What Would Constitute As Evidence

99 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

"pathological need for negative attention"
I did not realize that about myself.
I will have to talk to my Psychiatrist about it.

I will say that many on AR are very generous in giving me negative attention. (humor and sarcasm)

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

It seems like we are just going in circles.

Dang, I made a long post trying to simplify things to avoid this. Are you sure we are going in circles? I thought we were making progress. Perhaps we are going in circles because you have yet to, after multiple request by me to specify your god idea?

Maybe this will help me see if I am understanding you correctly.

"God is very likely made up by humans."
If he is very likely made up by humans than it is very likely fiction.
If it is very likely fiction, than it very likely does not exists.

Technically yes, this is a part of what I am saying. I would add to this part:
The god idea by itself its already extremely unlikely to exist, (1 of nearly infinite "possibilities" when not constrained by reality) then when you factor in that humans are capable of fiction, and all god thoughts stem solely from humans, (that are capable of fiction) makes the idea that much more unlikely to be reality. Especially when you realize how much the folks that lie or perpetuate the lie at the top benefit from this. All the indications are there the various god ideas are a really bad idea to explore as a possible reality, then you consider on top of all that, billions of people have been exploring the god idea for thousands of years and still come up with nothing more than just talk/written word from humans, humans, a very unreliable source for multiple reasons beyond just capability of lying, and greed.

How is one a belief and the other not?

This must of been already said to you a dozen times and yet you still refuse to even acknowledge it.
1.) the negation of a belief and a belief are not the same, one (should be obvious) is the opposite of the other, not the same.
2.) Even if were to erroneously declare the belief of and not the same thing (instead of opposites) the lack of belief side actually has mountains of evidence for it, where the other side has none, zero, zip, nada. The lack of belief in god is the far superior position to the belief in god side due to the weight of available evidence. We apply this basic logic/reasoning to most everything in life when we have to make a decision, where we weight the known factors as best as we can.

This is my atheist position as short as possible:
We weigh all the available evidence, facts, and what is known about whether to believe in a god or not. After doing that measure overwhelmingly, far beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, the answer is to not believe in a god/religion.

Does science confirm one of the above statements and deny the other?

Oh wow, you are right, we are going in circles, of one you created. You already asked this question, and I already answered, I need more information.

I even went above and beyond for you and told you how to find out for yourself how I would answer that question.

If all you got in response is to repeat the circle, does that concern you at all about your current beliefs? Questions you cannot answer and instead try various ways to ignore it or make it look like their is still a debate when you have been stopped cold by one simple response to your question?

Jo's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

You say God very likely does not exist.
I say God very likely does exist.

"This is my atheist position as short as possible:
We weigh all the available evidence, facts, and what is known about whether to believe in a god or not. After doing that measure overwhelmingly, far beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, the answer is to not believe in a god/religion."

This is my theist position as short as possible:
I weigh all the available evidence, facts, and what is known about whether to believe in a god or not. After doing that measure overwhelmingly, far beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, the answer is to believe in God.

You are trying to make one a fact and another a faith.

I negate your belief that God very likely does not exist.

Sheldon's picture
Jo "This is my theist

Jo "This is my theist position as short as possible:
I weigh all the available evidence, facts, "

You have offered not one shred of evidence, and have presented not one single fact Jo, this is an oft repeated lie Jo, shame on you.

Jo "I negate your belief that God very likely does not exist."

Another vapid unevidenced claim.

Cognostic's picture
Jo: Cognitive Dissonance

Jo: Cognitive Dissonance gone fucking insane.

Please cite the facts and evidence you are using for the Theist position.

Webster:
Definition of fact
1a: something that has actual existence
space exploration is now a fact
b: an actual occurrence
prove the fact of damage
2: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
These are the hard facts of the case.
3: the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
a question of fact hinges on evidence

LogicFTW's picture
@Jo

@Jo

I weigh all the available evidence, facts, and what is known about whether to believe in a god or not. After doing that measure overwhelmingly, far beyond any sort of reasonable doubt, the answer is to believe in God.

How did you arrive at that with zero evidence outside of what other people told you or wrote? And if that is all you need, how come you don't send me a check for 1 million dollars?

You are trying to make one a fact and another a faith.

Yep exactly. One is a fact based conclusion and the other is faith (that other people are not lying to you.. which seems pretty stupid to me!)

I negate your belief that God very likely does not exist.

No you don't.
If it was a popular vote, maybe. But that is not what this is. This is about conclusions based on evidence and facts or not. Your conclusion is not based on evidence of fact, where mine is.

