Faith And Convincing Evidence

[Zhavric]

Zharvic, its obvious this person doesn't understand the burden of proof, let alone faith. We need to revise our arguments for him to understand.

We are not debating here, we are teaching this person.

Right. And I get that you want us to "dumb it down" for him, but I don't feel that's necessary.

[isaone]

Mr. Mxyzptlk I completely agree with Zharvic. Your opening post is simply a huge logical fallacy taken to a little length. Please address his questions or retire from the field. For all the reasons given above, mass belief based in ignorance is only evidence of the ignorance of the believers not evidence of quality of the evidence .

[Zhavric]

Mr. Mxyzptlk I completely agree with Zharvic.

Thanks, man. It's nice to have someone come out for me.

[Derach]

Atheist Superstition # 1. The movement of stars do not impact the way humans act throughout the day. POST #3

Atheist Superstition #2. There is no such thing as evidence that is based on written words or words in general. POST#4

Atheist Superstition #3. The present declaration, which supposes that a claim is not evidence. Darebirth. Current Post

Now, let us see about that last superstition. So, have you never heard about an {eyewitness claim?} Have you never heard that, in this Reality, an eyewitness claim is evidence and therefore may be used as such?

1. Eyewitness identification

2. Police Lineups: Making Eyewitness Identification More Reliable

3. Social Psychology principles can be used to facilitate eyewitness testimony

4. Eyewitness claims religion a motive in New Haven shooting

Superstition 1: ... sort of true. People use the movement of the stars to justify actions they choose to take. Doesn't mean the said movement has an actual causal relationship to events on earth. Just means that people make choices based on their observations of the movement of stars.

Superstition 2: ... I can write anything I want ... doesn't make it evidence. Do you know the difference between an assertion and evidence? If not, just read any grocery store tabloid with headlines like '400 lb baby born in Australia' or 'Aliens control Barack Obama's mind'. It's not evidence, and neither is the Bible. Both are assertions that need evidence to support them.

The only evidence of a written word is that someone wrote something down ... not that the written word is necessarily true. Your assertion would require every work of fiction to be true ... sorry, Steven King novels are not evidence of anything besides a creative mind.

Superstition 3: ... Try going to a court of law and making an unsupport allegation against someone and see if it sticks. Eyewitness testimony is used to support other evidence (like evidence a crime was actually committed). You can't just go to a police station and make an unsubstantiated claim about someone and get them arrested. (at least not in the US).

Now if you had a pile of direct evidence that any of the supernatural occurances claimed in the Bible had happened, it would lend credibility to the book as a whole and all aspects of it should be taken more seriously (still wouldn't be absolute proof that the whole book was true ... but would give you a crutch to stand on at least). No evidence exists and as such, therefore the whole industry of Christianity and religion in general should be treated as no more than a time-consuming (and expensive) hobby that people should absolutely have the freedom to partake in. Regardless of how many billions of people have chosen to participate in it.

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Ok Darebirth, you were sold a bill of goods by your parents. I weep for your shattered illusions.
One interesting factor that may have been overlooked, though. Your parents knew that Santa was a fabrication. How different would your story sound if your parents were as believing as you were?

And does the fact that the parents knew that Santa was a fabrication, mean that there was no {evidence} of Santa? Does the fact that the parents knew that Santa was a fabrication, mean that Darebirth did not receive any {evidence} of a Santa?

What convinces the greater majority of believers is indoctrination as children.

And? What does that have to do with the Atheist claim that there is no {evidence?} Does the indoctrination of the children by the parents mean that {evidence} does not exist? Does indoctrination automatically destroy {evidence?}

What Isn't it rather telling that most people are the religion of their parents?

Again, and? Is the fact that most people are the religion of their parents, mean that there is no {evidence?} what does the fact that most people are the religion of their parents, have to do with the existence of {evidence?}

If you were raised by Hindu parents, there is a good chance that you'd be Hindu also, does this make the Hindu god True?

