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.
Several of you think that if GoCardinals and others of his ilk went over to the science part of the forum and discussed the topic that he/they would concede and become atheists?
I would not matter if the proof was final and absolute. They would cling to their belief and continue preaching it.
No, I am saying through the flowers that I do not believe they are being honest, but I would like them to prove me wrong.
Suspicious? I will go one step further ... its a down right lie when they (some of them) claim it.
That is completely different than what I said. I said, the universe, in and around earth, is based on QM and that it is processing information in a meaningful way to produce life. "meaningful way", can mean computer like.
In fact, QM demonstrates that miracles don't happen. But that the probability of some things we call miracles will happen. like medical miracles. they have nothing to do with god, they are have everything to do with probability, kinetic energy and potential energy. at play in DNA and functioning proteins.
That's not a god thing. people taking that notion to a god thing is different that calling that notion a whoo whoo wand.
Your post still smacks of Quantum (while seeing it as a basic of reality0 being used as a magic wand to enable the universe to do or be anything that suits your theory, even if you never use the word "God" at all. I still suspect a Magic Wand.
Quote:
I said, that QM notions are the connections to us and everything around us. That the everything around us (on earth) is life and people are misrepresenting that as some omni thing when its just life.
and you didn't use the word "God" once.
Quote:
but being connected to everything around us as some implications. why do you feel it is wrong to tackle them straight on with theist? that stating "yes, you feel connected to something much bigger than you that is life, but its just the biosphere?"
How about addressing the emotional component of "well, if animals show "emotion", then that is an attribute of the biosphere ... but its not "loving you" past a dog loving you". its just diffrent than they think it is, its not that it isn't there?
Because the two are no more related than my mate slapping me on the back by way of welcome to a leaf falling on my head. There is a world of difference and trying to say one is the the same as the other is a fraud.
Naturally, it depends on how you define your terms. But generally evidence is something you can show others, to make a case for your belief. But one might have good reasons for believing something (e.g., personal experiences they cannot replicate or show to others) and the belief would still be valid.
I've made this point elsewhere in the forums, how evidentialism is dead. It's invalid in that we believe in things without evidence literally all the time (e.g., the reality of the external world), and it's self-refuting in that the statement "You should only believe that which is evidenced" cannot itself be evidenced.
And yes, "good reason" is going to be somewhat subjective. But then, so is "evidence" if we're honest.
Your post still smacks of Quantum (while seeing it as a basic of reality0 being used as a magic wand to enable the universe to do or be anything that suits your theory, even if you never use the word "God" at all. I still suspect a Magic Wand.
and you didn't use the word "God" once.
Because the two are no more related than my mate slapping me on the back by way of welcome to a leaf falling on my head. There is a world of difference and trying to say one is the the same as the other is a fraud.
no. I make no claims based on "yes god" and I make no claims based on "no god". I am just a regular atheist.
you confluating "anti-god" with describing the interconnections between all parts of this universe.
the falling and your friend slapping you on the back caused you to react. due to the different interactions around you at the time you reacted differently. the leaf, change that to a female in heat pheromones. the reaction is different due to the set of interactions in and around you.
You are defined by the system you are in. What the best way to describe it? using some broad classifications. non life? life? a mixture of life and non life.
how does a protein in you behave? it behaves the way it does based on you living, although there is not one area that we can point to as being "you". There is not one thing alive in a cell. But the "you" as life defines them.
there all 100 trillion cells in you, all different, and yet there is one you.
no matter how you slice it trans, the only way for your sect of atheism to be more valid is when it filtered through "we must stop religion at all cost."
What might happen is they become believers who accept evolution as fact and simply see it as the method their god used. Of course, that also requires a non-literal interpretation of their holy book which is a major stumbling block for those fundies of limited intellect and/or education.
BINGO ... learn some science ... adjust the belief to line up with observation.
I've made this point elsewhere in the forums, how evidentialism is dead. It's invalid in that we believe in things without evidence literally all the time (e.g., the reality of the external world), and it's self-refuting in that the statement "You should only believe that which is evidenced" cannot itself be evidenced.
And yes, "good reason" is going to be somewhat subjective. But then, so is "evidence" if we're honest.
You are taking this to a ridiculous extreme, saying that evidence is worthless in all cases because it is not available in some cases.
I have no evidence for the world outside of my brain. You are correct in that. However, I have no option but to accept its reality.
After this initial step, evidence seems to rule. Things for which there is evidence seem to exist, things without evidence appear not to exist. The things that seem to exist and have some evidence, after further investigation, have more and more confirming evidence.
On the other hand, things without evidence often gain no additional evidence, despite our attempts to gather it.
Which of these two groups is it rational to believe? Yes, you CAN believe in both if you like, but there is no good reason to believe in the non-evidenced group, nor is there no alternative, such as the dilemma based in solipsism.
Evidence is quite clearly a higher standard than personal belief. In fact, it is the highest standard we have. If you throw this standard out, we simply have no basis for common belief in anything.
You are taking this to a ridiculous extreme, saying that evidence is worthless in all cases because it is not available in some cases.
I have no evidence for the world outside of my brain. You are correct in that. However, I have no option but to accept its reality.
After this initial step, evidence seems to rule. Things for which there is evidence seem to exist, things without evidence appear not to exist. The things that seem to exist and have some evidence, after further investigation, have more and more confirming evidence.
On the other hand, things without evidence often gain no additional evidence, despite our attempts to gather it.
