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

[articulett]

Not to worry Art. People with fire and passion sometimes pop a few typos when writing quickly.

What was that grammatical boo boo that certain classifications of posters usually do? Was it something to do with the proper use of your/you're?

-H "how do I remove these energetic engram shrapnel chunks from my back?" S.

ha! it reminds of this t-shirt:

 

[edge]

More ad homion/nausia.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

More ad homion/nausia.

QED.

 

[Mobyseven]

More ad homion/nausia.

For that to be true, you'd have to actually have an argument.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was trying to get Beth to see how maybe skeptics get to the point of not accepting anecdotal evidence from her perspective, rather than ours/mine. How to get from a position of accepting anecdotal evidence, to one that correctly cannot. So are you, we are just, perhaps, employing different methods...and ,my apologies for the confusion, non intended.


True.

I think you are missing what Beth is actually claiming.

Anecdotes are evidence. They may not support a conclusion. If Beth were merely claiming the anecdote was evidence to the person who then concluded it was evidence of god, contrary to her misconception, I would not take issue with that. But note the word concluded comes before evidence of god.

What Beth is claiming is that the conclusion is evidence to that person. She is claiming this on the invalid analogy that "feeling god's presence" is no different than seeing the color red. Because one's visual sensory input, for example seeing red, is fairly reliable in that when you see red, red is probably there, in no way suggests the claim of feeling god's presence is an equivalent sensory input interpretation. For whatever reason, Beth cannot understand that the sensory input which allows us to know a color is in view is verifiable while whatever sensation a person is having that they conclude is evidence of god is not verifiable. And that makes an anecdote that one saw the color red, evidence of the color red, while an anecdote one felt the presence of god is not evidence for the actual presence of god.

Beth is not merely arguing the experience is evidence to the person experiencing it, she is arguing the experience is actual evidence of gods. She then has erected the straw man that skeptics discard weak or "less than scientific" evidence of gods but that such evidence exists.

I and others here are well aware of the fact an anecdote is evidence regardless that false conclusions are often drawn from anecdotes. Feeling the presence of god is evidence one had a feeling. Any conclusion one draws from that feeling is not evidence of the conclusion. Seeing red would not be evidence either except that we can confirm by many means that when you see red, red is usually there. We can draw lots on inferences based on what we know about the physical world and what we know about how the body's senses function.

We can also draw a number of inferences about the reliability of something such as "feeling the presence of god" based on what we know about how people interpret internal stimuli. It is clear from that evidence that believing you "feel the presence of god" is not reliable and cannot be considered evidence of gods.

 

[epeos76]

Because epeos76 worded his post in terms of god beliefs resulting in morality beliefs.

If he ever gets around to posting a link, I'll take the time to address the rest of his post.

I'm a health care provider. I view addiction as more illness than immoral.

Have I complemented you on your tactics yet Skeptigirl? Your dismissals have the neat economy of a well aimed swipe from a school marm's ruler. It must save quite a bit of effort.

I'm glad you conceded the point, as I think your resistance to it was pretty silly. Here is link. Here is link to another article on moral reasoning, suggesting it's pretty complex, and is not a "natural kind" in the brain. (what a surprise).

The remaining cites are meatspace results you will have to find for yourself. Alternatively, I can PM you a copy. The last cite is worth reading in its own right, in my opinion.

Frankly, I wouldn't worry about reading them merely for purposes of debate. First, because you say you've conceded god beliefs can play a role in moral judgment via some hypothetical you're comfortable with. Second, because I can't imagine you have anything new to say, and I think my participation in this thread is winding down.

Recap:

Do I have evidence supporting my god beliefs?

Yep. Some personal observations. Evidence unless contradicted by something better. The beliefs they support are appropriately limited in scope and certainty.

Do I have evidence other god beliefs are false?

Yep, for some. The same evidence you have. Some makes claims contradicted by our best proven knowedge. Some encourage behaviors which I judge harmful by the same mix of imperfect objective- and-subjective standards that characterizes all such judgments.

Nope, for others. Appropriately limited claims may be as strong as mine. I chose mine based on the fact that I understand how to practice it, and use my best, ordinary judgment to evaluate the results.

