U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-23-2013, 09:54 PM
 
40,176 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I hope your "empty claims" does not echo the "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" nonsense of some here. There is a difference between unverified claims and unfounded ones. Try this analogy to see if it reveals the essential difference. I am arguing that some here do not know the difference between the circumstantial evidence in a case and the open and shut evidence for a conviction. Some atheists arrogantly deny there is circumstantial evidence because there is not open and shut evidence for a conviction. That is what their "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" says. It is deliberate blindness or refusal to countenance as legitimate evidence the circumstantial evidence in a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by minidiaz View Post
you appear to be confusing subjective with objective...
and circumstantial evidence doesn't cut it.
there is no clear cut objective evidence you are representing the all encompassing authority of the universe
assertions made without objective evidence to back up the assertion are meaningless..
get evidence or just stop trying to prove your faith, after all what is the point of faith :
no no..you have that wrong...it is nothing but arrogance to assert something and expect it to be taken at face value...get a clue.
Too bad . . . you actually don't get it. QED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-24-2013, 07:16 AM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I hope your "empty claims" does not echo the "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" nonsense of some here. There is a difference between unverified claims and unfounded ones. Try this analogy to see if it reveals the essential difference. I am arguing that some here do not know the difference between the circumstantial evidence in a case and the open and shut evidence for a conviction. Some atheists arrogantly deny there is circumstantial evidence because there is not open and shut evidence for a conviction. That is what their "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" says. It is deliberate blindness or refusal to countenance as legitimate evidence the circumstantial evidence in a case.
I really do appreciate your posts, Mystic, because with Tigetmax, who is also a first -class theist debator (Haven't seen him around lately . ) if your arguments can be shown to not stand up, nobody's will.

Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming that 'God' is a given (it is not, It is a label attached to something better not called 'God' - don't make me have to explain this to you again) which has to be disproved.

It is not. It is the god -believer who has to make a case and circumstantial evidence, plausible hypothesis and unfounded and unverified claims alike fail to cut it.

Kindly desist from telling atheists what they do or do not deny. Your God -faith I am obliged to say has rendered all your philosophical and logical knowledge invalid by being used to try to push through 'God' (in any form, term or concept whatsoever, so long as the name is accepted as 'existing') into acceptability as a 'given' without really good enough reason for it.

That is bad enough but your rather crude attempt to get unproven, unsubstantiated and unverified 'evidence' (I will let the rather loaded term pass ) for God on the table as somehow valid by pointing up a difference between unproven evidence and 'not one shred of evidence' must surely be obvious to anyone with even the most bucolic, rough -hewn and self -taught commonsense reasoning - powers.

You know, because you are smart enough, that this is a rhetorical trick and that 'Not one shred of evidence' is valid. Because not one shred of evidence, disproven or unproven, has been found to stand up as decent admissible evidence that anything that the empirical 'We' would think of in connection with the god -debate (since applying the God - label what exists and what produced physical laws, biological forms and eventually us is another rhetorical trick) as "God" really does exist.

Succinctly, it is shorthand (or tongue) for "There is not a shred of sound, valid, evidence for God". I should also mention that piling up a huge heap of unvalidated claims, hypotheses and possibilities does not add up through sheer volume to a single shred of sound, validated, evidence.

It is well said that the plural of 'Anecdote' is not 'Data'.

P.s
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Too bad . . . you actually don't get it. QED
In fact, after reading Diaz's post a couple of times, she does get get it. Impressive. she saw through your false argument right away, even on first acquaintance

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-24-2013 at 08:41 AM.. Reason: She, not he. Welcome 'Diaz, another woman atheist
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 07:30 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,102,293 times
Reputation: 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I should also mention that piling up a huge heap of unvalidated claims, hypotheses and possibilities does not add up to a single shred of sound, validated, evidence through sheer volume.

It is well said that the plural of 'Anecdote' is not 'Data'.
Since Mystic usually refers to his "data" and "huge heap of unvalidated claims, hypotheses and possibilities" as "circumstantial evidence" I am constrained to point out that this does not constitute "circumstantial evidence" either. In addition, the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in a court of law is rather stringently limited anyway; most substantial penalties / guilty verdicts are avoided when nothing but circumstantial evidence is available, with perhaps the exception of highly charged social prejudices that usually produce what most thinking people will regard as miscarriages of justice anyway.

