Faith And Convincing Evidence

[Zhavric]

Mr. Mxyzptlk:

Here are the problems with your rebuttal.

1. You're ignoring the appeal to belief fallacy. This isn't some pesky technicality which you can brush off. It is a critical flaw in your reasoning which you must account for. Simply restating your initial assertions doesn't cut it. I get that you want this thread to be about the existence of god. Unfortunately, lots of people believing there is a god doesn't count as a form of evidence... no matter how hard you stamp your feet. Which leads us to your next problem.
2. You're shifting the burden of proof. If you believe that god exists, then it's your responsibility to provide evidence. Not mine.
3. You may want to review basic geometry to fully comprehend the shape of our planet. Things that are round and flat are called circles. Do you believe the planet is a circle?

We'd both agree that the statement, "Hundreds of thousands of Scientologists believe Xenu literally existed. Therefor, there must be some evidence for Scientology" is laughably false. Why aren't you willing to apply that same intellectual honesty to your own argument?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

In order to understand why billions upon billions of human beings believe in "god" you must first understand what the belief is all about. We must be able to ask ourselves if we can find this type of behavior in anything else besides religion, meaning do people have faith in things else where.

In the greater/general sense belief in god is superstition. Speaking words out loud to yourself in hope those words are listened to, understood, and answered are what we call superstition. In reality the only way words work are when they are received by another human being.

In comes faith.

Faith is another important factor in the general scheme of religion. The idea is to follow or have confidence in something that has no proof or evidence. As I asked in the beginning of this post: "Can we see this type of behavior any where else in society besides religion?".

We know that when we speak words, things don't shape up and change based on them. We know that things must be changed or altered based on our own actions.

Now I will introduce you to "coincidence".

Coincidence is another important little thing because it places a strong connection with something unlikely to your own personal world. An improbable event that impacts your personal life seems to be one of the most determining factors in all of this "belief" stuff. It effects your emotions by giving you a feeling of uniqueness and individuality.
as I asked before, can we find that behavior anywhere else?

Human beings are naturally superstitious. It is no coincidence to see a bunch of screaming human beings chanting "YOU MUST BELIEVE to RECEIVE" at an NFL football game when a team that was said to be talentless and unlikely to make it to playoffs to actually be wining. Logically and rationally they shouldn't be in the playoffs, but who cares because the few that had faith actually were right all alone -- that logic and rational approach was totally wrong in this case.

It is no coincidence that human beings are ADDICTED to placing money (which is considered to be the most valued and important thing in life) on totally random events such as slot machines, poker, sporting events, when and how will Britney Spears falter.
And low and behold what do these people do? They look for detailed occurrences that may have impacted or caused good fortune for their random, coincidental winnings. "I was sitting in this chair, when I won all that money" "Dude every time I stand up the batter actually does good".

It is no coincidence that human beings actually think the way stars move impacts the way they act throughout the day even though they read it out of a newspaper that is printed everyday.

Take this same exact logic and translate this all to religion and it will fit perfectly well with everything. The only difference is religion has existed for thousands and thousands of years. Doing the sign of the cross on your chest is no different then putting salt over your shoulder. Just because billions of people do it, don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

The people who actually do create good fortune and happiness are the people who take action and actually do something that effects reality and the way it works. Someone having a heart attack, giving them CPR, and getting them quickly to the hospital is what saves lives, not the person throwing "holy" water on themselves and chanting words up to the sky and making hand motions across their chest.

Human beings are pretty willfully ignorant.

And none of this has shown how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence. Didn’t expect it to, though.

Now, what you have been able to show, is the fact that the Atheist has become quite adept at purposefully ignoring Reality. And that purposeful ignoring of reality, has lead to their current state of ignorance. For example, lets take one of the paragraphs that you have just written:

“It is no coincidence that human beings actually think the way stars move impacts the way they act throughout the day even though they read it out of a newspaper that is printed everyday.”