Again, please go back and re-read the argument. 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} or {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? The question regarding the accuracy of a piece of evidence is another subject.

So, the fact that a thing is not considered by you to be {true,} does not mean that that there exists no evidence of that thing. The fact that you see the Hindu gods as false, does not mean that there exists no evidence of those gods.

There are about 1 billion Hindus so according to your logic, There are about 8 or 9 Hindu Gods. There is another billion Muslims in the world, so the last prophet Mo, must have spoken to god and wrote his book according to your logic. Atheist simply reject these bits of [convincing evidence] and will wait for the real deal to appear to all so we can ALL worship the SAME god, not different interpretations of various gods.

Just because you reject a piece of {convincing evidence,} does not mean that that evidence does not exist and that it does not convince. A piece of evidence does not depend on your acceptance to exist.

Your logic (or lack there of) is astounding.

And your inability to comprehend the argument is also quite astounding.

I expect you to be worshiping all the gods in history starting today, because millions if not billions have believed in thousands of gods through out history.

ItsDarts, isn't this comment an example of one of your fallacies?
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

Again, what is your "convincing evidence" that "a" god exists? Carefull what you say, Thor may bring the hammer of death upon you.

Again, one person’s {convincing evidence} is not another person’s {convincing evidence.} The fact that you are not convinced, does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

By the way, can you find out from your friends why they are no longer posting in the Post, Thoughts, Existence, And Reality?

Don't forget, most people fear death and a god who will let you live forever is an appealing thought to many. This is what causes people to believe. They want to reconnect with dead Aunt sally and Grandma Joan.

And the fact that something is an appealing thought to many, does not mean that {evidence} does not exist. {Evidence} is. It does not depend upon the appealing thought of many for its existence.

Mark Twain said it rather nicely.... Correct me if I screwed up the quote....

"I don't fear death because before now, I've been dead for billions and billions of years and it hasn't been an inconvenience yet and I don't suppose it will be one after I die."

Or something to that effect.

And Mark Twain’s quote does not mean that {evidence does} not exist. {Evidence} does not depend on Mark Twains quote for its existence.

Mr. Mxyzptlk:

Here are the problems with your rebuttal.

1. You're ignoring the appeal to belief fallacy.

1. And so are you. In fact, you an your friend have been for a very long while. But that is for another topic.
   
   

   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.

   Actually, this thread is supposed to be about the {existence of evidence;} specifically, the existence of {convincing evidence.} It just happens to be that the {convincing evidence} is connected to those who believe in God. In other words, the existence of God is not the primary argument of this thread. You and your friends are the ones who are trying to shift the focus and make this thread to primarily be about the existence of God. We are supposed to be arguing about the existence of {evidence.}
   
   

   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.

   Then what does it count as? If lots of people believing that there is a god, doesn't count as a form of evidence, then what does it count as? Now, this is why this question is asked:
   
   The simple fact of the matter is that just because a piece of {evidence} is not {evidence} for you or for what you are trying to prove, does not mean that that piece of {evidence} no longer exists as {evidence.} The reality is that the {evidence} still exists as {evidence.} The only thing is that the {evidence} just does not exist as {evidence for something that you would like to prove.} But this does not mean that it does not exist as {evidence} and therefore can’t be used as evidence for something else. For example:
   
   If this were an argument in which one side is asserting that there exists a large number of people who believe in a God or gods, and another side is asserting that there does not exist a large number of people who believe in a God or gods, then the fact that there are billions upon billions of people who believe in a God or gods may be used as a {form of evidence.}
   And so, to say that a piece of {evidence} is no longer {evidence} just because it may not be {evidence} for you and for what you are trying to prove, is quite laughable. The {evidence} does not solely exist at your behest.
   
   

   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.

[Zhavric]

Mr. Mxyzptlk:

Your rebuttal to my first argument fails because of what I already detailed in the thread. It doesn't matter what your conclusion is. If any part of your argument is a fallacy, it taints your conclusion. You did absolutely nothing to mitigate my (correct) accusation that you're invoking a false argument (fallacy). Furthermore, evidence isn't subjective. There is no such thing as something that's evidence for you, but not for me. Instead, what you've done is re-defined what you'll accept as evidence to include things that aren't evidence. That is yet another fallacy.