That even Mystic admits his evidence is circumstantial and his experiments necessarily subjective and productive of evidence that can be valid only to himself, is telling. He is basically reduced to convincing others to give credence to his god beliefs based on his claim (which, BTW, I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve) that he has systematically tested it all out in his own meditation practice. If I were sufficiently motivated, I could, I suppose, with months or years of concentrated effort, attempt to reproduce his results or obtain my own. But why would I, given my own life experiences? To invest that kind of effort chasing rainbows is just not my bag anymore. It runs into the barriers encountered by all meditative disciplines, which is basically that altered states on the meditation mat do not mix at all with mundane existence, which, alas, unless we are heir to a huge fortune, we must all lower ourselves to engage with most of the time.

And in practice, if you're going to espouse a way of being that is game changing for even one other person, much less humanity in general, it has to be something with a much lower barrier to entry. People have all they can do to deal with their daily lives and keep their s__t together without being offered answers that require they go much beyond reading a self-help book or adopting some discipline that can be woven into their already busy lives. That may seem superficial and unprofound but it is reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 07:44 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,944,384 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Dogmatism comes in many flavors. It is usually the specific content that varies. Most atheists are dogmatic about not attributing the existence of our reality to anything.
Nope, they just don't believe in gods.

Quote:
They dogmatically prefer the ignorance of "We do not know" despite the obvious and undeniable fact that whatever produced our reality is beyond anything we are capable of comprehending.
It isn't dogmatic to say "we don't know" about something which is beyond our comprehension. Seems like the most reasonable thing to say, actually. Much better than going off making up nonsense claims about it and then hiding behind "it is a mystery" when you're called out on them.

Quote:
Apparently that ineffability itself is not sufficiently "Godlike" relative to us puny creatures that it does not qualify as "Godly enough" for the arrogance of atheists and Godophobes..
We're not the ones lecturing and berating people about how they're wrong about the details of something you're also claiming is inherently unknowable. Please try to be consistent - either we know nothing about it, or it is possible to make claims about it. Trying to play both sides just shows you haven't thought this through.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,194 posts, read 18,614,349 times
Reputation: 18756
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
He is basically reduced to convincing others to give credence to his god beliefs based on his claim (which, BTW, I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve) that he has systematically tested it all out in his own meditation practice..
Brings to mind a line from a Cheech and Chong routine..."I played Black Sabbath on 78 and saw God, man."


I wonder what is supposed to distinguish meditative investigation from simply thinking about something. I suspect that it is the same distinction between my beliefs and my "sacred" beliefs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 07:59 AM
 
39,247 posts, read 10,913,531 times
Reputation: 5101
Quite so. It was the invalidity of a heap of unsubstantiated claims, personal beliefs and plausible hypotheses (for which other explanations are equally valid - that's the point) presented as such a heap of 'circumstantial evidence' for God that it pushes through to credibility through sheer volume that I said was correctly regarded as 'not a shred of (sound or valid) evidence'.

It is worth recalling that Black Holes, dinosaurs to birds, Plate tectonics, and indeed (that hoary old theist apologetcs analogy) the Wright brothers' first powered flight and, of course the Higgs Boson were all regarded as unproven until verified, even though in many cases it was considered possible, probable or almost certain, but until verified and validated, it was not fact and could not be taken as proof of anything. We still have jury out on Dark matter and String theory, even though the evidence for it is apparently persuasive.

As you say, Mystic's personal experience is what convinces him -we all know that -and the circumstantial evidence, scientific -based and philosophical theories and arguments are - well, just that and no more.

We have other explanations for what Mystic experienced and the circumstantial evidence is gradually piling up in that direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 02:19 PM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,944,384 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Brings to mind a line from a Cheech and Chong routine..."I played Black Sabbath on 78 and saw God, man."


I wonder what is supposed to distinguish meditative investigation from simply thinking about something. I suspect that it is the same distinction between my beliefs and my "sacred" beliefs.
Last time we asked it had something to do with consistency. When it was pointed out that lots of fiction is internally consistent, I believe we were accused of not understanding or some similar distraction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 02:25 PM
 
