What are the standards for evidence?

[ChristineM]

I like how you make that claim as if it is evidence of what you claim. I could hit Google and it explore it more but the function was only to establish that to some extent claims can be evidence. The rest of your tangent I don't really care about.

It appears to me that the word evidence along with some other words (truth, relationship's, theory etc) are being hijacked and manipulated (bastardised) by some religious people to better suit their faith.

The definition is quite clear.

 

[ChristineM]

You are just shifting words around. Unusual, remarkable, you are just substituting one word for another. It is semantics and it does not address the question.

Its called "definition"

You can of course make up word meanings to suite whatever fantasy you like, me, I'll stick with the real definitions

 

[columbus]

The Bible.

Whose interpretation?
The pope's? Isaac Asimov's? Katzpur's? Yours? Mine? MuslimUK's? Moses's? Metis'?

That's the problem with the Bible. It means a lot of different things to different people and Gods Word isn't particularly clear when It's being interpreted by His self-appointed spokesmen.

Tom

 

[ChristineM]

Evidence and even the need for evidence is inherently tied to given claims. For example, there is almost nothing my sister says that I believe to be either true or accurate. Experience has taught me to doubt anything beyond the simplest of observations from her... ... and usually for good reason. I've come to understand that she actually believes what she is saying IS true however which makes things, well, complicated... *sigh*

Difficult, i have a similar situation with my brother in law.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I noticed people keep using that word extraordinary, which is interesting as there is no definitive objective measurement of when something is extraordinary. Yet to a large degree most people can agree when something is extraordinary, so there must be a set of standards by which we judge something as extraordinary.

extraordinary
[ik-strawr-dn-er-ee, ek-struh-awr-]
adjective

1. beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established:
   

 

[DavidFirth]

Whose interpretation?
The pope's? Isaac Asimov's? Katzpur's? Yours? Mine? MuslimUK's? Moses's? Metis'?

That's the problem with the Bible. It means a lot of different things to different people and Gods Word isn't particularly clear when It's being interpreted by His self-appointed spokesmen.

Tom

Opinion noted and rejected. The servants of Christ understand the Bible very well.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

That's the problem. Everyone has their own standards for what they consider to be 'sufficient' evidence. For example Mary really wants a promotion at work and she prays to God that she gets it. When she does, this is sufficient evidence for her that God answered her prayers. Of course most people would first need some sort of evidence that it wasn't simply her qualifications that landed her the promotion and that she would have gotten the promotion regardless of whether or not she prayed to God.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The servants of Christ understand the Bible very well.

Except that Christians are all over the place when they tell us what the Bible says. Unbelievers tend to agree with one another more, which to me is an indicator of better comprehension. I had an experience discussing the book of Job in a mixed group on a competing message board. Several skeptics reported said that what they had seen was the story a capricious god cruelly toying with the life of a good man for a trivial reason - to demonstrate to a demon that no matter what was done to Job, Job would not curse that god. We thought that that was a pointless story of an immoral act by a god.

We were told by believers that we did not understand the story. They each proceeded to tell the thread what the story actually meant. Unfortunately, they couldn't agree.They offered three different interpretations.

One said that the point of the story is to be a person of integrity and faith no matter the circumstance in life, and no matter what well meaning but judgmental friends tell you.

Another said that Job was being tested the way a soldier would be to make him a better man - some kind of training.

A third said that Job was being punished because he was only behaving well to force God's blessings rather than for the sake of goodness itself, for which reason God allowed, and even convinced Satan to take away his blessings.

Notice that all three added an element to the story that wasn't there, and each added a different element.

The point is that the unbelievers all saw more or less the same thing, and each believer that weighed in disagreed and modified the story in a different way. That's the difference between reading the scripture impartially, and reading it through a faith based confirmation bias. In the former case, one simply reads the words and reports what they say however immoral, vague, or confused they appear. In the latter case, if the apparent meaning of the words needs to be sanitized, it is.

I'd say that that makes a the unbeliever a better judge of what scripture says.

 

[columbus]

Opinion noted and rejected. The servants of Christ understand the Bible very well.

Mine was not an opinion alone, it's backed up by facts. The facts come from around the globe and down through the centuries.
You appear to now be appointing yourself the authority on who is a servant of Christ and who isn't. Looks like profound hubris to me.
Tom

 

[ChristineM]

That's the problem. Everyone has their own standards for what they consider to be 'sufficient' evidence. For example Mary really wants a promotion at work and she prays to God that she gets it. When she does, this is sufficient evidence for her that God answered her prayers. Of course most people would first need some sort of evidence that it wasn't simply her qualifications that landed her the promotion and that she would have gotten the promotion regardless of whether or not she prayed to God.