Jo's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

You can negate my beliefs and conclusion, but I cannot negate yours?

David Killens's picture
@Jo

@Jo

No, you can't Jo, not by your unsubstantiated appeals. Not since the church lost it's ability to be cruel to anyone who opposed them.

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.”

― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

LogicFTW's picture
Never said my "belief"

@Jo
Never said my "belief" negates yours.

I just stated that i examined the evidence on whether to believe in a god or not. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of not believing in a god. (any)

Jo's picture
@ LogicFTW

@ LogicFTW

I negate your belief that "the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of not believing in a god. (any)"
I don't believe that and could say the opposite. as below.

I examined the evidence on whether to believe in a god or not. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of believing in a God.

Cognostic's picture
Jo: I examined the evidence

Jo: I examined the evidence on whether to believe in a god or not. And the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of believing in a God.

You are demonstrably wrong. How long have you been on the site. Please give us the objective, empirical evidence you have for God. I am betting you come up with absolutely NOTHING AT ALL THAT CAN BE VALIDATED/ NOTHING,

Jo's picture
@ Cognostic

@ Cognostic

"objective, empirical evidence you have for God."
Is that how you answer the God question?
Are you starting with presuppositions?

Can you, who are 99.999% certain there is no God, validate your claim with "objective, empirical evidence you have for (no) God"?
Not the evidence of absence fallacy you have given before.
We are talking about God, not a bear in a cave.
Not meaningless claims that include 10,000 years.

Cognostic's picture
Jo: Go read the post you

Jo: Go read the post you cherry picked the 99.99% from. My methodology is explained completely. "Lack of Evidence is evidence of nothing there." NULL-HYPOTHESIS. This is how science works. There is no point in believing a claim until that claim is evidenced. 10,000 years with no evidence of God is evidence enough for me. THERE IS NO FALLACY - This is exactly how science works. If a scientist makes a claim, then does an experiment to test the claim, he does not keep doing the same experiment over and over and over ad infintum to see if the claim can eventually be validated. Don't be stupid/ If you have some objective empirical evidence as you said you have, stop shifting the burden of proof and lets hear it. THERE IS NO FALLACY IN THE BEAR CAVE ANALOGY. It fully admits that we can not know everything for certain and it fully covers all known evidence for the existence of God. Now, if you have something we have not yet heard of, let's hear it. QUIT YOUR BULLSHIT TACTICS AND POST THE FUCKING EVIDENCE OR YOU CAN JUST ASSERT A SECOND APOLOGY FOR BEING WRONG AGAIN.

Kataclismic's picture
You first find evidence and

You first find evidence and build a conclusion that fits that evidence, that's how science works. Taking a conclusion and asking what evidence would support it is how religion works.

Cognostic's picture
@All... Look at it this way.

@All... Look at it this way. If we get rid of our gods, then we have nothing to talk about and eventually will no longer need our mouths or brains to think logically. God is doing us a favor by staying mysterious and allowing us to use logic and critical thinking to try and disprove his existence. Besides that, what God would we actually be getting rid of. The sly Christians have been keeping real evidence of their God secret. All we have are straw man versions of the Christian version of God and all other religions on the planet have followed suit. It's like a spiritual shell game. How in the hell are we supposed to find the right god to eliminate? Professor and Researcher, the Great Ken Hamm has often warned us not to medal in Biblical things less the wrath of god fall upon us all. Cancer is a prime example of God's wrath. Each year he warns us against blasphemy with the flu seasons. Those who do not listen will catch the evil cancer and die. Jesus is coming some day to take his own, that someday will arrive some day and then on that day all nonbelievers will be washed away in the fire promised by Revelation. You either go to heaven or hell on that day. There are no other options as all other gods, theories, and postulates are false. I laugh at the idea presented by Atheists. that you just die and rot in the ground. IDIOTS, it is a scientific fact that hair continues to grow after death. This would not be possible without a spirit. IDIOTS. Jesus causes the sun to rise, the earth to rotate and the clouds to pass by. There is no other mystical cause for such things so it must be Jesus. Believe now or perish in the eternal flames of Hell. Your flesh will be burned off each day and regrown to face a new day of torment torture and pain. Repent, repent repent! No one has ever seen the power of god so it must be real, It is the force or energy in all things and that which holds all things together. Only Fools can deny this. Only the damned will not change their minds and hearts before the Rapture. Only True Christians understand the message I type for the truth is in the meaning and not just the words. Only those properly prepared and who properly understand the message will be saved. Have no non-believers as friends less that rapture day come and you are mistaken for one of them. Simply being in the proximity of a sinner is enough to have your eternal soul destroyed and sent to the pits of hell where the righteous, those who had no non-believing friends will never hear your voice. You will be one of the lost. One of the damned. One of the suffering. Forever and ever. Everyone knows this to be true. WAKE UP - The world is a religious world. Most of the people know that Gods exist. WAKE UP It is not a mistake that human kind has always had gods. They know there is a god out there but the only problem they have is Satan Confusing them. They can not find the right god. This is because they do not read the Bible. There is only one god and there is only one book and the Bible Tells Them So. So fuck the non-believing idiotic, unthinking, ignorant, pseudo-scientific non-believers who are as worthless as the lowest form of life on the planet. The wombat. The Wombat who has a meaningless existence eating grubs and pooping out useless squares of poo for no reason at all, other than the fact that he can. The only animal on the planet that has practice and evolved to pump out square poos. What a fucking useless animal. Just like the non-believers.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "The Wombat who has

