Faith And Convincing Evidence

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

By successfully placing the burden of proof upon the Theists, over many years the Atheists and their Position on the non-existence of God have managed to escape close scrutiny. And during this period of escape, they have been able to buttress those Positions with some interesting suppositions And with those suppositions in hand, they have, with some degree of success, been able to paint themselves as {reasonable} and {logical} and the Theists as {unreasonable} and {illogical.}

So, while having a nice little debate with Jack in the thread A Gospel Challenge, what should happen other than the presentation of one of these little suppositions. In an attempt to support his Position on the non-existence of God, Jack on a couple of occasions supposed that the Theists do not have and have not offered any {convincing evidence} to support their contentions that god or a God exists. Jack’s POST# 9 AND POST # 14

From Post #9
“Atheists refuse to blindly accept unsupported propositions. We prefer to understand reality in its natural state rather than project imaginary and magical beliefs onto it. Nature offers evidence of its processes. Religion doesn't. Religion requires acceptance on faith alone, offering no objective evidence of its validity. The evidence in nature leads to natural conclusions to those who haven't already reached the "god" conclusion, which distorts their perception of the evidence. Preconceived notions hamper honest inquiry.”

From Post #14
“ The only thing I can fairly deny is that theists have offered any convincing evidence to support their contentions. I grew out of religion, growing in knowledge and the appreciation for reality.”

Now, let’s begin to closely examine those suppositions.

One of the first things that we must remember is that there are billions upon billions of individuals who have come to believe in the existence of gods or a God. In other words, somehow or another, 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. This is a fact of reality that should not be denied and it should not be ignored. But of course, just as with anything else in Reality, you are free to cherry pick and therefore deny and ignore those billions upon billions of individuals.

Now, what does the evidence that we see manifested in the billions upon billions of Theists tell us ? Well, it can tell us many things, but here are a couple of facts that we can glean and highlight from that manifestation:

First, it tells us, that the statement that says that there is no evidence or {convincing evidence,} can be said to be categorically false. This is because, as one examines, they must ask themselves these questions: If there is no evidence or {convincing evidence,} then why, in one shape or another are there billions upon billions of people who are {convinced} of something that supposedly has no {convincing evidence?} Are the handful of Atheists right in their portrayal of all of these individuals as just plain old delusional and ignorant people?

Secondly, the evidence of the billions upon billions of Theist, should tell us that a certain level of subjectivity must be involved. This is because, as one takes another look around the world, there is also evidence which appears in the form of Jack and other people who are said not to believe in God. In other words, as we look around the world, we will see that there are at least two groups of people present. In one group we have those who are {convinced} by some evidence that there is a God. And in the other group we have those who are {convinced} by some evidence that there is no God.


And so, here are the main proposals of this current examination of the Jack and the Atheist’s primary supposition:

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.

2. The fact that that there are those who have not been convinced, does not mean that there is no {convincing evidence.} This is because, the simple fact of the matter is that a {convincing} piece of evidence is subjective. So the fact that you have not been {convinced} by a piece of evidence, does not negate the Reality that we see in the billions upon billions of people who were and who are {convinced} by that piece of evidence

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.

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?

[Zhavric]

One of the first things that we must remember is that there are billions upon billions of individuals who have come to believe in the existence of gods or a God.

This is the appeal to belief fallacy.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

1. The statement that there is no {convincing evidence} can be said to be categorically false.

I note how you make this claim, yet fail utterly to provide any of this evidence. Your argument is exactly the same as winding the clock back and stating, "There are millions of people who know the Earth is flat, so there must be evidence out there that the world is flat."

2. The fact that that there are those who have not been convinced, does not mean that there is no {convincing evidence.}

Agreed. The fact that there is no convincing evidence is the reason there is no convincing evidence.

how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence.

That's what we as atheists keep asking you as theists. Read your post again. notice how there isn't a scrap of evidence in it? Anywhere?

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

By using the faulty logical tools that you exhibited earlier. By invoking special pleadings for your belief system. No matter how many people believe in Bigfoot, you'd likely not be convinced without some form of evidence. Why aren't you willing to invoke that same level of honesty for your religion?

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

Now that we've eliminated your alleged evidence as a fallacy, what is your evidence for your god?

[rez]

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?

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.

[rez]

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?

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

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.

[Jinei]

This is the appeal to belief fallacy.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

I note how you make this claim, yet fail utterly to provide any of this evidence. Your argument is exactly the same as winding the clock back and stating, "There are millions of people who know the Earth is flat, so there must be evidence out there that the world is flat."



Agreed. The fact that there is no convincing evidence is the reason there is no convincing evidence.



That's what we as atheists keep asking you as theists. Read your post again. notice how there isn't a scrap of evidence in it? Anywhere?