Now, no doubt, this paragraph is an example of what the Atheist religion teaches. But the fact of the matter is that, the way the stars move, does impact the way humans act. Did we forget that the SUN is a star. Or, did you, for the purpose of your argument, decide to ignore that fact?

So, the last time that one checked, the SUN is a star. And as a star, its movements have been repeatedly shown throughout time to have an impact on the way that humans move throughout the day. That is, if you and the rest of the Atheists still place sleep, work, and play in the category of human movements.

Now, if there is a star, whose movements impact the way that humans move, then you cannot state it as fact that, the movement of stars do not have an impact on the way humans move. Actually, you can, but to those who are otherwise aware, you would just be shown to be uninformed, ignorant, and superstitious.

So, there are other little errors in your writing, but one will save you the embarrassment and will not point them all out.


By the way, is it possible for you to show how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence?

[rez]

And none of this has shown how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence.

Are you kidding me? I shown pleanty of examples of how it is possible to think something is true despite lack of evidence.

Native Americans wouldn't have large casinos if this were not true. You wouldn't see contestants on deal or no deal saying "if you believe then you will receive" pick a random brief case , get extremely lucky and contribute the fact that he "believed" to be of the reason why he won.

Did we forget that the SUN is a star. Or, did you, for the purpose of your argument, decide to ignore that fact?

Of course the sun impacts our lives, but guess what? I wasn't referring to just that. I was talking about Horoscopes written in the news paper. People actually believe that it is written specifically for them and will even look for ways to make it seem like they are true.

By the way, is it possible for you to show how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence?

People are convinced that when they sit in a certain seat at the casino that they will win even if they lose most of the time. It is totally obvious that the random happening of winning that one time causes them to think it was that seat despite the fact they LOSE most of the time.

It is called "faith" and it is one of the sole tenets of religion. Faith is the total opposite of evidence.

you must have faith to be a follower, without it you wouldn't buy into any of it.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

And to take this further. What do we even mean by "convincing evidence".

What are we basing this evidence off of? What the Bible says? What the Bible sayyyyyyyysssssss?

What the Bible says is {convincing evidence} and therefore can be seen as such. And just because, from your Position you do not see the Bible as {convincing evidence, does not mean that it is not.

Since when do we use evidence based on written words? or words in general?

Is this another one of the Atheist’s superstition? Is there no such thing as evidence that is based on written words? Well, let’s see about this superstition:

1. Handwriting, Typewriting, Shoeprints, and Tire Treads:
FBI Laboratory's Questioned Documents Unit

2. Handwriting Identification Meets Daubert

3. Dissecting Handwriting
Computer Tests Proves Handwriting Analysis Is Legitimate

4. DECISION ON PROSECUTION’S MOTIONS FOR THE ADMISSION OF WRITTEN EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO RULE 92 BIS OF THE RULES


By the way, in the Atheist religion, have they never taught you about the existence of Written Wills and Documentary Evidence?

5. Documentary Evidence

6. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

Shit, if you think genes are just a "theory" and there is no strong evidence for them, how hell are you going to say that Bible passages show strong evidence for god?

Because, just like {convincing evidence,} {strong evidence} is subjective.

The fact that I can take a fly egg, mess around with the genes, and make a leg grow off its face is less convincing then a Bible passage? Do you see the difference? I can actually show you something where you can only show me text.

Rez, don’t know if you notice this yet: but it is becoming increasingly apparent that someone else has been believing in superstitions. And guess what? This time, it is not the Theists. So far, we have seen that 2 of your assumptions have turned out to be superstitions. Now, you might want to stop while you have the opportunity. But as always, if you like, we can continue?

By the way, here is another suggestion: Go and invite some more Atheists to assist you. The more the merrier. We can always use some more superstitions.

Nailed it. Not much else to be said here.... I agree.

Jinei, you and the rest of the cheerleading section might want to look again. That would be the wise thing to do.