@Cog Re: "The Wombat who has a meaningless existence eating grubs and pooping out useless squares of poo for no reason at all, other than the fact that he can. The only animal on the planet that has practice and evolved to pump out square poos. What a fucking useless animal."

...*tapping Cog on shoulder*... Ummm... Hey, Cog, uh, actually the wombat may not be as useless as you claim. I mean, that square poop can be used for a variety of practical things. For instance, I built a really nice bread box with a bunch of wombat poop I collected over the course of several months. Those little blocks of poop are very uniform and easy to work with. Just a couple of boxes of toothpicks to connect them all together in the required shape, and then a couple of coats of shellac and - PRESTO! - a handy little bread box. Sure, you could paint it if you like, but I prefer the natural color. Gives it a more "earthy" look. Oh, and feel free to come on over for a visit when you get a chance. I can make us a couple of sandwiches for lunch.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog
Wombats do not eat grubs. Wombats spend between 3 and 8 hours each night grazing on their favourite food, which is native grasses such as the tussocky 'snow grass', wallaby grass and kangaroo grass. They will also eat sedges and the roots of shrubs and trees.

So the rest of your rant is dismissed.

Tin man! YO! TIN MAN!...get the meds...Cog's off again...

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: "Tin man! YO!

@Old Man Re: "Tin man! YO! TIN MAN!...get the meds...Cog's off again.."

...*whispering*... shhhhh.... keep it down. i've got it covered. i slipped a little something into his banana daiquiri a little while ago. he should be conked out in a moment or two, and then he can sleep it off once we are able to inject him with his meds.

Cognostic's picture
@Old man shouts ...: Grazing

@Old man shouts ...: Grazing? Nights? WTF! No wonder my wombat is dying!
I have been taking it to the beach with me and feeding it sand crabs. FUCK!

Cognostic's picture
MY GOD! I JUST REREAD MY

MY GOD! I JUST REREAD MY WALL OF TEXT. IT IS ACTUALLY SCARY. I SOUND SO MUCH LIKE A THEIST THAT I NEARLY CONVINCED MYSELF I WAS ONE. WHAT A WALL OF RAMBLING HORSESHIT.

Cognostic's picture
Who is the idiot that things

Who is the idiot that things I am being serious in this thread???

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
@ Cog

@ Cog

Me! Me! Pick me! .....Oh........

Cognostic's picture
@Old man shouts ... Wobat

@Old man shouts ... Wobat Care. You know. If you put suntan lotion on a wombat it doesn't help. The damn thing still just turns pink, dries up. and lies there.

On a side note: Anyone interested in a weeks supply of Beef Jerky? While I was planning a camping trip, something came up, and no I find myself with a bit extra. A one week supply can be sent to the highest bidder.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: "Anyone interested

@Cog Re: "Anyone interested in a weeks supply of Beef Jerky?"

Not really. But I could supply you some bread to make jerky sandwiches. My new bread box keeps it very fresh.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I genuinely have no idea what

I genuinely have no idea what would constitute as evidence for me.

For some reason, I cannot even conjure up an idea to what even be conceivable.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The spontaneous healing

The spontaneous healing (restoration) of amputated/missing limbs during a religious ceremony would get my attention.

Cognostic's picture
@Nyarlathotep: If they

@Nyarlathotep: If they could re-hydrate and re-animate my wombat I would be a believer.

