... I do not understand what you mean.



Maybe the bible is wrong... Apparently, the Bible is some sort of physics textbook. To what are you referring?



I don't profess to be an expert in genetics. Do I have to be to understand your point here? What are you talking about '100,000 years apart'? I don't know.



Right. The Bible exists; this is a fact. You've rejected it as evidence; this is also a fact. Doesn't change whether or not the Bible is evidence.



So are you trying to deliberately misunderstand me or was I just not clear enough in what I meant?



What I mean is that facts and information (which is what evidence is composed of) does not change.
The conclusions that facts and information support follow from our reasoning. I'm sorry for not being clear.



Evidence indicates that a belief or proposition is true or valid. But knowing that connection is an application of our reason. Is it not?
I don't contend that debate actually changes what is evidence in the sense that suddenly facts and information support or do not support conclusions where previously it was otherwise.
I mean that debate can change what we believe by revealing the reasons that facts or information indicate a belief or proposition is true or valid.
If we argued for a while and you convinced me that some particular conclusion followed from some facts and information, what changed isn't whether or not the facts and information evidence (verb) that conclusion. What will have changed is that I now believe the facts and information evidence (verb) that conclusion.

---
Let's say I wanted to establish that 'There is no evidence for milk'
I look in the fridge and find... there is no milk there.
I ask my neighbor for milk... and he says he doesn't have any.
I go to the store and discover... there is no milk there.
Perhaps, I would draw the conclusion that 'there is no evidence for milk'.​

I do not lie, we are done here