Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Beth]

Actually, as I understood it, she actually DID use this very line of reasoning to accept these examples as true (that it is reasonable for people to draw the conclusion that leprechauns and other such things exist, as long as there are enough cultural myths about the creature in question in the place where they live) in another thread. Go figure

Geemack has apparently confusing 'valid' reasoning with 'true' .

Valid reasoning means the conclusions follow from the premises assumed. True requires that the premises can be verified as well as the reasoning valid. I accept that for many people, given their assumptions and personal experiences, their conclusions regarding such things as ESP are valid. That I am willing to recognize the validity of their reasoning process does not imply that I accept their assumptions as true.

His last two examples are specious and meant to antagonize those who disagree with him. He's baiting me and I'm not biting.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

There have been some experiments that suggest certain neural correlates for mystical or god-experiences. Does this imply that some god exists? Or that no god exists? The questions remain unanswered and, IMO, unanswerable. People assume the conclusion they wish to adopt.

I think you are assuming too much when claiming the question unanswerable. First, we can try to validate or rule out potential external god-influences – like ruling out that a blue object doesn’t generate the experience of red (i.e. mapping out some possibilities in the general sense). Second, we can see if god-experiences are always generated in the same area or according to matching processes in the brain. Bit by bit we’re gaining knowledge whether god-experiences are only internal processes or if they also require external stimuli. From there we can move onwards etc. I think it’s far too early to say anything definitive about it, especially rule it out.

Correct, you don't have to assume non-existance a priori. As I have pointed out to cyborg, it is a subjective judgement call. You can assume existance instead.

I quite agree. In scientific experiments, the general procedure is to assume the opposite of what you wish to conclude (this becomes the null hypothesis) and try to show it false. This cannot be done for the question of the existance of god. The null cannot be rejected, regardless of which stance you choose as your null.

I would say you needn’t assume either position a priori. You evaluate the interpretation and the evidence and then you make a conclusion, or not. “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” however.

Odd, they don't see to find it a problem. It's only the atheists who have a problem with a priori god-beliefs. As I said earlier, people assume the conclusion they wish to adopt. As far as a non-biased interpretation of the evidence - what would that be? That they are mistaken about their conclusion? That seems just as biased to me as assuming the opposite, that they are not mistaken.

Again, you don’t always need to acquire the opposite stance. You can see where the evidence leads you, starting out from no-position, and see what the most reasonable conclusion might be. This is the same as when someone claiming to have experienced something you haven’t thought about before, so, you have no-position before you hear about it, thereafter you consider if it’s a reasonable interpretation and conclusion or if there could be some other explanation, and finally you arrive at some conclusion of your own (or you leave the case open when data is insufficient).

Your choice of the a priori assumption is a value judgement. You can claim one is more 'rational' than the other, but then that becomes a value judgement regarding what is rational and what is not It is also rational to accept what numerous other human beings have experienced and how they have interpreted their experiences.

It’s not a value judgement. It’s simply not rational to have an a priori assumption towards something that’s not known. Bronze Age people didn’t have an a priori value judgement towards the existence of black holes.

Since one assumption or another must be made in order to conduct any investigation and whichever one is made will bias the results, the only 'unbiased' approach I'm acquainted with is to try out both assumptions and see if one can be rejected. When I take this approach, neither of those a priori assumptions can be falsified. So people assume the conclusion they wish to adopt.

I cannot falsify the assumption that there exists a purple frog in the centre of some galaxy; I don’t think it’s likely thou. It would be irrational to believe that, despite it being non-falsifiable. There have to be a reason for me to believe that in the first place, something more than a weird dream or experience. The same goes for god-beliefs.

 

[Beth]

I think you are assuming too much when claiming the question unanswerable. First, we can try to validate or rule out potential external god-influences – like ruling out that a blue object doesn’t generate the experience of red (i.e. mapping out some possibilities in the general sense). Second, we can see if god-experiences are always generated in the same area or according to matching processes in the brain. Bit by bit we’re gaining knowledge whether god-experiences are only internal processes or if they also require external stimuli. From there we can move onwards etc. I think it’s far too early to say anything definitive about it, especially rule it out.