A Gnostic Agnostic's picture
What would you think would be

What would you think would be a rational and fair description of something that could pass as some kind of evidence?
______________________________________________________________________________________________

The problem is not that of evidence, it is of appreciation for it if given method. If one has evidence of (finding) god, if even giving it, one who does not appreciate evidence/method (especially if it undermines their own "belief") stand to gain nothing but revealing their own polarizations.

For example, if one were contemplating advancing an atheist argument that god *does* actually exist (yes, an atheist affirmative argument), but argues it is not an entity or a being to be "believed" in at all (because there is a fundamental problem with "belief") a "believer" might immediately dismiss such an evidence/method on the grounds of "but muh belief...". Such is a product of ignorance - two ears to every mouth, and a subjecting to the conscience is needed before emotional outbreaks. The conscience is a superior faculty to the emotions: it has the ability to employ logic/rationalizations which resolve negative emotions (actually invert them).

To eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, one must:
i. first "believe" in the real (ie. manifest) existence of a dichotomous dipole polarity of (so-called) good and evil, and
ii. "believe" to objectively know either good/evil accordingly (esp. according to a "belief"-based dogma)

which produces any conceivable "us vs. them" mindset/emotion/action product. That is, all eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil are necessarily "believers", but not all "believers" are necessarily eaters of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is possible to "believe" in things that, when elaborated, do not produce the "us vs. them" dichotomy. It is possible to "properly" eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil without succumbing to the "us vs. them" polarization (that certainly ends in conflict/death) which is equivalent to the eating from the tree of life - no polarization, thus never being subject to (fear of) death.

In the physical, this does not translate to never being subject to physical death: no, there are material laws that can not be transcended. Life evolves over billions of years (relative to a theoretical outside observer) and human beings are biological life subject to physical death, and this is immutable. However, the inner experience is reflected on the outer. The never-being-subject-to-death is in relation to fear of death (Judaism: "fear of god is the beginning of wisdom", which is half-true but incomplete - better is "understanding fear (of god) is the beginning of wisdom" wherein "god" is a known) because of a knowledge that, when discovered, alleviates all fear. The solution is in 'I am that I am' wherein 'that' is boundlessness and each 'I am' is a will of bestowal (ie. male) and reception (ie. female). And each/every 'I am...' is that: I am plus whatever else is piled on top of that as a product of "belief"-based identity/karma and/or ones own eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. They are the same concept viewed from two different pantheons, but these concepts overlap as one gets closer to the resolution of all conflict.

The Hebrew (plural) word for 'GOD' contains three characteristics:

el - "towardness" (male)
oh - conduit
im - sea/expanse (female)

roughly "towardness" in/of sea, as in the case of a tadpole swimming in a fluid. The first product of Elohim is contained in Genesis 1:3

And saying elohim (shared will; declaring such to be so)
Let be light, (masc. bestowal)
and light was. (fem. reception).

which creates a relationship:

reciprocity of the bestowal and reception principle in perpetuity

i. There is a shared 'will' (conduit/exchange)
ii. There is a 'will' to willingly give (bestow)
iii. There is a 'will' to willingly receive (receive)

So in 'I am that I am' the 'that' is any (any) willed-for object conceived of between the two shared wills. When these two shared wills learn to balance good and evil between themselves while focusing on that object, they have the power to manifest it as they become 'like' elohim: knowing good and evil. This is because there... might be... a primordial dichotomous dipole that operates outside of "time" such that it is ever-accessible and ever-present. Therefor, the state of all-knowing is the same thing as all-knowing who/what/where/why/when/how (ie. conscience) *not* to "believe" and become "bound to believe" something that is not true, as in the case of "believers" who "believe" good is evil and/or evil is good because they eat from the wrong tree. This is where polarization and "us vs. them" comes from.

The point is: "belief" in god is rendered obsolete entirely, and the "belief"-based religions (ie. patriarchal institutions) would likewise be rendered so. It is for this reason they have people attack/silence me - such understanding can not be withstood by the "belief"-based religious institutions that rely exclusively on "belief" "belief" and more "belief". There is an alternative: that is, to "know" the who/what/where/why/when/how and if *not* to "believe", and all that is needed to know this is inside of 'I am'. The rest is not needed, and temporary anyways.

TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I'm still unsure to what

I'm still unsure to what would actually convince me to believe.

However, having a multitude of books by varying archaic cultures, certainly makes the notion more unconvincing.

None of these 'sacred' books teach us anything of great note, like germ theory, quantum physics, how to cure future ailments/diseases.

It is a collection of myths and superstitions, passed on from parent to child.

Ricardo's picture
Would this matter fall within

Would this matter fall within the purview of science?

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.