Given the above limitations, it's certainly reasonable to choose to be an atheist instead. However, I don't think it is reasonable or responsible to claim that science has a good account for what various god beliefs do.

To my mind, you're foreclosing some insights into the human condition by treating religion as a "mind virus" or the result of a reasoning disorder, or otherwise ignoring the complexity of the phenomenon, and the reports of practioners.

In another thread, a poster (Apathia?) mentioned discovering that she could replace the diamond sutra with ad jingles and still reap the benefits of mediation. I'm open to the idea that something similar might be possible in the case of my own religious practices. I'm much less impressed by the claim that I have no means of assessing the benefits, and must pretend not to have observed any until they are explained by properly qualified professionals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I sorry, you misunderstood the question. I wasn't asking how you viewed addiction, but rather if you believe that someone must view addiction as a moral shortcoming rather than an illness in order for their religion to be effective at helping them conquer their addiction?

No, not at all.

By extension, that would imply that religious beliefs or religious conversion would not be helpful to someone who viewed their addiction as an illness. Is that your opinion? If so, why do you think that?

I don't think that. People are merely motivated to stop an addiction by god beliefs. It is one of many things which serve as a motivation to quit.

You have to delve into the complex interaction between addiction, free will, the brain, and relapse to address how religion might motivate one or assist one to stop something like drugs and alcohol. It's too complex to oversimplify it as the person's god beliefs somehow give them moral stamina or courage or whatever. I've never even heard an addict contemplating the morality of their addiction, let alone going through some analytical thought process about their god beliefs made them view the addiction as immoral and that is how they were able to quit.

I just used the religion addiction cure as an example because of epeos' false claim about my position on morality and religion.

Here, let me give you one that is easier. I can see a criminal getting religion and giving up immoral criminal behavior because they "found God" or whatever.

My position epeos misconstrued is that one needs religion to be motivated at all to act morally. It is nonsense that one cannot be moral without religion. And I may have made a comment further back that religion wouldn't make anyone moral. I'm not sure what I said but it's moot because I later corrected it.


Edited to add:

Perhaps epeos is confusing my position that having religion can improve one's morality but having religion is no guarantee that will be the case and I doubt religion influences morality the vast majority of the time one way or the other. On the other hand, there is evidence religion can also make morality worse. The word Jihad comes to mind.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I understand why skeptics view anecdotal evidence that way. I have no problems with it. It's a perfectly rational approach. My point is simply that it isn't the ONLY way to view such evidence and those who give it a greater weight than zero are not irrational or deluded to do so. I agree that it doesn't make them correct.

Here is your strawman once again, Beth.

"a greater weight than zero"

Let me spell it out again for the zillionth time. We give anecdotal evidence a weight greater than zero. An anecdote one feels the presence of gods is evidence one feels something.

It is not evidence of gods. That would be the person's conclusion. The conclusion is not evidence of the conclusion.

I know you don't get this. It boggles my mind that you don't, however.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Things you don't accept or believe and that's all.
If you really want evidence then pray specifically for the evidence you want.

Ah, but beware, it could be a devil tricking you. Perhaps you are praying to the Christian God when the Jews have it right and you've been tricked into following the false messiah. Praying to Jesus could be offending Yahweh. Uh oh!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But there is a rationale for coming to that point of view. That you don't find it convincing doesn't make it irrational.



Evidence of what is indeed the question to be answered. I don't have any good answer, but it does seem consistently termed 'god'. What causes these experiences I cannot say. Personally, I think it reasonable to grant the possibility that otherwise sane rational adults may be describing some common experience that is a result of a stimulus not internally generated by their own minds. I'm not saying it's proof. I'm only saying I think it's evidence. If you don't, I can understand that. I'm just asking that you consider the other side, that other people do consider it evidence - particularly when it's their own experience. Dismissing all such experiences as delusions and hallucinations without further consideration of other possibilities is just not a position I'm comfortable with myself.

Because you have come to a conclusion about the evidence doesn't make your conclusion evidence either.

 

[articulett]

H

Recap:

Do I have evidence supporting my god beliefs?