Well, I did say it was only my opinion that the question is unanswerable. Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I doubt I will find an answer while I am living.

I would say you needn’t assume either position a priori. You evaluate the interpretation and the evidence and then you make a conclusion, or not.

How do you evaluate the interpretation and the evidence without making an assumption one way or the other? What criteria can you use that doesn't rely on some such assumption?

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” however.

This is a value judgment. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a fine value judgment. I also think it is important to recognize that it is a value judgment and not an objective verifiable truth. What is an 'extraordinary claim' and what constitutes 'extraordinary evidence'? These are subjective judgments that people make and reasonable people can disagree about.

Again, you don’t always need to acquire the opposite stance. You can see where the evidence leads you, starting out from no-position, and see what the most reasonable conclusion might be.

People come to their conclusions by creating a hypothesis and evaluating their hypothesis using the evidence available. This is usually done informally rather than in a rigorous way, but in either case, developing a hypothesis requires you to make some sort of assumption, one way or the other. The no-position is okay for examining the evidence prior to developing a hypothesis which precedes coming to a conclusion.

This is the same as when someone claiming to have experienced something you haven’t thought about before, so, you have no-position before you hear about it, thereafter you consider if it’s a reasonable interpretation and conclusion or if there could be some other explanation, and finally you arrive at some conclusion of your own (or you leave the case open when data is insufficient).

Leaving the case open is the only option for the ‘no-position’ stance. In this case, that is called agnosticism.

It’s not a value judgement. It’s simply not rational to have an a priori assumption towards something that’s not known. Bronze Age people didn’t have an a priori value judgement towards the existence of black holes.

They haven’t come to any conclusion about the existence of black holes either. No value judgment means no hypothesis to test which means no conclusion can be drawn.

Anyway, who is participating in this discussion that doesn’t have an a priori value judgment regarding the existence of gods?

I cannot falsify the assumption that there exists a purple frog in the centre of some galaxy; I don’t think it’s likely thou. It would be irrational to believe that, despite it being non-falsifiable. There have to be a reason for me to believe that in the first place, something more than a weird dream or experience. The same goes for god-
beliefs.

I agree that the atheistic argument presented here is completely valid and internally inconsistent. I just also happen to feel that theistic arguments can be as well (not always of course, but not all atheistic arguments are either). The purple frog in the centre of some galaxy isn’t a good analogy for this aspect of the discussion. Like IPU’s, there is no comprehensive history of testimonial evidence claiming their existence, so they are not IMO a reasonable comparison to the existance of god question.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

How do you evaluate the interpretation and the evidence without making an assumption one way or the other? What criteria can you use that doesn't rely on some such assumption?

Well, inductive and abductive reasoning can be utilized to some degree. But in general when someone claims to have experienced god, the first thing would be to have a working definition of god. Then we would need to deconstruct some parts of the experience in order to evaluate if those subsets can be interpreted as attributes for an interaction with god etc. etc. We must, of course, also evaluate if there could be some other interpretations and conclusions that might be more probable. Obviously an understanding of how the universe tends to work is useful. A definite a priori assumption in regards to the existence of god is not really necessary. We simply have to figure out what the best explanation for such an experience could be, at each step along the way.

Leaving the case open is the only option for the ‘no-position’ stance. In this case, that is called agnosticism.

No, it’s not the only option. Information can lead either way. Whenever you stumble upon a new phenomenon, you don’t always refrain from making a conclusion about it if there is enough information.

They haven’t come to any conclusion about the existence of black holes either. No value judgment means no hypothesis to test which means no conclusion can be drawn.

It would be enough if one person would be running around claiming that black holes exist, the conclusion could then be dependent on what interpretations and evidence is presented. I have to say, however, that such evidence, in that age, would have to be extraordinary if to be found convincing. The same as with god-beliefs now!

I agree that the atheistic argument presented here is completely valid and internally inconsistent. I just also happen to feel that theistic arguments can be as well (not always of course, but not all atheistic arguments are either). The purple frog in the centre of some galaxy isn’t a good analogy for this aspect of the discussion. Like IPU’s, there is no comprehensive history of testimonial evidence claiming their existence, so they are not IMO a reasonable comparison to the existance of god question.

