Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Shadow Wolf]

In this modern world, the gospel is exploding, multiplying in many places...

They've actually been in a bit of a slump and decline as more and more people increasingly ditch religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

If it's non-disprovable, then that's as good as an admission there might be something to it.

Well spluh!

Now we come to evidence. What kind of evidence? Yes this really does have to be asked, though I know it'll get me accused of shifting the goalposts. What kind of evidence do you accept?

What goalposts?
Anyway, I don't know what would constitute convincing evidence.
But with none being offered, there's no reason to be interested in it.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If you want others to join you in a conversation it is a good idea to answer their questions if you want an answer to yours.

I didn't see that the response I replied to needed any other answer.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Anyway, I don't know what would constitute convincing evidence.
But with none being offered, there's no reason to be interested in it.

There is evidence offered. It just depends if you accept what's being offered as evidence. Do you accept revelation, enlightened understanding, and the like as constituting evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How should I approach the subject? I offered historical facts about ancient atheists and got lambasted as a sophist.

In a rather insulting manner. Along with some false generalizations about modern atheists. That will not get you a very polite answer.

That is good at least.



What if no valid source of morals can be found in materialism? What then? This is one of the areas I'm talking about by the way- that I question how much thought atheists give morals and logical proofs.

How do you get morals and worth out of chemical processes in the brain?



Heard of, but refresh me.

I am cutting to your last question since it answers the previous. The Veil of Ignorance is an approach to moral problems. One puts oneself in a hypothetical society where one does not know what group is he in and compares that to a society where the condition under question does not exist.

For example would you prefer to live in a society where you may be a slave or a slave owner, with no control over which group you are in or a society where slavery is banned? Most people will see that the risk is too high in the society with slavery and opt for one without. It is a simple but effective way of answering moral question.

Oh religions don't give reasons as to why? Divine revelation isn't a reason why? Awakening to higher reality isn't a reason why? Reasons atheists won't accept is a different matter, isn't it?

No, diving revelation is not a why. It is an excuse at best that almost all religions claim. It is not an explanation, at least not a valid one. When it comes to religious beliefs a person needs more than a "Because I told you so." as an explanation. From my experience that is about all that various religions do and it puts them on an equal footing. And not a very good one.

What do you want me to say?

You were the one that brought the subject up. You should be able to support your claims. If it is just the same old same old then you are actually supporting the/ atheist side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I didn't see that the response I replied to needed any other answer.

That could be your problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is evidence offered. It just depends if you accept what's being offered as evidence. Do you accept revelation, enlightened understanding, and the like as constituting evidence?

I know that you asked Revoltingest, but I would have to say no. Since religions tend to contradict each other but they all tend to make the same sort of claim then that really is not evidence. They are merely claims that the religions do not seem to be able to support.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is evidence offered.

But nothing meaningful to me.
Some samples....
- The popularity argument, ie, most people believe in a god.
- Personal knowledge of god, ie, the feeling.
- Poorly reasoned probability calculations that evolution & abiogenesis are impossible.

It just depends if you accept what's being offered as evidence. Do you accept revelation, enlightened understanding, and the like as constituting evidence?

Those are someone's feelings, not evidence accessible to me.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

In a rather insulting manner. Along with some false generalizations about modern atheists. That will not get you a very polite answer.

I don't see that the historical facts were stated in an insulting matter. They were actually stated in defense of atheism. Since the OP implied atheism would be wrong if evolution is. All I did was offer ways atheists have in history tried to back up their position with philosophy.

I don't see that what I said about modern atheists is false. Frankly, I don't care about getting a polite answer.

Whenever modern atheists tell me what they base morals and worth on and not appeal to personal feelings, I'll retract my statement. Anyone can appeal to personal feelings. It's the weakest form of argumentation in the book.

I am cutting to your last question since it answers the previous.

It doesn't answer the previous. It gives me a case of personal feelings and judgment, which I question as sufficient for moral reasoning.

The Veil of Ignorance is an approach to moral problems. One puts oneself in a hypothetical society where one does not know what group is he in and compares that to a society where the condition under question does not exist.

Right, that takes me back to individual preference. See above.

No, diving revelation is not a why.

It claims to be a why, and is if one accepts it. Again, that is saying nothing further.

If it is just the same old same old then you are actually supporting the/ atheist side.

So be it. I'm not a god. I can't give you the kind of proof you expect.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

I know that you asked Revoltingest, but I would have to say no. Since religions tend to contradict each other but they all tend to make the same sort of claim then that really is not evidence. They are merely claims that the religions do not seem to be able to support.

Contradicting theories rules out any of them being correct? Again, I'm glad science doesn't function under this assumption.

But nothing meaningful to me.

Individualism, feelings, and preferences appeal...

Those are someone's feelings, not evidence accessible to me.