By the way, can you please stop cheerleading for one moment? And in that moment, can you tell us all how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence?

[Jack]

What the Bible says is {convincing evidence} and therefore can be seen as such. And just because, from your Position you do not see the Bible as {convincing evidence, does not mean that it is not.

Where's the corroboration? A single source isn't convincing.

can you tell us all how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence?

Plenty of examples have been provided. Since they've been ignored I see no reason to keep feeding this nonsensical question.

[Zhavric]

Until you address post 13, there's really no point in going forward. I've proven that your argument is flawed and in skipping that post you've proven that you're unable to offer any rebuttal. To be sure, this question...

We'd both agree that the statement, "Hundreds of thousands of Scientologists believe Xenu literally existed. Therefor, there must be some evidence for Scientology" is laughably false. Why aren't you willing to apply that same intellectual honesty to your own argument?

... isn't going away.

You need to address it.

[megadeth425]

How were billions upon billions of people convinced of the existence of God without any convincing evidence? How can one have belief in an object without first having any evidence of that object?

They saw everything as proof of God. Most religions date back to times before we understood most of how the world works; weather was the wrath of an angered deity, the world was flat...the existence of some almighty force was an easy thing to swallow when there were no other answers. "We're here because God made us" is an easy, convenient answer for a question nobody can truly answer. "There's a storm out at sea because Poseidon is angry that the crew didn't pay him tribute before they set sail" makes sense when you don't understand weather.

The strongest case for faith is the lack of answers for something. That's all. Most faiths trace back to times before we know what we know now, and was based on answering things like that. The Old Testament makes no mention of dinosaurs because when it was written, nobody knew about dinosaurs. How we do. The belief is still around only because people have passed it down to their children. It's like the parents who take their kids to pro-life/pro-choice rallies. Their children, who are raised on those beliefs, then perpetuate them. It's a great example of nature vs. nurture; belief in something isn't genetic, it's the result of indoctrination from an early age that something is an absolute truth.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

not that I disagree with Zharvic or anything, but do you honestly think theists consider "logical fallacies" as a means of proving a point?

You might want to stop trying to throw the “logical fallacy” label around so loosely. One could easily place all of your arguments into the “logical fallacy” category.

Many people believe god is true, therefore, god is true was not really the argument he was making.

Glad that you were able to comprehend that much. At least, as far as comprehending what is going on in this debate, you are slightly a step ahead of Zharvic.

He was suggesting that it was important to consider the mere fact that many people do indeed believe in god. Basically, why would so many people follow something that is not true?

Now, you’ve taken a step backwards. Might have to rethink those words.

Once again, memo to all Atheists: The argument is not centered around whether the claim that there is a God is {true} or not. Instead, the argument is centered around whether there exists {convincing evidence,} which has convinced billions upon billions of people to believe that there is a God. How hard is it to grasp this simple detail. No wonder you all are unable to comprehend: You all are arguing about a totally different subject.

Bigfoot has limitations, god don't. Bigfoot is thought to be a biological organism that exists in nature. Bigfoot has foot prints, hair, blood, feces -- can is untouchable. Santa Claus lives in the north poll and uses rein deer to fly to each house.
The point is that exchanging god with bigfoot is a tired and old logical argument.

And who is exchanging God with Bigfoot? Is it you?

By the way, all those things exist.

[Shade]

By successfully placing the burden of proof upon the Theists...

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. Theists are the ones who say a god exists. That is why the burden of proof is on them. I could say yellow unicorns with pink frog toes exist and the burden of proof would be on me. That is a fundamental principle of logic.

...there are billions upon billions of individuals who have come to believe in the existence of gods or a God ... we have billions upon billions of people running around the planet who are {convinced} and who have been {convinced} that there are gods or there is a God.

Just because billions of people believe something does not make it true. At one time, lots of people thought the Earth was flat. But the Earth exists independent of what anyone thinks, even if everybody thinks it. The same is true of all of reality, including a supernatural realm if it existed.