Which theistic arguments do you feel are valid, and how do you feel they are more valid than other? Please explain how you make that judgement.

It doesn’t really matter if a million people claim the frog to exist, it would still be rather irrational, I think.

 

[Beth]

Well, inductive and abductive reasoning can be utilized to some degree. But in general when someone claims to have experienced god, the first thing would be to have a working definition of god. Then we would need to deconstruct some parts of the experience in order to evaluate if those subsets can be interpreted as attributes for an interaction with god etc. etc. We must, of course, also evaluate if there could be some other interpretations and conclusions that might be more probable. Obviously an understanding of how the universe tends to work is useful. A definite a priori assumption in regards to the existence of god is not really necessary. We simply have to figure out what the best explanation for such an experience could be, at each step along the way.

All an excellent approach, but not one that is devoid of assumptions and the value judgements that go along with making assumptions. Develop a working definition of god - great idea! But how do you do that without making some assumptions?

No, it’s not the only option.

Information can lead either way. Whenever you stumble upon a new phenomenon, you don’t always refrain from making a conclusion about it if there is enough information.

It's the only option unless you are willing to make some assumptions. Forming a conclusion means you also made some assumptions. You can form a conclusion that 1+1 = 2, seems obvious right? But that conclusion requires the assumption that you are working in number system with a base larger than 2. In base 2, 1 + 1 = 10.

Which theistic arguments do you feel are valid, and how do you feel they are more valid than other? Please explain how you make that judgement.

I'm sorry, that question requires more time to answer than I have at the moment. I'll give it some thought and try to post something in response to it later.

It doesn’t really matter if a million people claim the frog to exist, it would still be rather irrational, I think.

If a million people all claim the frog to exist, would it be irrational to think that perhaps they are aware of evidence you do not have?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

All an excellent approach, but not one that is devoid of assumptions and the value judgements that go along with making assumptions. Develop a working definition of god - great idea! But how do you do that without making some assumptions?

Not devoid of any assumptions of course. If someone claims to have experienced god, and we make a decent investigation, the overall assumption about the existence of god just have to wait for a while. It might even turn out that we don’t need to reach that far if the evidence leads away from such path. Attributes within such an experience can also fit other explanations; god is merely one proposition, usually the last in line. We are still talking probabilities, even if natural explanations might be rather evident.

I'm sorry, that question requires more time to answer than I have at the moment. I'll give it some thought and try to post something in response to it later.

Sure, I’ll be waiting.

If a million people all claim the frog to exist, would it be irrational to think that perhaps they are aware of evidence you do not have?

It depends on the quality of evidence, plain and simple. Millions of people having irrational beliefs are not uncommon; there’s simply not that much strength in arguments from popularity.

 

[Mobyseven]

Leaving the case open is the only option for the ‘no-position’ stance. In this case, that is called agnosticism.

Ohfertheluvovallthatizgoodanshiny...

This is beyond disgraceful. If there is one thing people come away from this thread knowing that they didn't know before, let that be that agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. It has a completely separate meaning, and a useful one at that. There is no middle ground between theism and atheism, because atheism is merely the negation of theism.

It's getting to be a little bit ridiulous, honestly...

 

[Beth]

Which theistic arguments do you feel are valid, and how do you feel they are more valid than other? Please explain how you make that judgement.

Okay, I decided to stick with examples from just this thread. I went back and took a look at some of the early posts in this thread. I felt that V23, Epeos69 made valid arguments for their belief systems. I also think that thesyntaxera and most recently, HghrSymmetry have made valid defenses for their belief systems.

Not devoid of any assumptions of course. If someone claims to have experienced god, and we make a decent investigation, the overall assumption about the existence of god just have to wait for a while.

why? If you are making no assumptions, why not leave that one in as opposed to out?

It might even turn out that we don’t need to reach that far if the evidence leads away from such path. Attributes within such an experience can also fit other explanations; god is merely one proposition, usually the last in line. We are still talking probabilities, even if natural explanations might be rather evident.

Why is god the last in line? Even if is, when you have exhausted all other mundane explanations save coincidence or divine intervention, why pick one rather than other?