Your rebuttal to my second argument was little more than a wordy, " NO U!" To set the score straight, you began this thread by stating there is evidence for god. I challenged your assertion by pointing out that your reasoning is fallacious. It's up to you now to prove your evidence isn't fallacious (it is), provide new evidence (you have none), or concede the debate.

Your rebuttal to my third argument was so inanely stupid that I can only conclude that you have failed horribly at making a joke. Clearly, you're not so far gone as to believe that things like "round" and "flat" are subjective enough to do what you implied. It's also off-topic.

I was so amazed at the wrongness of this next quote, I just had to read it again:

Whether you like it or not, there is {evidence} that a Xenu exists. The fact that hundreds and thousands of Scientoligists are of the mind that Xenu exists, points to the fact that there is evidence of a Xenu. Now, whether the evidence of Xenu’s existence is seen as true or false, is another topic.

So, not only are you stating that there is evidence for Scientology which is very obviously a cult started by L. Ron Hubbard, you've admitted that the appeal to belief fallacy is dependent on how people see the evidence. I can now say with complete authority that my world view is superior to yours. No amount of Tom Cruise-ian idiocy will convince me that the half-baked brainwashing of a sci-fi writer is gospel. Clearly, you are unable to make this same claim.

To your final implication that you have been invoking intellectual honesty, it's very obvious that you're either highly confused about what it means to be honest or you're being deliberately obtuse / lying. Either way, you've lost this debate. I recommend you either embrace intellectual honesty and concede that you were wrong or stop posting to this thread. The worst thing you could do is continue to argue in favor of the op which I have now broken in half over my knee and left in splinters.

[isaone]

"Zharvic Zharvic he's our man , if he can't beat em no one can yaaaaaaaaaaaay ZHARVIC !"

(needless to say I approve this post Mr. M just time to retire )

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

Are you kidding me?

No. Are you kidding me?

I shown pleanty of examples of how it is possible to think something is true despite lack of evidence.

Again, in case you have forgotten, this argument is not about whether or not a claim is seen as true or not. Instead, it is about whether or not the {EVIDENCE} which leads you to conclude that something is true or not, exists. In other words, can you be convinced of something without the existence of any {EVIDENCE?} Can you come to the conclusion that something is true or false without any {EVIDENCE?}

Now, you and the rest of the Atheists seem to be of the mind that such a feat is possible. You all are of the mind that the existence of a piece of {EVIDENCE} depends on your labeling it as truth. Therefore, without your label, in your minds, the {EVIDENCE} fails to exist. What you all are failing to realize is this simple fact: you can’t even begin to label something as true or false without any {EVIDENCE} In other words, you first have to have {EVIDENCE} before you can begin to say that a thing is true or false. The existence of {EVIDENCE} is what leads you to your conclusion of true or false. That is a fundamental fact of Reality. Now, this is not to say that you can’t start the other way around. You can, but you may wind up with a situation like Iraq.


Now, in regards to your current comment. The fact that it is possible to think that something is true despite a{ DEARTH OF EVIDENCE,} means very little. This is because it is also possible for one to think that something is false with {PLENTY OF EVIDENCE.} This fact is seen right on this board: Theists believe that your assertion that there is no God is false. And this belief exists in the face of what you consider to be {AMPLE EVIDENCE} of the non-existence of God. On the other hand, Atheists believe that the Theist’s assertion that there is a God is false. And this belief exists in the face of what Theists consider to be {AMPLE EVIDENCE} of the existence of God.
So, to show us how it is possible to think something is true despite a {DEARTH OF EVIDENCE,} means very little. Again, this is because you can think something is false with appears to be {ample evidence.}

Native Americans wouldn't have large casinos if this were not true.