Which of these two groups is it rational to believe? Yes, you CAN believe in both if you like, but there is no good reason to believe in the non-evidenced group, nor is there no alternative, such as the dilemma based in solipsism.
Evidence is quite clearly a higher standard than personal belief. In fact, it is the highest standard we have. If you throw this standard out, we simply have no basis for common belief in anything.
Evidentialism is just one of those phrases thrown out to imply atheists are using faulty arguments. It is just poisoning the well.
The idea that we believe in things without evidence literally all the time is another assertion, as our brains subconsciously evaluating evidence without us knowing about it. It may not always be very good at it, and uses rough guidelines, but it is not often that we are totally agnostic about a position.
Even if evidentialism is dead, as you point out, evidence is the best method to determine if something is true or probably true. Because if you have no evidence for a claim, you are more likely to be wrong.
no. I make no claims based on "yes god" and I make no claims based on "no god". I am just a regular atheist.
you confluating "anti-god" with describing the interconnections between all parts of this universe.
the falling and your friend slapping you on the back caused you to react. due to the different interactions around you at the time you reacted differently. the leaf, change that to a female in heat pheromones. the reaction is different due to the set of interactions in and around you.
You are defined by the system you are in. What the best way to describe it? using some broad classifications. non life? life? a mixture of life and non life.
how does a protein in you behave? it behaves the way it does based on you living, although there is not one area that we can point to as being "you". There is not one thing alive in a cell. But the "you" as life defines them.
there all 100 trillion cells in you, all different, and yet there is one you.
no matter how you slice it trans, the only way for your sect of atheism to be more valid is when it filtered through "we must stop religion at all cost."
Sorry mate, your collection of non sequiturs (how a proton behaves in biochemicals that in use build a life -form argues nothing) ending with a flying leap to youyr pet bash of atheism gives me nothing coherent to respond to.
Naturally, it depends on how you define your terms. But generally evidence is something you can show others, to make a case for your belief. But one might have good reasons for believing something (e.g., personal experiences they cannot replicate or show to others) and the belief would still be valid.
Nope. yes, sure, Ok , 'evidence' is what you can show to others (there is evidence to the self, but that doesn't help in making a case to others until you present it to others), and your last point is no more than demanding credibility for anecdotal claims and/or appealing to unknowns that could be true, after all. They might equally not be. All we can do is lok at the claim and evidence presented, using reason and analysis and see whether (using the best tools of reason that we have) it stands up. It isn't perfect, is often having to revise a previous position and there is a lot that it doesn't know, but it is the best we have and the other ways of determining truth or fact (experience, revelation and philosophy relies on science to validate its' conclusions.
Quote:
I've made this point elsewhere in the forums, how evidentialism is dead. It's invalid in that we believe in things without evidence literally all the time (e.g., the reality of the external world), and it's self-refuting in that the statement "You should only believe that which is evidenced" cannot itself be evidenced.
And yes, "good reason" is going to be somewhat subjective. But then, so is "evidence" if we're honest.
If it is dead, then stop trying to apply it to the way we argue from evidence and reason here. That quite obviously is not dead so this 'evidentialism' (if it's dead) is irrelevant so banging on about it helps your case not at all. People believe things for all kinds of reasons, good bad and indifferent. I've made the point several times that validated evidence and sound reasoning are the best ways of validating those beliefs. Whether you call that 'evidentialism' or not, it is the best method we have. Those other beliefs, based on information, misremembered information, or personal suppositions, depend for validity on the verification. Pretending that the conclusions that people come to somehow refutes the scientific validation of those conclusions, is absurd. Please drop that one. Evidentialism or not, it is a valid method, the best method and really the only sound method for validating claims and beliefs.
BINGO ... learn some science ... adjust the belief to line up with observation.
is that a bad thing?
Not if you throw the book in the bin and write another than fits the revised belief. Waving the book about as though it's still true is dishonest and self delusionary, and in my book, that's a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
You are taking this to a ridiculous extreme, saying that evidence is worthless in all cases because it is not available in some cases.
I have no evidence for the world outside of my brain. You are correct in that. However, I have no option but to accept its reality.
After this initial step, evidence seems to rule. Things for which there is evidence seem to exist, things without evidence appear not to exist. The things that seem to exist and have some evidence, after further investigation, have more and more confirming evidence.
On the other hand, things without evidence often gain no additional evidence, despite our attempts to gather it.
Which of these two groups is it rational to believe? Yes, you CAN believe in both if you like, but there is no good reason to believe in the non-evidenced group, nor is there no alternative, such as the dilemma based in solipsism.
Evidence is quite clearly a higher standard than personal belief. In fact, it is the highest standard we have. If you throw this standard out, we simply have no basis for common belief in anything.
Vic appears (as i recall) to agree with this as he did not say that the brain in a Vat, the matrix, universe on a computer etc. were valid because they were beliefs (not that they are - they are merely postulated possibilities) but that they are views (I won't say beliefs) held without evidence, and therefor somehow refutes the idea that beliefs have to be evidenced. This has surely been debunked because possibles are not necessarily beliefs and beliefs are not necessarily valid; not until validated by examination of the evidence (and as Mystic said, Bad evidence is still evidence'. Sure but the only Valid evidence is validated evidence). This is the fact and situation; Science is the best way of arriving act factual truth, and since that is not dead by any means, Evidentialism, (whatever that means to him) is irrelevant to what is the best method of validating claims and beliefs.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-03-2019 at 01:48 PM..
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.
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.