When you prioritize your possible explanations, when you choose between coincidence or divine intervention for a personally meaningful experience, you are making value judgments. And those value judgments are based on your assumptions about the existance or non-existance of god.

It depends on the quality of evidence, plain and simple. Millions of people having irrational beliefs are not uncommon; there’s simply not that much strength in arguments from popularity.

Absolutely. On the other hand, when we are evaluting a claim we have no personal knowledge of, it's not unusual or unreasonable to give credence to the opinions of others, particularly those whose judgment we respect and those who we trust to advise us with our best interests at heart. That's all part of judging the 'quality' of the evidence, which is, of course, a subjective value judgment based on our default assumptions.

Please understand, I'm not saying you are wrong. Your reasoning and support of your own beliefs is fine. It's consistent and follows from your basic assumptions about reality. You might well be right about reality.

What I'm saying that I don't know if you are right and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that other people believe differently for perfectly valid reasons as well. Their arguments are also consistent and follow from their basic, but different, assumptions about reality. They might be the ones who are right about reality.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Okay, I decided to stick with examples from just this thread. I went back and took a look at some of the early posts in this thread. I felt that V23, Epeos69 made valid arguments for their belief systems. I also think that thesyntaxera and most recently, HghrSymmetry have made valid defenses for their belief systems.

Ok, so you agree that they have valid arguments, but how do you make that decision? – that was the important question. What is the mechanism or commonality behind them for you, so that you feel it’s proper to agree with them or dump them? I assume you’re not deciding randomly.

why? If you are making no assumptions, why not leave that one in as opposed to out?

Because, as you said, we must minimize bias. We might not totally rid ourselves from it, but we have to keep our options as open as possible. The interpretive chain must be deconstructed because it’s possible that there could be a shorter procession to a satisfactory conclusion.

Why is god the last in line? Even if is, when you have exhausted all other mundane explanations save coincidence or divine intervention, why pick one rather than other?

Because we can try to exhaust natural explanations but the supernatural ones are infinite. It’s pragmatic to start with the natural ones, and it’s possible that we don’t even have to venture into supernatural territory at all.

When you prioritize your possible explanations, when you choose between coincidence or divine intervention for a personally meaningful experience, you are making value judgments. And those value judgments are based on your assumptions about the existance or non-existance of god.

No, it’s doesn’t have to be a lottery, we try to let evidence lead the way, although it might come to choosing between coincidence and divine intervention, but it might also come to choosing between some other explanation and divine intervention. That’s why we refrain from a binary yes/no assumption for the existence of god in the beginning of the investigation, they are too limiting in their vagueness.

Absolutely. On the other hand, when we are evaluting a claim we have no personal knowledge of, it's not unusual or unreasonable to give credence to the opinions of others, particularly those whose judgment we respect and those who we trust to advise us with our best interests at heart. That's all part of judging the 'quality' of the evidence, which is, of course, a subjective value judgment based on our default assumptions.

Please understand, I'm not saying you are wrong. Your reasoning and support of your own beliefs is fine. It's consistent and follows from your basic assumptions about reality. You might well be right about reality.

What I'm saying that I don't know if you are right and it seems perfectly reasonable to me that other people believe differently for perfectly valid reasons as well. Their arguments are also consistent and follow from their basic, but different, assumptions about reality. They might be the ones who are right about reality.

We should give credence to the quality of the claim itself.

I don’t think it’s about who’s right or wrong, we can never know that in the absolute sense, it’s a discussion, and I’m interested in why you feel some god-claims are relevant and other’s aren’t. The only thing presented so far is: Since we don’t know absolutely, we can leave the door open. But that doesn’t answer the question why the door is left open for some extraordinary claims but not for others. It’s pretty clear that the argument about not knowing isn’t playing the centre figure here, there’s something else in play.

 

[-Fran-]

Geemack has apparently confusing 'valid' reasoning with 'true' .

Valid reasoning means the conclusions follow from the premises assumed. True requires that the premises can be verified as well as the reasoning valid. I accept that for many people, given their assumptions and personal experiences, their conclusions regarding such things as ESP are valid. That I am willing to recognize the validity of their reasoning process does not imply that I accept their assumptions as true.