By using the faulty logical tools that you exhibited earlier. By invoking special pleadings for your belief system. No matter how many people believe in Bigfoot, you'd likely not be convinced without some form of evidence. Why aren't you willing to invoke that same level of honesty for your religion?



Now that we've eliminated your alleged evidence as a fallacy, what is your evidence for your god?

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

[rez]

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

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

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

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.

[Zhavric]

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

Of course. There's another debate website similar to this one where there are a number of theists (Christians) who are keenly aware of logical fallacies and would never resort to an appeal to belief fallacy.

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

Because people routinely believe in things that aren't true. And bigfoot is a tired old argument. That's why I used it. I don't bring my A game for light work.

[Darebirth]

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.

When I was a child, my parents told me thhat a man named Santa Claus from the North Pole would come to our house and leave presents. That is not evidence, that is a claim. They did not provide any evidence, but I beleived it, as I'm sure most of you who were raised in Christian households did, because I was a child and I didn't know any better, and I liked the idea of a big happy fat man who gave out free toys.

I never questioned this Santa character because when Christmas came around, the presents were under the tree. This evidence would seem to support the claim made by my parents, but in fact the claim my parents had made in the first place was false.

When I was about 9 or 10 years old and of more intelligence, I began to wonder things like "How do Santa's reindeer fly?" and "How can he visit every house in the world in one night?" These things seemed inconsistent, so the next Christmas, I pretended to be asleep until I heard the front door open. I stayed at the top of the stairs and saw my parents bringing in the presents and putting them under the tree.

I was rather upset by this, not because this santa character wasn't real, but because my parents and lied to me and I had been stupidly playing along for almost 8 years. But I learned a few things.

1. Not everything everybody tells you is true.
2. Even if you truly beleive with all your heart that something is real, you can still be wrong.
3. Misleading evidence exists but if the claim or basis for which the evidence is being presented is false, the evidence can be disregarded.

[Tycoon]

When I was about 9 or 10 years old and of more intelligence, I began to wonder things like "How do Santa's reindeer fly?" and "How can he visit every house in the world in one night?"

That reminds me of when I questioned the Easter Bunny. I wondered why the grocery store sold Easter baskets.

[wyoguy]

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?

[Mr. Mxyzptlk]

This is the appeal to belief fallacy.

Appeal to Belief is a fallacy that has this general pattern:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.

This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

Here is the first major problem with your argument: you have failed to comprehend what you have read. How can you even think to argue when you have failed to comprehend what the argument is about?

Now, as a result of your first mistake, you have incorrectly assumed that the argument is based on the truth or accuracy of a claim. Memo: 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.

So, if you are of the mind that there is no {convincing evidence,} then you have to prove how it is possible to be convinced of something without any evidence.


Secondly, since you like to use X’s and O’s, maybe you can answer a little question: If X is anything other than itself and nothing, then can you please tell us what X is?

I note how you make this claim, yet fail utterly to provide any of this evidence.

The evidence has already been provided for you. The billions upon billions of people who are convinced by some evidence that there is a God, is evidence that there exists {convincing evidence.}

Your argument is exactly the same as winding the clock back and stating, "There are millions of people who know the Earth is flat, so there must be evidence out there that the world is flat."

The earth is round and flat. The earth exists in more than one dimension. Next question?

Agreed. The fact that there is no convincing evidence is the reason there is no convincing evidence.

Again, the fact that that you and your friends have not been convinced, does not mean that there is no {convincing evidence.}

That's what we as atheists keep asking you as theists. Read your post again. notice how there isn't a scrap of evidence in it? Anywhere?

Actually, maybe you should read the post and comprehend what the argument is about.

Secondly, there is plenty of evidence; you just fail to recognize it. Or, it may be that you are refusing to recognize it.

By using the faulty logical tools that you exhibited earlier.

{Faulty} is subjective.

By invoking special pleadings for your belief system. No matter how many people believe in Bigfoot, you'd likely not be convinced without some form of evidence. Why aren't you willing to invoke that same level of honesty for your religion?

It’s probably because Bigfoot exists. The fact that we are sitting here talking about Bigfoot, means that Bigfoot exists. The fact that there are people who believe in Bigfoot, means that Bigfoot exists.

Now that we've eliminated your alleged evidence as a fallacy, what is your evidence for your god?

Actually, you haven’t eliminated anything. You have to first be able to comprehend what the argument is about before you can eliminate anything. Don’t you think, that before you can label something a fallacy, you should at least comprehend that which you are attempting to label?

[ItsDarts]

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.

What convinces the greater majority of believers is indoctrination as children. Isn't it rather telling that most people are the religion of their parents? 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? 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.

Your logic (or lack there of) is 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.

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

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.

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.