The content of revelation, dharma, or some such concept is not someone's feelings when accepted as an authority. Feelings are put aside.

 

[Revoltingest]

Individualism, feelings, and preferences appeal...
The content of revelation, dharma, or some such concept is not someone's feelings when accepted as an authority. Feelings are put aside.

To me it "feels" like there are no gods.
But this isn't evidence of anything.
Someone who claims authority, but can't offer an objective
& evidenced argument is no authority to me.
Anyone can feel something & say something.
Millions do, & there is little agreement among them.
Even if one of them had The Truth of a kind not objectively verifiable,
there'd be no way to separate it from the noise of all the posers.
So it's all of no consequence or interest.

What is interesting?
The people....their variety of ways of thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't see that the historical facts were stated in an insulting matter. They were actually stated in defense of atheism. Since the OP implied atheism would be wrong if evolution is. All I did was offer ways atheists have in history tried to back up their position with philosophy.

I don't see that what I said about modern atheists is false. Frankly, I don't care about getting a polite answer.

Whenever modern atheists tell me what they base morals and worth on and not appeal to personal feelings, I'll retract my statement. Anyone can appeal to personal feelings. It's the weakest form of argumentation in the book.

Sorry, I saw it, I am sure that others saw it. You made false accusations against atheists as you have here. It is not mere "personal feelings".

It doesn't answer the previous. It gives me a case of personal feelings and judgment, which I question as sufficient for moral reasoning.

Nope, you are of course wrong. But then I don't want to be as rude as you have been. I will explain.

Right, that takes me back to individual preference. See above.

And you could not be more wrong. It is a rational way to judge which system is better. And it is far better than any of the "morals" that I have seen from any religious system. All they have is "because god says so" even though that god cannot follow the same rules.

It claims to be a why, and is if one accepts it. Again, that is saying nothing further.

It can claim to be the Queen of Sheba. That does not make it so.

So be it. I'm not a god. I can't give you the kind of proof you expect.

I only expect rational evidence.. All you can offer is irrational claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Contradicting theories rules out any of them being correct? Again, I'm glad science doesn't function under this assumption.

We are talking about evidence here, not theories. And yes, contradicting evidence rules itself out. Science is evidence based. If a theory goes against evidence it is refuted.

Individualism, feelings, and preferences appeal...

Perhaps, but since you provided no evidence for him that is all that he has to go on.

The content of revelation, dharma, or some such concept is not someone's feelings when accepted as an authority. Feelings are put aside.

Sorry, but to be accepted as an authority one must first establish that authority by valid means. So far you have nothing. If anything you are violating the appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Science is evidence based.

Yes it is. Agreed. What kind of evidence is it, specifically?

Perhaps, but since you provided no evidence for him that is all that he has to go on.

I did provide evidence. The same evidence that accepting empirical evidence alone as valid has going for it: faith.

If faith can establish scientific empiricism alone as a valid method of verification- it can work for others. Right?

Sorry, but to be accepted as an authority one must first establish that authority by valid means.

Can an authority establish itself, I would ask you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes it is. Agreed. What kind of evidence is it, specifically?

Scientific evidence is evidence that is usually of an empirical nature that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

I did provide evidence. The same evidence that accepting empirical evidence alone as valid has going for it: faith.

Extremely weak and self contradicting evidence. Not very convincing.

Can an authority establish itself, I would ask you?

Yes, it can.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Scientific evidence is evidence that is usually of an empirical nature that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis.

Thank you. I do not reject this is a kind of evidence.

Extremely weak and self contradicting evidence. Not very convincing.

See my previous response on this subject.

Can an authority establish itself, I would ask you?

Yes, it can.

Then any claimed authority in the world can establish itself by this argument, if the claims are non-contradictory and bear out.

I would not make this argument myself, but for science to be self-validating one must of course go there.

If it works for science, it can work for anything else.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. I do not reject this is a kind of evidence.

Good.

See my previous response on this subject.

You were wrong then, why bother?

Then any claimed authority in the world can establish itself by this argument, if the claims are non-contradictory and bear out.

I would not make this argument myself, but for science to be self-validating one must of course go there.

If it works for science, it can work for anything else.

No, you did not ask a very important question.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Go back and read my two points, neither of which you addressed.

You didn't really make an argument.

 

[Looncall]

These sound like the old, old religious con game. To be believed on someone's say so, without evidence.
Personal experience is not transferable and so not evidence, except, perhaps, of mental aberration.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Try dropping a weight or scales on your foot, you'll know it exists?

Logic and maths exist as intellectual exercises housed in energy and mass. Without energy or mass logic and maths don't exist same applies to your vision of god.

So, you believe something is proved to exist if you can feel it, but you reject the claims of people who claim to feel God's presence? Seems like a double standard. Have I misunderstood something?

Or is it that you are simply judgmental--"I don't believe you feel God, but I know I can feel gravity."