I understand what you mean. I am not, however willing to recognize the validity of their reasoning processes quite as much. I mean, I can accept it more in a person who, for example, lives in an isolated and primitive society where there just are no means to aid this process.

But for most of these people this isn't true. Many people who chose to believe in what is often called woo, do have much more information to add to the process, and they are often also aware of this, but they chose to ignore this information, that would in many cases actually have made them come to another conclusion.

 

[volatile]

Ohfertheluvovallthatizgoodanshiny...

This is beyond disgraceful. If there is one thing people come away from this thread knowing that they didn't know before, let that be that agnosticism is not a middle ground between atheism and theism. It has a completely separate meaning, and a useful one at that. There is no middle ground between theism and atheism, because atheism is merely the negation of theism.

It's getting to be a little bit ridiulous, honestly...

QFTB(eth)

 

[Beth]

Ok, so you agree that they have valid arguments, but how do you make that decision? – that was the important question. What is the mechanism or commonality behind them for you, so that you feel it’s proper to agree with them or dump them? I assume you’re not deciding randomly.

I look for internal consistency and conflicts with well-established empirical data. Literal interpretations of the bible fail such a criteria.

Because, as you said, we must minimize bias. We might not totally rid ourselves from it, but we have to keep our options as open as possible. The interpretive chain must be deconstructed because it’s possible that there could be a shorter procession to a satisfactory conclusion.

If you are wanting to minimize bias and keep your options open, that implies to me that ALL options not known to be false are under consideration. Thus, I think your approach is increasing bias, not minimizing it.

We should give credence to the quality of the claim itself.

Absolutely! And how do you judge the quality of the claim itself? That judgment is made based on assumptions such as 'god exists' or 'no god exists'.

I don’t think it’s about who’s right or wrong, we can never know that in the absolute sense, it’s a discussion, and I’m interested in why you feel some god-claims are relevant and other’s aren’t. The only thing presented so far is: Since we don’t know absolutely, we can leave the door open. But that doesn’t answer the question why the door is left open for some extraordinary claims but not for others. It’s pretty clear that the argument about not knowing isn’t playing the centre figure here, there’s something else in play.

As I indicated at the beginning of this post, I consider those that are self-consistent and do not contradict established empirical evidence to be worthy of consideration. Does that answer your question?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

I look for internal consistency and conflicts with well-established empirical data. Literal interpretations of the bible fail such a criteria.

I consider those that are self-consistent and do not contradict established empirical evidence to be worthy of consideration. Does that answer your question?

Ok, thanks… although I’m not really sure how I would concretize that. I keep wondering what happens if there are many narratives that pass these criteria, but don’t find consistency with each other. Personally I think the door is wide open here; basically it’s only the obvious frauds that fail.

If you are wanting to minimize bias and keep your options open, that implies to me that ALL options not known to be false are under consideration. Thus, I think your approach is increasing bias, not minimizing it.

I’m not sure I understand. How can restrain from making a premature end-point conclusion increase bias?

Absolutely! And how do you judge the quality of the claim itself? That judgment is made based on assumptions such as 'god exists' or 'no god exists'.

Well, for starters not to buy into the “I trust him/her to have the best intentions” as an aspect of the claim itself. I don’t see how ‘god exists’ or ‘no god exists’ enters into this distinction.

 

[Beth]

Ok, thanks… although I’m not really sure how I would concretize that. I keep wondering what happens if there are many narratives that pass these criteria, but don’t find consistency with each other. Personally I think the door is wide open here; basically it’s only the obvious frauds that fail.

Yes, the door is open fairly wide. It's quite reasonable for you to set your criteria differently; you asked how I set mine.

I’m not sure I understand. How can restrain from making a premature end-point conclusion increase bias?

You weren't describing restraint from making a premature end-point, but rather constraining the search space by eliminating certain possibilities from consideration at the beginning stages. That is what can increases bias. It's not an unreasonable approach, btw, my point is that it is not the ONLY reasonable approach.

Well, for starters not to buy into the “I trust him/her to have the best intentions” as an aspect of the claim itself. I don’t see how ‘god exists’ or ‘no god exists’ enters into this distinction.