Yep. Some personal observations. Evidence unless contradicted by something better. The beliefs they support are appropriately limited in scope and certainty.

Do I have evidence other god beliefs are false?

Yep, for some. The same evidence you have. Some makes claims contradicted by our best proven knowedge. Some encourage behaviors which I judge harmful by the same mix of imperfect objective- and-subjective standards that characterizes all such judgments.

Nope, for others. Appropriately limited claims may be as strong as mine. I chose mine based on the fact that I understand how to practice it, and use my best, ordinary judgment to evaluate the results.

Given the above limitations, it's certainly reasonable to choose to be an atheist instead. However, I don't think it is reasonable or responsible to claim that science has a good account for what various god beliefs do.

To my mind, you're foreclosing some insights into the human condition by treating religion as a "mind virus" or the result of a reasoning disorder, or otherwise ignoring the complexity of the phenomenon, and the reports of practioners.

We don't have to assume anything about religion to understand that it's a common way that people fool themselves. You believing in "divine truths" makes you susceptible to finding things you interpret as Divine Truths. Of course, to us it's on par with Tom Cruise's divine truths. He appears to think of himself as a messiah... and there sure is a lot of "evidence" of the type you use to tell yourself your beliefs are true. He's rich... he's famous... he's happened up 4 or 5 accidents and helped people out... he believes his church are the experts on the human mind.

Your words can successfully be used by any woo. "I know my woo is true because (insert anything that you feel is a sign)". See. It's all true by those standards. The people who talk in tongues are just as inspired as those who check their astrological sign every day.

Humans invented science and the scientific method to sort out the real and useful truths from this ready way that people fool themselves. It's exactly what magicians do. It's what you are doing and your arguments to the contrary are exactly what Tom Cruise or any woo would argue to keep their beliefs afloat for themselves. It doesn't work on skeptics. You have to already be brainwashed or leaning in that direction. It's only your attempt to shore up whatever magical insight you've imagined regarding god and divine "truths". It's the same as what Tom Cruise is doing on his recent video. The only reason you can't see it when you are doing it is because you are convinced that you cannot be fooled like Tom Cruise or the astrology folks and the like. But you are. You are the same. It's no more reasonable to believe whatever it is you believe than to believe in Xenu. You arguments are not saying anything.

You are mad at skepticgirl but you should be mad at yourself and whatever makes you feel you have to defend such an unsupportable belief. We'd all love a reason to treat religion as though it offered something real and useful or had "divine truths". But there is no evidence that this is so. --Just subjective signs that assorted woos take as personal evidence of (insert delusion).

To a skeptic that is evidence of humans being very good at fooling themselves. It's not evidence of Xenu or god or astrological mishaps or the notion that some woo somewhere is true. It's just not. And when I say "xenu" instead of god you should be able to tell why. It's the same for god.

 

[articulett]

Because you have come to a conclusion about the evidence doesn't make your conclusion evidence either.

It's the woo theory of trueness... the more it's repeated the more true it becomes in their head.

Yes, Beth... it's evidence... but it's about as much evidence for god as Tom Cruise's experiences are evidence for Xenu.

It's evidence for an invisible form of consciousness the way people swearing by John Edward (the medium) is evidence of an invisible form of consciousness. It's invalid evidence to anyone who wants to understand what is true.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Ah, but beware, it could be a devil tricking you. Perhaps you are praying to the Christian God when the Jews have it right and you've been tricked into following the false messiah. Praying to Jesus could be offending Yahweh. Uh oh!

SG has done her research.

Question: I have been told that if I don't believe in Jesus as my savior I am going straight to Hell after I die. This seems like a compelling reason for me to believe in Jesus particularly since I have also been told that there is no consequence within Judaism if I believe in Jesus. Therefore, I have nothing to lose by believing in Jesus, so why shouldn't I believe in him as my savior?