40,176 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I hope your "empty claims" does not echo the "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" nonsense of some here. There is a difference between unverified claims and unfounded ones. Try this analogy to see if it reveals the essential difference. I am arguing that some here do not know the difference between the circumstantial evidence in a case and the open and shut evidence for a conviction. Some atheists arrogantly deny there is circumstantial evidence because there is not open and shut evidence for a conviction. That is what their "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe" says. It is deliberate blindness or refusal to countenance as legitimate evidence the circumstantial evidence in a case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I really do appreciate your posts, Mystic, because with Tigetmax, who is also a first -class theist debator (Haven't seen him around lately . ) if your arguments can be shown to not stand up, nobody's will.
Again, you are falling into the trap of assuming that 'God' is a given (it is not, It is a label attached to something better not called 'God' - don't make me have to explain this to you again) which has to be disproved.
You still see only your side as the given, Arq. They are BOTH givens and the one chosen is a preference, period. Since "We do NOT know" . . . the given we choose cannot be anything ELSE but a preference . . . your silly "common sense" nonsense about logical and rational notwithstanding. You reject what we DO know about reality as evidence for a God. I accept what we DO know about reality as evidence for a God. The undeniable ubiquity, scope, power and control of whatever it is bespeaks God relative to us . . . but since "We do not know" it is ridiculous to pretend that your rejection is somehow more logical or rational than my acceptance. "We do not know" is "We do not know" but its attributes we DO know about are impressive enough that God is as logical and rational a preference as yours.

I understand why you see the admission of the existence of God as a trick (rhetorical or semantic) because it tends to belie your unsupportable (but repetitious) mantra of "not one shred of evidence or reason to believe). It is clear that despite my consistent denials . . . you see my efforts here as rhetorical "bamboozlement" to convince others to accept my views as expressed in my BELIEFS. But I am seeking only to get an objective and fair seat at the table of preferences by pointing out that the existence of God as a given is neither illogical or irrational. Both our positions must be taken as givens by preference because "We don't know." I have no interest in changing your preference, Arq . . . truly!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 02:36 PM
 
40,176 posts, read 26,797,761 times
Reputation: 6057
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Since Mystic usually refers to his "data" and "huge heap of unvalidated claims, hypotheses and possibilities" as "circumstantial evidence" I am constrained to point out that this does not constitute "circumstantial evidence" either. In addition, the admissibility of circumstantial evidence in a court of law is rather stringently limited anyway; most substantial penalties / guilty verdicts are avoided when nothing but circumstantial evidence is available, with perhaps the exception of highly charged social prejudices that usually produce what most thinking people will regard as miscarriages of justice anyway.
That even Mystic admits his evidence is circumstantial and his experiments necessarily subjective and productive of evidence that can be valid only to himself, is telling. He is basically reduced to convincing others to give credence to his god beliefs based on his claim (which, BTW, I have no reason to either believe or disbelieve) that he has systematically tested it all out in his own meditation practice. If I were sufficiently motivated, I could, I suppose, with months or years of concentrated effort, attempt to reproduce his results or obtain my own. But why would I, given my own life experiences? To invest that kind of effort chasing rainbows is just not my bag anymore. It runs into the barriers encountered by all meditative disciplines, which is basically that altered states on the meditation mat do not mix at all with mundane existence, which, alas, unless we are heir to a huge fortune, we must all lower ourselves to engage with most of the time.
And in practice, if you're going to espouse a way of being that is game changing for even one other person, much less humanity in general, it has to be something with a much lower barrier to entry. People have all they can do to deal with their daily lives and keep their s__t together without being offered answers that require they go much beyond reading a self-help book or adopting some discipline that can be woven into their already busy lives. That may seem superficial and unprofound but it is reality.
Ah mordant . . . when will you accept my repeated assertions that I am not trying to convince anybody about my BELIEFS. It is a matter of fairness at the base level in according preferences about what "We don't know" . . . what reality IS. You have no basis for claiming that your preference of a "given" is superior to mine because "We don't KNOW!" That is the only issue. Everything else is preference and rationalization based on our selection and characterization of "evidence." They form the basis of our BELIEF or NON-BELIEF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Earth. For now.
1,227 posts, read 1,778,305 times
Reputation: 1264
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You still see only your side as the given, Arq. They are BOTH givens and the one chosen is a preference, period......

.... But I am seeking only to get an objective and fair seat at the table of preferences by pointing out that the existence of God as a given is neither illogical or irrational. Both our positions must be taken as givens by preference because "We don't know." I have no interest in changing your preference, Arq . . . truly!
Why is it either This or That? Why is it either God or Randomness? 99.999999999999999% of the Universe is uninhabitable. My default position is that an inhuman Monster created the universe, otherwise it would be hospitable to life.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top