One of the reasons why Native Americans have large casinos can be traced to the fact that there is {EVIDENCE} that people win money at the casinos. Now, whether or not you believe that people are able to win at those casinos or that the evidence of those winnings are plentiful or lacking, does not erase the fact that the {EVIDENCE} exists. Your belief or lack thereof, does not destroy the existence of the {EVIDENCE} that says that people win money at the casinos.

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.

One of the reasons why you see contestants on deal or no deal saying "if you believe then you will receive," can be traced to the fact that there is {EVIDENCE} that suggests that if you believe then you will receive. Now again, whether or not you believe that the people who believe are able to receive, does not erase the fact that the {EVIDENCE.} Your belief or lack thereof, does not destroy the existence of the {EVIDENCE} that says that if you believe then you will receive.

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.

Again, this is what you claimed: “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.” POST#3

Even without mentioning the sun, there are so many other ways to prove that that statement is not based on the facts of this Reality.

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.

Rez, the point of the matter is this: the 1 time that an individual wins while sitting in a certain seat is {EVIDENCE} It is {EVIDENCE} to the individual who sat in that certain seat, that when he/she sat there, he/she won. He/she may have visited the casino for hundreds of times and may have never won until they sat in that certain seat. And so, as a result of that win, they may have concluded that sitting in the seat was the primary factor behind their win.

Now, here is the thing: the fact that the individual may have ignored all of the other factors which were involved in that win, does not mean that the factor of being positioned in that chair was not involved in the win.
So, it may not be enough {EVIDENCE} to convince you that sitting in a certain position will cause you to win, but that does not mean that it is not enough {EVIDENCE} to convince another individual. And, it does not mean that there is nor {EVIDENCE.} You cannot dismiss and label the {EVIDENCE} as non-existent just because you do not approve of it. Actually you can if you like. No one is there to stop you. Who taught you all how to do scientific observation?

By the way, random is subjective.

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

Please. You still haven’t been able to proved that.

Secondly, faith in a certain area is there as a result of {EVIDENCE.} So, here is the thing that you and the rest don‘t seem to understand: You can have {EVIDENCE} without faith, but you can’t have faith without {EVIDENCE.}. EVIDENCE is. EVIDENCE does not need you to believe to be what it is. Now, it may need your belief to exist as a certain type of {EVIDENCE,} but as far as existing as itself, it does not need your belief.

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

And? Is this supposed to say something? This stands for anything that you wish to follow. Who has ever heard of following without faith? Atheism is followed or bought into as a result of faith. You believe that there is no God, so you follow or buy into Atheism. That is what your faith is and that is what you follow.

[Jack]

Atheism is followed or bought into as a result of faith. You believe that there is no God, so you follow or buy into Atheism. That is what your faith is and that is what you follow.

Your conclusion is in error as it's based on a lack of understanding of the atheist's stance.

[stardust]

OH wow. People comparing God to Bigfoots and faith to superstition. And then the actual argument was a fallacy the whole time. Holy cow, holy...
God is a bit too much elusive, and we are still human beings.

[rez]

No. Are you kidding me?

Cool, a legit response.

Again, in case you have forgotten, this argument is not about whether or not a claim is seen as true or not. Instead, it is about whether or not the {EVIDENCE} which leads you to conclude that something is true or not, exists. In other words, can you be convinced of something without the existence of any {EVIDENCE?} Can you come to the conclusion that something is true or false without any {EVIDENCE?}

Yes, I am well aware sir.

Now, in regards to your current comment. The fact that it is possible to think that something is true despite a{ DEARTH OF EVIDENCE,} means very little. This is because it is also possible for one to think that something is false with {PLENTY OF EVIDENCE.} This fact is seen right on this board: Theists believe that your assertion that there is no God is false. And this belief exists in the face of what you consider to be {AMPLE EVIDENCE} of the non-existence of God. On the other hand, Atheists believe that the Theist’s assertion that there is a God is false. And this belief exists in the face of what Theists consider to be {AMPLE EVIDENCE} of the existence of God.
So, to show us how it is possible to think something is true despite a {DEARTH OF EVIDENCE,} means very little. Again, this is because you can think something is false with appears to be {ample evidence.}

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,

maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,

who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From thence He will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

the holy Christian[13] Church,

the communion of saints,

the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.