Answer: Actually, belief in Jesus is a horrendous sin with grave consequences for any Jew who professes to do so. To understand this let us look at the tragic apostasy of the Northern Kingdom of Israel and its dominant tribe, Ephraim. God, speaking through the prophet Hosea declares, "When Ephraim spoke with trembling, he became exalted in Israel; but when he became guilty through Baal, he died" (Hosea 13:1). When they served God, Ephraim was "exalted," but when they became guilty of idol worship and remained unrepentant despite prophetic warnings to cease their sinful ways they signed their own death warrant. Ephraim died a spiritual death long before it suffered national destruction.

From the prophetic message we learn that apostates, even during their lifetime are reckoned as dead as long as they remain unrepentant. The prophet not only denounces belief in molten images fashioned by craftsmen, but also those who trust in a false savior- god: "And I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt, and gods beside Me you should not know, and there is no savior but Me" (Hosea 13:4).

God desires the apostate's repentance and beckons him/her to renounce iniquity: "From the clutches of the grave I would ransom them, from death I would redeem them, I will be your words of death; I will decree the grave upon you. Remorse shall be hidden from My eyes" (Hosea 13:14).

For the apostate who does not repent, God says, "I will decree the grave upon you." In a more literal sense, "I will be the cause of your being cut off to the grave." Katavcha, from the verb ketev, denotes "cutting" (e.g. Psalms 91:6). Its primary meaning is "to cut," but in Hosea 13:14, ketev takes on the secondary meaning "decree." In Hebrew, the primary word for decree is gezayra, the root of which is gezer, "to cut." There are a number of word roots in Hebrew whose primary meaning is "cutting," yet have a secondary meaning of a final, permanent decision or ruling (e.g., pasak, chakak, gezer, charatz, karat).

As we see, the belief in the false savior-god Jesus is a grave sin. The unrepentant apostate is not only shunned and considered dead by the Jewish community. God Himself considers the unrepentant apostate as spiritually dead in this life and in physical death the apostate is all the more so "cut off."

 

[Beth]

Anecdotes are evidence. They may not support a conclusion. If Beth were merely claiming the anecdote was evidence to the person who then concluded it was evidence of god, contrary to her misconception, I would not take issue with that.

Cool. I thought you were disputing this point. Thanks.

What Beth is claiming is that the conclusion is evidence to that person. She is claiming this on the invalid analogy that "feeling god's presence" is no different than seeing the color red. Because one's visual sensory input, for example seeing red, is fairly reliable in that when you see red, red is probably there, in no way suggests the claim of feeling god's presence is an equivalent sensory input interpretation. For whatever reason, Beth cannot understand that the sensory input which allows us to know a color is in view is verifiable while whatever sensation a person is having that they conclude is evidence of god is not verifiable. And that makes an anecdote that one saw the color red, evidence of the color red, while an anecdote one felt the presence of god is not evidence for the actual presence of god.

I’ve used the analogy of seeing the color red to demonstrate that one cannot help drawing conclusions about one’s experiences when communicating them to others. I understand that it is sometimes possible to verify that something is red in ways that it is not possible to verify an experience was caused by ‘god’. My point is that with either experience, the person who had the experience is stating a ‘conclusion’ about what caused that experience., You don’t ask or expect someone to ‘verify’ their experience about seeing something that is red. You are willing accept their ‘conclusion’ that it was red as ‘evidence’ for the thing in question being red. It seems to me that your delineation between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ is a very wide fuzzy line and which side something falls on is, in all but the most obvious cases, a subjective judgment. That’s fine, but it’s important to realize that subjective judgments about evidence are just that, and it’s not reasonable to expect that everyone else will agree with your subjective judgment of such things.

Beth is not merely arguing the experience is evidence to the person experiencing it, she is arguing the experience is actual evidence of gods. She then has erected the straw man that skeptics discard weak or "less than scientific" evidence of gods but that such evidence exists.

Not all atheists*. Some are willing to consider it, for example, this comment was posted in another thread (who voted himself a 6 on the dawkins scale).

The fact that seemingly every human civilisation has created some sort of religion with a belief in a creator/superior being/supreme authority leads me to consider the God hypothesis more seriously than the flying teapot hypothesis or the fairies at the bottom of my garden hypothesis.

On the other hand, you and many other atheists* here basically disregard this historical evidence and claim there is NO evidence for god. Weak evidence is not the same as no evidence even when it doesn’t change your conclusion.