It's not an aspect of the claim. My point is that people, when judging the quality of the evidence and the claim being made when they don't have any personal experiences to base it on, will base it on how much reliance they feel they can place on the person providing them with the information. When conflicts arise, they will generally choose to believe the source they feel is most trustworthy.

As for 'best interests at heart' part, I think that most people inherit their default assumptions from their parents. I think that one reason for this is that parents are generally the best bet you can make for someone who has your best interests at heart.

 

[articulett]

I know the non-materialists don't want to hear it (and probably have me on ignore), but god is the same as "demons" when it comes to whether it's logical to believe in such or disbelieve. An atheist is no more making an assumption that there are no gods than they are making an assumption that there are no demons. Until or unless the evidence shows otherwise, the prudent conclusion is that consciousness cannot and does not exist without a material brain.

Gods and demons are equal as far as offering explanatory power, being invisible, being common explanations humans use to explain that which they don't understand, being religious concepts, and so forth. Belief in god is no more logical, good, or likely to be true than belief in demons. Belief in souls is no more valid or explanatory or likely to be true than belief in Thetans ( Scientology entities). Belief in ghosts is no more valid or true or logically supportable than belief in fairies. And though your faith and culture have taught you otherwise, spreading that ignorance and atheist bigotry here among people who don't believe in your delusions for logical reasons is smarmy and self aggrandizing. You think you are fighting for the invisible magic man, but it's just words spread to boost your ego by boosting your special "belief".

If you want to be "open" to such things, then there is no logical reason not to be equally open to or "agnostic about" ALL of them. All religions. It's a logical fallacy to presume you just happen to have been born into or stumbled upon the right belief system and that it makes you special or chosen or better or favored by the invisible creator of the universe. Plus it's arrogant. And I find it more abrasive than the ones you think of as abrasive-- people who could actually teach you something useful like what is and isn't a logical fallacy and how human thinking can go wrong and how science and skepticism can correct it. But you are too sure that you are better because you have an "open mind" to some brands of invisible entities and not others.

Remember, when whether we are talking about gods or demons we're talking about immeasurable forms of consciousness used to explain things humans don't understand and supposed "divine truths" taught by them-- so they are ALL equally valid or invalid. There is NO LOGICAL REASON to accept one over the other. There is no way to objectively test these things and weed them out from delusions or false prophecies or wishful thinking. Logically, it makes sense to treat them all equally as far as objective verifiable truths are concerned... as far as veracity is concerned. That's why you are having problems with this thread. There cannot be good reasons for accepting one brand of magic man over another.

Of course, if you don't care what is true, then do your ego building elsewhere--there are tons of woo forums. Pretending to be a skeptic doesn't become you. You are embarrassing yourselves in the exact same way as someone you find wooish embarrasses themselves on this forum. Who do you find woo-ish on this forum? Do you want to sound like them? You do.

 

[Faithkills]

I recognize that everyone's beliefs are just that: BELIEFS. That said, I take all religions and non-religious philosophies equally and fairly; they are each doing the best job that they can to search for words and ideas that define the Divine, which is an intangible, indescribable experience that seems to me to be different to every individual. There are no wrong religions, and there are no right religions; there is just religion - man's attempt to put into words that which cannot be put into words.

Not true. They can always put into words how they want you to behave and how they want you to think. What they can never put into words is the actual justification for doing so.

That's what is problematic.

Do this thing that the god commands!

Why?

You dare question the word of god? That's sinful! God is not for man to understand!

But then how do you know that's what god wants? Or that not doing it is sinful?

Umm..

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, actually they are assuming their conclusion - i.e. god exists. On the other hand, so do atheists. ....

Of course. No one doubts that theists think they are accurately interpreting the evidence.

But the difference is one is a supportable conclusion based on sufficient evidence validly interpreted, and the other is an unsupportable conclusion based on insufficient evidence that was also invalidly interpreted.

Conclusions do not change the facts. Believing in gods does not make them real. Drawn conclusions are not equal. If two people draw two different conclusions, 'gods exist', 'gods don't exist', it isn't a matter of fairness that each has an equal right to their conclusion and both conclusions are equally likely just because we should respect each other's beliefs or because there is no reason one person is better than the other.