Now, what does the evidence that we see manifested in the billions upon billions of Theists tell us ?

I think the Zeitgeist movie does an excellent job of explaining why so many people have believed in religion throughout history. It is a derivation of astrology.

In addition, there are cultural influences that put pressure on people to conform. Throw into the mix a desire to live forever (or fear of death), and you have a pretty good picture why billions of people would believe in something that is not true.

1. The statement that there is no {convincing evidence} can be said to be categorically false. This is because, if there are billions upon billions of people who are {convinced} that gods or a God exists, then there must be some {convincing evidence} which led them to be convinced.

Yes, lots of people have been convinced. But that is all you have proven. It does not prove that those people are right.

Now, if as an Atheist or otherwise, you disagree with these proposals and thereby agree with Jack’s supposition, then currently, there is one thing that you have to prove: how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence.

Religions take young children and indoctrinate them before their minds can question authority. Then, they use guilt against children and adults, along with peer pressure, to get them to conform. They corrupt a person's ability to think for themselves, such as by telling people they cannot think about it but must only believe.

It is a nasty, nasty psychological war that is waged on people and people go along with it because (a) their minds have been corrupted and their ability to think for themselves has been damaged, (b) people are social creatures and want to fit in with the group, and (c) people are afraid to die and like the idea of perpetual after-life.

If you do not think these are all true, then please explain how someone born in Saudi Arabia will be a Muslim, but someone born in Mississippi will be a Baptist, while someone born in India will be a Hindu. It is 99% peer pressure.

[Jinei]

Jinei, you and the rest of the cheerleading section might want to look again. That would be the wise thing to do.

By the way, can you please stop cheerleading for one moment? And in that moment, can you tell us all how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence?

If one wishes to convince someone of something, one may use any of the following (you committed many of these, so you should be able to relate):

1. Ad Hominem
2. Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
3. Appeal to Authority
4. Appeal to Belief
5. Appeal to Common Practice
6. Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
7. Appeal to Emotion
8. Appeal to Fear
9. Appeal to Flattery
10. Appeal to Novelty
11. Appeal to Pity
12. Appeal to Popularity
13. Appeal to Ridicule
14. Appeal to Spite
15. Appeal to Tradition
16. Bandwagon
17. Begging the Question
18. Biased Sample
19. Burden of Proof
20. Circumstantial Ad Hominem
21. Composition
22. Confusing Cause and Effect
23. Division
24. False Dilemma
25. Gambler's Fallacy
26. Genetic Fallacy
27. Guilt By Association
28. Hasty Generalization
29. Ignoring A Common Cause
30. Middle Ground
31. Misleading Vividness
32. Personal Attack
33. Poisoning the Well
34. Post Hoc
35. Questionable Cause
36. Red Herring
37. Relativist Fallacy
38. Slippery Slope
39. Special Pleading
40. Spotlight
41. Straw Man
42. Two Wrongs Make A Right

Many of these kind of arguments may sound logical to people. Many would fall for a straw man argument, for example, when a salesman is trying to convince you his product works better than the defective counterparts of his competitors. But just because these kind of arguments are fallacious, it doesn't mean people don't accept them as convincing. Too many do. You place too much faith in peoples' critical skepticism.

Oh, and I'm no cheerleader; I was merely stating that I agreed with Zhavric

[wyoguy]

The burden of proof wasn't on the "Flat-Earthers". Why should it be on theists?

[Sockem]

The burden of proof wasn't on the "Flat-Earthers". Why should it be on theists?

The flat earthers are wrong because of Occam's Razor. Their conspiracy is much more complex than the earth simply being round. Not to mention the whole acceleration=gravity even though I'm not good at science sounds garbage. We (round earthers) have proved a round earth with with evidence from NASA and various mathematical formulas and observances.
This is why the burden of proof is on theists. They claim something exists they must prove it, not I or anyone else but the person who claims there is a god.