*Please note, I use the term ‘atheist’ not ‘skeptic’. The two terms are not synonyms and I am talking about atheists, not skeptics.

I and others here are well aware of the fact an anecdote is evidence regardless that false conclusions are often drawn from anecdotes. Feeling the presence of god is evidence one had a feeling. Any conclusion one draws from that feeling is not evidence of the conclusion. Seeing red would not be evidence either except that we can confirm by many means that when you see red, red is usually there.

So, if lots of people describe the same experience and term it ‘god’, it becomes reasonable to conclude that their experiences are evidence of their conclusion, just like when lots of people confirm that they are indicating the same color when they say ‘red’? Hmmm. I think that’s what I’m been trying to communicate to you.

We can draw lots on inferences based on what we know about the physical world and what we know about how the body's senses function. We can also draw a number of inferences about the reliability of something such as "feeling the presence of god" based on what we know about how people interpret internal stimuli. It is clear from that evidence that believing you “feel the presence of god" is not reliable and cannot be considered evidence of gods.

I’ll agree with you that the “feel the presence of god" is not reliable evidence, but not with the ‘cannot be considered evidence of gods’ part. To me, it only means that the evidence is unreliable and therefore, one cannot place the same confidence in it as I would have if someone told me something was ‘red’. But you say it is therefore NOT evidence at all, but instead a 'conclusion'. When you make this claim, I think you are treating the the evidence for god differently than you treat similar evidence for other things. While I’ll agree it makes sense to treat such evidence differently than we treat evidence for tangible objects, I think we can treat such unreliable subjective evidence the same way we treat similar unreliable evidence for intangible things, such as justice and injustice. Do you claim there is NO evidence of the existance of what we call justice (or injustice) or are you willing to accept people claims of having experienced justice (or injustice) as evidence of it’s existence? Keep in mind I'm NOT saying such anecdotes constitute proof, just evidence.

Here is your strawman once again, Beth.

"a greater weight than zero"

Let me spell it out again for the zillionth time. We give anecdotal evidence a weight greater than zero. An anecdote one feels the presence of gods is evidence one feels something.

It is not evidence of gods. That would be the person's conclusion. The conclusion is not evidence of the conclusion.

I know you don't get this. It boggles my mind that you don't, however.

I get it. I understand that you don’t want to deal with my actual argument, so you continue to misunderstand it and assume I am making a mistake that boggles your mind instead. Much easier for you. But by your stated criteria, I do not see how you can have evidence of any intangible thing (such as justice or injustice) that cannot be objectively measured without accepting similar ‘conclusions’ as evidence.

Because you have come to a conclusion about the evidence doesn't make your conclusion evidence either.

But I have come to no conclusion about whether god exists, nor have I had any such experiences that I claim were evidence of god. What I said was:

What causes these experiences I cannot say. Personally, I think it reasonable to grant the possibility that otherwise sane rational adults may be describing some common experience that is a result of a stimulus not internally generated by their own minds. I'm not saying it's proof. I'm only saying I think it's evidence.

 

[epeos76]

We don't have to assume anything about religion to understand that it's a common way that people fool themselves. You believing in "divine truths" makes you susceptible to finding things you interpret as Divine Truths. Of course, to us it's on par with Tom Cruise's divine truths. He appears to think of himself as a messiah... and there sure is a lot of "evidence" of the type you use to tell yourself your beliefs are true. He's rich... he's famous... he's happened up 4 or 5 accidents and helped people out... he believes his church are the experts on the human mind.

Your words can successfully be used by any woo. "I know my woo is true because (insert anything that you feel is a sign)". See. It's all true by those standards. The people who talk in tongues are just as inspired as those who check their astrological sign every day.

Humans invented science and the scientific method to sort out the real and useful truths from this ready way that people fool themselves. It's exactly what magicians do. It's what you are doing and your arguments to the contrary are exactly what Tom Cruise or any woo would argue to keep their beliefs afloat for themselves. It doesn't work on skeptics. You have to already be brainwashed or leaning in that direction. It's only your attempt to shore up whatever magical insight you've imagined regarding god and divine "truths". It's the same as what Tom Cruise is doing on his recent video. The only reason you can't see it when you are doing it is because you are convinced that you cannot be fooled like Tom Cruise or the astrology folks and the like. But you are. You are the same. It's no more reasonable to believe whatever it is you believe than to believe in Xenu. You arguments are not saying anything.