Or assuming Mary did not land the job, would she see that as "evidence" her god had failed her?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Or assuming Mary did not land the job, would she see that as "evidence" her god had failed her?

Interesting question. Personally I've know many 'Mary's' who seem capable of contorting the evidence to support their preconceptions, regardless of what the evidence might be.

 

[ChristineM]

Interesting question. Personally I've know many 'Mary's' who seem capable of contorting the evidence to support their preconceptions, regardless of what the evidence might be.

You are not alone.

Seems the Abrahamic god created and should be praised for everything but the bad stuff.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

It appears to me that the word evidence along with some other words (truth, relationship's, theory etc) are being hijacked and manipulated (bastardised) by some religious people to better suit their faith.

The definition is quite clear.

Those insidious religious folk, the nerve of them pretending the have a word in such matters. Don't they know that only atheists own the concept and have complete authority over what believers consider evidence.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

extraordinary
[ik-strawr-dn-er-ee, ek-struh-awr-]
adjective

1. beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established:

Ya we did that already; same reply as already posted.

 

[ChristineM]

Those insidious religious folk, the nerve of them pretending the have a word in such matters. Don't they know that only atheists own the concept and have complete authority over what believers consider evidence.

Its not pretending that is the problem, It's the bastardisation of existing defined words i am talking arbour. You can pretend all you want but if you want to change the language then you need to discuss it with those who compile dictionaries

No atheist would feel the need to bastardise a word to justify a faith so your hateful nonsense is moot

 

[Nakosis]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual. However I would agree that there are societal standards both formal and informal.

So my question is what are these standards? If I said my mother loves me would you consider that sufficient evidence to agree? Or do we need to run that hypothesis through the scientific method?

Stuff which is more likely, according to my own experience, I'm probably not going to require any validation for. Likely I'll just take your word for it. Stuff that seems highly unlikely, according to my own experience, I'm going to set a pretty high standard before I'm going to accept your claim.

So it's personal and individual according to whom you're trying to convince of your claim.

I guess an extraordinary claim is one that falls outside the ordinary experience of most folks.

 

[ChristineM]

Ya we did that already; same reply as already posted.

What do you think gives you carte blanche to overrule dictionary definitions?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

What do you think gives you carte blanche to overrule dictionary definitions?

Guess I am moving too fast for you. I never challenged your definition, but pointed out that it didn't address the question. If I ask what makes something extraordinary and your reply is that it is remarkable, then what makes something remarkable? That is nothing but semantic shuffling, and does not address the question. I would suggest you stop looking to online dictionaries to do your thinking for you and try using that squishy thing between your ears.

 

[ChristineM]

Guess I am moving too fast for you. I never challenged your definition, but pointed out that it didn't address the question. If I ask what makes something extraordinary and your reply is that it is remarkable, then what makes something remarkable? That is nothing but semantic shuffling, and does not address the question. I would suggest you stop looking to online dictionaries to do your thinking for you and try using that squishy thing between your ears.

I have already replied to what makes something extraordinary on another thread you seem to be prominent in, perhaps you deemed to not read it.

Yes my reply not only addressed the question, it answered it, that you chose to mock the answer is not my problem.

Facts are facts, definitions are definitions. When you feel you are good enough to challenge multiple dictionaries please feel free to try again and stop making up bs to validate your faith that can't be validated with accepted means of evidence

See where snide comments gets you?

 

[Sunstone]

It has occurred to me that some people believe they are the authority of evidence for others, but it seems to me that authority lies with the individual.

I agree with you that "authority lies with the individual". Furthermore, I would assert that it is logically problematic to claim otherwise.

Here's my reasoning:

For someone to assert, "I am an authority on what is or is not evidence for others", begs the question, "On what grounds?"

And that is when the fun begins.

One way to unpack that statement is:

Premise: I know more than others do about what is or is not evidence for them.
Conclusion: Therefore, they must allow me to decide for them what is or is not evidence for them.​

Here's the problem with that argument:

Let's say the premise of that argument is (in principle) capable of being demonstrated to be either true or false. That is, let's say there are (in principle) means whereby we can compare the knowledge of two or more individuals, and determine which individuals know more about the topic than others.

Even if the premise is indeed cable of rational demonstration (i.e. demonstrable via logic or empirical observation), the conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. That's because the conclusion is a value judgment, and value judgments are not capable of being demonstrated to be rationally true or false.

As a consequence, the conclusion is what philosophers technically call, "snickerpoop". Moreover, in terms of the conclusion, everyone is an equal authority on the subject. Or put differently, "authority lies with the individual".