One conclusion is correct and one isn't. The better we are at recognizing evidence and the better we are at logical/appropriate interpretations of evidence the more likely we are to draw the correct conclusions. Fairness and equal worth or value have nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

The reason we know the principles of evidence based conclusions are more likely to be the correct conclusions is those principles are overwhelmingly successful. Through trial and error and continual improvement in our techniques of systematic observation we have determined the path of logical conclusions from those systematic observations. The scientific knowledge base has grown but so have the techniques of the scientific process. One doesn't need to formalize and perfect each and every observation and conclusion. One is still more likely to draw the correct conclusion simply by recognizing and using the rules of the scientific process.

Re GeeMack's examples: Fran posted them already.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Geemack has apparently confusing 'valid' reasoning with 'true' .

Valid reasoning means the conclusions follow from the premises assumed. True requires that the premises can be verified as well as the reasoning valid. I accept that for many people, given their assumptions and personal experiences, their conclusions regarding such things as ESP are valid. That I am willing to recognize the validity of their reasoning process does not imply that I accept their assumptions as true.

His last two examples are specious and meant to antagonize those who disagree with him. He's baiting me and I'm not biting.

You seem to be using a different definition of valid here. Are you sure you don't mean to say "reasonable"? That gives one more leeway for consideration of the circumstances.

A valid conclusion means the conclusion would be correct and true.

 

[Faithkills]

It's not an aspect of the claim. My point is that people, when judging the quality of the evidence and the claim being made when they don't have any personal experiences to base it on, will base it on how much reliance they feel they can place on the person providing them with the information. When conflicts arise, they will generally choose to believe the source they feel is most trustworthy.

I suspect that there is a kernel of intellectual integrity in most theists in western culture that recognizes what they espouse is false. It's just hard to admit you've been duped all this time, hard to let go of the promise of immortality, hard to accept personal responsibility for ones' own meaning.

People by and large behave as if they don't believe their is a god. Miraculous contemporary claims are not believed, and most clergy thoughtfully make no miraculous claims that could be tested. People don't behave as if they think prayers will help them. People don't behave as if they think god will protect them. They certainly avoid at all costs putting themselves in any situation that the only thing that can help them would be god. People don't behave as if they expect god to provide. People don't behave as if they expect god to do anything really.

People do demand evidence in every aspect of their lives except religion, but even so religion obliges by not testing that credibility with any claims about anything that can be verified.

 

[articulett]

I think it's a little worse than that...

Theists seem to want or need others to defer to or respect their beliefs. They often call lack of a belief a "faith" so they can be as incredulous of our claims as we are of theirs. But they forget that they are all talking about invisible, immeasurable forms of consciousness... as far as we know, consciousness can only be generated by a material brain. This makes all such invisible entities equally delusional until or unless evidence shows otherwise. That is NOT something to be "on the fence" about unless you are equally on the fence to ALL such entities--

Moreover, faith is a self-perpetuating meme. People of faith are told that "people of faith" are better... and they prop they deception up on this forum though it has no more evidence in it's favor than whatever it is they have "faith" in. They also what their illogical fallacy that skeptics should be "on the fence" deferred to. Plus, they spread atheist bigotry though they would be the first to deny it and the first to claim that their feelings were hurt or that they are discriminated against.

Despite all the words and fervency, it's becoming increasingly clear that faithers have no real reason for whatever faith they profess... if they did, they'd tell us, and we'd go check out the evidence for ourselves. And scientists would be the strongest believers of the "most true" faith as they honed it to understand more.

Scientists and Skeptics like Randi are telling us real and useful information that people dismiss, because they prefer the delusion they've spun. They are passively/ aggressively rude while playing the "offended card" and maligning the "atheist side of the debate" as a group.

The faith meme requires that you spread bigotry about non-believers-- after all, they offer the biggest threat to all faiths that there is-- reason.

It reminds me of how Randi can demonstrate how some trick or other is done, but still the believers hold that just because he demonstrated that the trick could be faked, doesn't mean that some of those others out there aren't real. How do you prove to such people that none are real? You can't. They'd rather believe in magic than to "lose faith". And they'll direct their hostilities at folks like Randi who threaten their delusion. That's what is really going on in this thread.

They are angry that we have the audacity not to believe in the woo they think might be true.