You are mad at skepticgirl but you should be mad at yourself and whatever makes you feel you have to defend such an unsupportable belief. We'd all love a reason to treat religion as though it offered something real and useful or had "divine truths". But there is no evidence that this is so. --Just subjective signs that assorted woos take as personal evidence of (insert delusion).

To a skeptic that is evidence of humans being very good at fooling themselves. It's not evidence of Xenu or god or astrological mishaps or the notion that some woo somewhere is true. It's just not. And when I say "xenu" instead of god you should be able to tell why. It's the same for god.

You've certainly succeeded in provoking me. In another thread, I think you said that provoking theists was one of your goals, so I suppose you know that. You certainly haven't done it by responding to any of the points I raised.

You have yet to acknowledge that it is reasonable to draw a distinction between claims that contradict our best proven knowledge, and claims in areas we can't yet assess. Atheists need to do this to keep their arguments straight, if for no other reason.

You have yet to acknowledge that we have to evaluate lots of things in life on the basis of our best, ordinary judgment. .

You have yet to acknowledge that moral judgment, religion, identity, and group dynamics are areas science is only beginning to untangle.

You have avoided the fact that in the final analysis, science itself rests on considerations of utility, not ultimate truth.

Of course, all that dodging and weaving is frustrating. What is provocative, though, is the fact that you are apparently willing to speculate about how theists must feel (with special concern, apparently for theists' overweening egos).

That is insulting under any circumstances, and makes you sound like Anne Coulture or TokenConservative. I bet I could generate some of the pronouncements you've made by replacing the word "liberal" with the word "theist' in their material: liberals are cowards -> theists are cowards, etc.


Why indulge this nonsense? "Argument" like this is an appeal to like minded groundlings. It's slogan chanting, not debate.

You have plenty of punchy material. I'm still bothered by a study you posted in another thread, showing a correlation between religous belief and human suffering.

You don't have to coddle your opponents here. SkG clearly doesn't take any special care to spare my poor theist sensibilities.

You do have to avoid slipping from debate into propoganda. My advice to you is to re-visit the article in your sig line and read some of Cass Sunstein's work. As it is, you haven't left any room for discussion with me.

 

[cyborg]

You have avoided the fact that in the final analysis, science itself rests on considerations of utility, not ultimate truth.

So?

There is no "ultimate" truth - why would I waste my time trying to find it?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl: Because you have come to a conclusion about the evidence doesn't make your conclusion evidence either.

Beth: But I have come to no conclusion about whether god exists, nor have I had any such experiences that I claim were evidence of god. What I said was:

The conclusion I am referring to is your conclusion the experience is evidence of god as opposed to evidence of an experience, not your conclusion about whether or not god exists. I do, however, find it a contradiction to say the person's experience is evidence of god as opposed to evidence of an experience and at the same time say you don't necessarily believe the person's experience is evidence gods exist.

Surely you trust the person seeing red is evidence they usually are seeing red. I think we are where we started. The experience is evidence of an experience, not evidence of god and you still don't understand why there is a distinction.

I'll get to the rest later...

 

[Beth]

The conclusion I am referring to is your conclusion the experience is evidence of god as opposed to evidence of an experience, not your conclusion about whether or not god exists.

Okay. I misunderstood your question.

I do, however, find it a contradiction to say the person's experience is evidence of god as opposed to evidence of an experience and at the same time say you don't necessarily believe the person's experience is evidence gods exist.

Why is this a contradiction? If I'm sitting on jury, I'll hear evidence both for the defendant's guilt and innocence. Evidence is not proof nor am I obligated to believe that every piece of evidence presented is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Surely you trust the person seeing red is evidence they usually are seeing red.