Yes, of course, there is ample evidence for this. I am one of those people who purposely denies there is any evidence at all. I just hate looking at claims that have ample evidence and totally ignoring the truth.

One of the reasons why Native Americans have large casinos can be traced to the fact that there is {EVIDENCE} that people win money at the casinos.

great reach. While some win, most lose. and winning is never consistent.It is all a gamble based on randomness.

Now, whether or not you believe that people are able to win at those casinos or that the evidence of those winnings are plentiful or lacking, does not erase the fact that the {EVIDENCE} exists. Your belief or lack thereof, does not destroy the existence of the {EVIDENCE} that says that people win money at the casinos.

Of course, some people win money at casinos. The point is they win it based on pure randomness. Thm praying, and petting their troll had absolutely no effect on it. This is a fact because, they never win consistently, in fact they lose more often.

Your belief or lack thereof, does not destroy the existence of the {EVIDENCE} that says that if you believe then you will receive.

Look buddy. If you believe then you will receive. People always seem to believe, but it shows that people don't tend to receive all the time.

If you believe, then you shall receive at random times?

And so, as a result of that win, they may have concluded that sitting in the seat was the primary factor behind their win.

Even if they actually lose most of the time...........

Now, here is the thing: the fact that the individual may have ignored all of the other factors which were involved in that win, does not mean that the factor of being positioned in that chair was not involved in the win.
So, it may not be enough {EVIDENCE} to convince you that sitting in a certain position will cause you to win, but that does not mean that it is not enough {EVIDENCE} to convince another individual. And, it does not mean that there is nor {EVIDENCE.} You cannot dismiss and label the {EVIDENCE} as non-existent just because you do not approve of it. Actually you can if you like. No one is there to stop you. Who taught you all how to do scientific observation?

There is no evidence that the chair has any correlation with the winning.

you can’t have faith without {EVIDENCE.}.

I go to the dictionary to learn the meaning of words.

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof:

You believe that there is no God, so you follow or buy into Atheism. That is what your faith is and that is what you follow.

As I said before. I do not hope and wish god does not exist. That would be a completely backwards thing to do.

Now if you want to contend that I am willfully skeptical, meaning that I will deny convincing evidence just because I hate the idea of billions of people believing in god and because I hate the idea of god, then that is your intention. You need to show us how and why I would intentional deny the existence of god. You would have to show us that I am willing to reject ideas that are fruitful and worth while.

[minorwork]

How were billions upon billions of people convinced of the existence of God without any convincing evidence?

Doesn't seem that they can.

How can one have belief in an object without first having any evidence of that object?

A physical object? If so, then evidence is needed. If not physical, then evidence is needed though I think the two will take different forms.

If you aren't David Berlinski, I'd like to see you and him on opposing sides in some debate, say creation v evolution. I think I would enjoy that.

You have spoken of 'evidence' and 'convincing evidence.' I am confused as to the distinction in use between the two. For that matter I am confused as to how loosely you would use the term evidence. A dream, whereupon a talking rabbit indicates 666 is the winning lotto number for the 'pick three' game, is evidence, isn't it? If each of a billion people presented the same dream of the rabbit as evidence for believing in 666 as the winning number I would would investigate the phenomena. Even if the winning number was 731 and they were all wrong the phenomena begs for an explanation.

But if there were a billion different evidences for believing 666 was to be a winner, I would still think of something going on beyond coincidence. I would investigate the phenomena of 'belief.' And its negation 'non-belief.'

For some strange reason I am drawn to the phenomena of the 'placebo effect' regarding the subject matter being discussed. That is, the topic which I think deals with the meaning of 'evidence', 'convincing evidence', their negations, and how what is convincing to one is not convincing to another.

Could the placebo effect have any bearing on this discussion? I think so.