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.
It seems that the two aspects above are conflated and seldom dealt with directly. The tendency is to assume that the answers are "given in the inner consciousness" and do not need either explanation or justification. This is seldom the case with metaphysical issues and is especially prevalent among atheists. Care to give them a try?
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.
this is total avoidance arg. you pull this nonsense when when the evidence doesn't support you denying everything.
You intentional hide the fact that we are in a sea of interactions that are better described in homeostasis than any other word. you can't respond because you know your position is less valid. so you make up "nothing coherent" and run away.
It seems that the two aspects above are conflated and seldom dealt with directly. The tendency is to assume that the answers are "given in the inner consciousness" and do not need either explanation or justification. This is seldom the case with metaphysical issues and is especially prevalent among atheists. Care to give them a try?
mystic, you dealing with people that have bought in the central dogma of "deny everything". they, like fundy atheist, get to make up whatever they want. they do not play by the same rules of what evidence is and what does it point to.
fishbrains gets to say he has no idea what we are talking about and still deny's everything based on information he doesn't even know he doesn't know. he thinks that's totally valid.
the lukers understand, if we are in a system that is more complex than us and we are defined as life, how do we describe the system? they also are clearly capable of unpacking the statement "we are in a system of life and non life". There is not one thing is a cell that is classified as "life", and yet we call it all alive.
You are taking this to a ridiculous extreme, saying that evidence is worthless in all cases because it is not available in some cases.
Not once did I say or imply that.
Quote:
I have no evidence for the world outside of my brain. You are correct in that.
And the second point is that you are rational to believe in the external world you experience (that these experiences are veridical), despite having no evidence to support that belief. This is the stand against evidentialism I've defended. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote:
things without evidence appear not to exist.
That doesn't follow. Absence of evidence would only be evidence of absence in the event that if x did exist, we should expect to have more evidence of it than we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
If it is dead, then stop trying to apply it to the way we argue from evidence and reason here.
If you mean stop bringing it up/implying that people are using it here, I'll gladly do that when people stop! But again and again, I keep seeing that if there isn't evidence there isn't a reason to believe in it. And so I keep reminding people that's not the case.
It seems that the two aspects above are conflated and seldom dealt with directly. The tendency is to assume that the answers are "given in the inner consciousness" and do not need either explanation or justification. This is seldom the case with metaphysical issues and is especially prevalent among atheists. Care to give them a try?
On the contrary; it is just what atheists don't do (they rely on scientifically validated evidence) and the Believers do all the time - suppose the "given in the inner consciousness" and can be relied upon because they are some kind of revelation. That was so flat -footed that I can't believe it was what you intended to argue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
mystic, you dealing with people that have bought in the central dogma of "deny everything". they, like fundy atheist, get to make up whatever they want. they do not play by the same rules of what evidence is and what does it point to.
fishbrains gets to say he has no idea what we are talking about and still deny's everything based on information he doesn't even know he doesn't know. he thinks that's totally valid.
the lukers understand, if we are in a system that is more complex than us and we are defined as life, how do we describe the system? they also are clearly capable of unpacking the statement "we are in a system of life and non life". There is not one thing is a cell that is classified as "life", and yet we call it all alive.
I hope, Mystic, that the above was just an aberration brought about by a bad hair day or something and that you won't buy into Arach's incomprehensible lies about atheists for a minute.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-04-2019 at 12:30 AM..
And the second point is that you are rational to believe in the external world you experience (that these experiences are veridical), despite having no evidence to support that belief. This is the stand against evidentialism I've defended. Nothing more, nothing less.
That doesn't follow. Absence of evidence would only be evidence of absence in the event that if x did exist, we should expect to have more evidence of it than we do.
If you mean stop bringing it up/implying that people are using it here, I'll gladly do that when people stop! But again and again, I keep seeing that if there isn't evidence there isn't a reason to believe in it. And so I keep reminding people that's not the case.
We are not using it here; you are the only one referring to something called "Evidentialism" which you insist "Is dead". The only sense this makes is a Philosophical extreme usage that is invalid and nobody here is talking about that. You then try to conflate this claim with something else - personal experiences. It has already been explained that the scientific methods of validating experiences (or not) are the best method we have and has a very good track record. That is all you need to validate reality of which 'experience' is just how humans perceive it with senses that can be misled.
Mate, you have bombed on this one, and yet you keep trying to push it through.
The very title of the thread hints at there being a value comparison between belief without evidence and belief without reason. But if no one here subscribes to evidentialism, that's great!
Quote:
It has already been explained that the scientific methods of validating experiences (or not) are the best method we have and has a very good track record. That is all you need to validate reality of which 'experience' is just how humans perceive it with senses that can be misled.
Mate, you have bombed on this one, and yet you keep trying to push it through.
I'm not entirely sure what statement you think I've made that was incorrect. I don't think anyone's attacking the scientific method or appealing to evidence in general.
It seems that the two aspects above are conflated and seldom dealt with directly. The tendency is to assume that the answers are "given in the inner consciousness" and do not need either explanation or justification. This is seldom the case with metaphysical issues and is especially prevalent among atheists. Care to give them a try?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
On the contrary; it is just what atheists don't do (they rely on scientifically validated evidence) and the Believers do all the time - suppose the "given in the inner consciousness" and can be relied upon because they are some kind of revelation. That was so flat-footed that I can't believe it was what you intended to argue.
Sorry Arq, but that was not an answer to either question - talk about flat-footed.
The very title of the thread hints at there being a value comparison between belief without evidence and belief without reason. But if no one here subscribes to evidentialism, that's great!
I'm not entirely sure what statement you think I've made that was incorrect. I don't think anyone's attacking the scientific method or appealing to evidence in general.
The statement that evidentialism is dead. Either it is irrelevant to this discussion, or you are wrong. Just as it is irrelevant or wrong to hark back to Go Cardinal's OP. It was a fair question, but open to confusion. There is no difference between belief with reasons and with evidence, but the reasons can be good reasons or not and evidence can be valid or invalid. It comes down to what is supported by sound reason and validated evidence.
The argument is long dead, but Believers keep banging away at it - trying to prove that we know nothjing for sure and we take everything on Faith anyway.
Wrong, and long since wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Sorry Arq, but that was not an answer to either question - talk about flat-footed.
Sorry Mystic Mate, but it answered both questions, and you are just stickng your fingers in your ears and looking more of a dolt than you really are. What part of 'atheists do not rely on inner consciousness as valid' (theists do) do you not understand? What part of the discussion about what is evidence and what is validated evidence haven't you followed here?
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-04-2019 at 01:56 AM..
There is no difference between belief with reasons and with evidence
Generally I disagree. But again, that depends on how we define our terms.
Quote:
The argument is long dead, but Believers keep banging away at it - trying to prove that we know nothjing for sure and we take everything on Faith anyway.
Wrong, and long since wrong.
Here, again, it depends on definitions. If by "faith" we mean "belief without evidence" (and if by "evidence" we mean "verification"), I would say we do take quite a lot on faith!
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.