I agree it's evidence. I don't necessarily believe that it is true. That depends on such things as how trustworthy the person is, if there is reason to be suspicious of their ability to discern colors, if there is reason for them to mislead or lie about what they saw, etc.

I think we are where we started. The experience is evidence of an experience, not evidence of god and you still don't understand why there is a distinction.

Yes. I understand why you would assess the probability of it being an accurate description of reality differently for the claim of 'god' versus 'red'. I don't understand why you think one qualifies as 'evidence' and the other does not but must be labed 'conclusion' and not 'evidence'. Or rather, I don't see how you can rationally make that argument without basing your rationale on the assumption no god exists.

Here's a tack you haven't tried yet. Tell me what you would consider 'evidence' rather than a 'conclusion' for the existance of some non-material entity that might be termed 'god', specifically evidence that doesn't rely on anyone's subjective experience and subsequent labeling (i.e. concluding) the experience as 'god'. Give me an example what 'evidence' that isn't what you term a conclusion would be.

 

[Faithkills]

On the other hand, you and many other atheists* here basically disregard this historical evidence and claim there is NO evidence for god. Weak evidence is not the same as no evidence even when it doesn’t change your conclusion.

There is no weak evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever.

The fact that so many people believe(measurable as large) despite there being no evidence(measurable as zero) is good evidence in support of the idea many people like to believe in skydaddy.

The fact that so many religions exist, none of which have been able to produce a single piece of evidence to support their claims that stands even the briefest analytical scrutiny tends to support the idea that all of them are fabrications.

People keep bringing up Tom Cruise and it's quite apt. It certainly seems he believes that crap and it certainly seems a lot of people do. Yet I don't think you would equate his woo with your sincere faith But if you don't then there goes the only underpinning you have "Lot's of people believe. they can't all be wrong!"

People choose to believe all sorts of things. Many of these things will be entirely unacceptable to any given person. But once you set foot on the path of judging beliefs, if you have the slightest shred of intellectual integrity and coherence you are obliged analyze your own beliefs.

So, if lots of people describe the same experience and term it ‘god’, it becomes reasonable to conclude that their experiences are evidence of their conclusion, just like when lots of people confirm that they are indicating the same color when they say ‘red’? Hmmm. I think that’s what I’m been trying to communicate to you.

Ad Populum much? Half the planet thinks it's a good idea to kill people because they believe in a slightly different god than you do. Half the planet thinks the life of Brittany Spears has some relevance to their lives.

.. But you say it is therefore NOT evidence at all, but instead a 'conclusion'. When you make this claim, I think you are treating the the evidence for god differently than you treat similar evidence for other things.

On the contrary. It is you who treat evidence for god differently than you treat evidence that a car salesman is giving you a good deal, or safety ratings on your child car seat.

We treat it just the same.

While I’ll agree it makes sense to treat such evidence differently than we treat evidence for tangible objects, I think we can treat such unreliable subjective evidence the same way we treat similar unreliable evidence for intangible things, such as justice and injustice. Do you claim there is NO evidence of the existence of what we call justice (or injustice) or are you willing to accept people claims of having experienced justice (or injustice) as evidence of it’s existence? Keep in mind I'm NOT saying such anecdotes constitute proof, just evidence.

Justice is what we decide, like etiquette or pornography. I see books with laws and police forces funded and judges seated. Justice exists. I don't always agree with it but there are many thousands of individuals in cells who would have a very difficult time denying the existence of justice. As a practical matter I trust the decisions of skeptics and atheists (who have by definition given these topics a lot of thought) than the arbitrary and self serving ones theists tend to come up with. The founding fathers seem to have felt the same.

Or are you actually arguing a position of moral realism?

 

[Faithkills]

Here's a tack you haven't tried yet. Tell me what you would consider 'evidence' rather than a 'conclusion' for the existance of some non-material entity that might be termed 'god', specifically evidence that doesn't rely on anyone's subjective experience and subsequent labeling (i.e. concluding) the experience as 'god'. Give me an example what 'evidence' that isn't what you term a conclusion would be.

I see Jesus on the news healing people at the mall. I take my amputee veteran friend down to the mall and Jesus grows him a new leg.

I think that does it for me.. how about you guys?