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

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think this may be our disconnect. I can consider an experience that something I saw was red to be evidence that it is red, yet still be aware that I could be mistaken and change my mind based on other evidence. This is even easier to do when the experience is regarding an intangible thing and I was not the person who had the experience. To say that the experience was due to A does NOT mean I cannot later conclude it was something else. To presume otherwise is to confuse evidence with proof.
No, I understand the point you are making here. I simply don’t agree with you on this point. See below.

Obviously you don't agree but whether or not you understand is debatable.

A visual observation can be confirmed. So we can use visual observations as evidence. That is the brain interpreting sensory input. I realize now what the problem is with this description. See below***

Sensory input generated within the brain is confirmable. But no evidence exists that an electrical/chemical nerve impulse generated from within the brain is evidence of something outside the brain. In fact, we can confirm that such things occur often, (dreams for example) and we can confirm that interpretation of such internally generated stimuli is often not evidence of the conclusion. In other words, we know people imagine things which are not true.

We are arguing what is evidence vs what is a conclusion. You say you understand. But you do not understand the difference between an observation which is confirmable, and something one imagines which is not confirmable.

Agreeing or disagreeing with me is irrelevant. The issue here is the definition of evidence. I've already said, you can believe what you want, but you cannot change the rules of what is and what is not evidence. And you can believe internal messages are or could be evidence of an external thing such as a god. In fact, at this point, I see no hope of further progress.

What you cannot do, is claim that an internal message is actually real evidence. Real evidence has rules. I hope at this point you at least recognize that I'm not arguing strong vs weak evidence, nor "scientific quality" evidence vs not. That was the straw man you started with.

What we are down to here is you not recognizing that your individual interpretation of the rules of evidence are recognized as faulty by the skeptical and the scientific communities. The skeptical and scientific communities recognize a distinction between evidence and a conclusion. And conclusions are not evidence. Your analogy is where you lack understanding of the concept. You are comparing an observation based on external verifiable stimuli with an observation (the experience interpreted as evidence for gods) which is for all intents and purposes based on internal stimuli.

That you and other people want to give validity to that internally generated stimuli is nice, but the skeptical and the scientific communities do not. So you can make the statement that you personally don't know where the evidence ends and the conclusion begins. You can make the claim the conclusion is evidence for the conclusion. But the bottom line is the skeptical and the scientific communities do not see one's imaginary belief in gods as evidence of gods.

At the least, I hope you can see that your claim it is weak evidence or it is not scientific quality evidence is a straw man. The reliability of the evidence is a completely different issue. The problem in this case isn't reliability, the problem is the skeptical and the scientific communities can see the difference between evidence and a conclusion. That you cannot see the difference is the issue here, not that we aren't recognizing 'weak' evidence. As you note in this statement:

I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated. When you try to exclude it, you end up with nonsense like claiming the experience of seeing something that is red is the ‘evidence’ and the description of it as red is a conclusion and not evidence.

****I think I see the problem here. Not that you will, but I'll give it another try because this statement gave me another idea of where the problem is. Your analogy between internal unverifiable stimuli and external verifiable stimuli is causing some of the confusion you are having between evidence and conclusion.

Suppose you see that color red but you see it because your brain is stimulated in an experiment? Now is it evidence of red? No. What's the difference?

In one case your observation was an observation of evidence. You saw something red. It was the red thing that is the evidence. You observed it. You concluded you saw red. Your conclusion was not the evidence. Your conclusion was based on the evidence, the red thing you saw.

In the case of the brain stimuli, your conclusion was not evidence of something red. It was evidence of your experience. The experience was the evidence. Your conclusion would not be evidence something red was there.

In the case of believing what the god experience was, the belief doe not become evidence. And the belief you see something red does not become evidence either, the red thing is the evidence. The person in either case may or may not be correct. But the red thing is the evidence and in the case with the god belief, there is no evidence, only the belief.

I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things.

It is a false accusation to claim I refused to answer. Don't go off on that imaginary defense here please. I did in fact answer. And after how many pages of discussion over conclusions vs evidence, I do resent that rationalization that I must be unable to answer something and am refusing.

You are asking for a contradiction. You are asking how one can prove something for which there is no evidence.

I can give you a number of things which would have been evidence of gods, but there is no evidence. Take the Biblical god, for example. If there was knowledge imparted in the Bible that suggested more than the humans at the time in the location the Bible originated could not have known without some supernatural giver of knowledge, that would have been evidence. It isn't there. And the claim about people wouldn't have understood so they wrote their interpretation doesn't hold up.

There's no reason people wouldn't have understood the Moon reflects the Sun's light, yet the Bible describes it as a light in the sky. There's no reason people wouldn't have understood there were human populations around the Earth. The Biblical writers were oblivious to 3/4s of the Earth's peoples. The Tower of Babel story for why people spoke different languages is absurd. The worldwide flood is untrue. There is no concept of hand washing to prevent infection. The list is endless of wrong science in the Bible.

Prayers are not answered. The Bible is inconsistent and unclear. It justifies the actions of the believers rather than actually making sense, God gave us the land, we are the chosen people, and so on.

As to how does one, "Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists", you are asking for evidence of something for which there is no evidence as if by saying, "well how is someone supposed to prove god to skeptics, then?" means the thing exists but it just can't be proven. You are not offering the option that there is no evidence because the thing does not exist.

However god beliefs may have begun and even if all human conceptions of god were known to be inaccurate, it does not invalidate the proposition that some god exists. What evidence would you accept for the existence of some god that does not depend on identifying similar human experiences that are reported to be due to god? In short, what evidence could be presented that would change your mind about your conclusion that no god exists?

What evidence would you accept that invisible pink unicorns populate my backyard?

I believe in an evidence based world because the scientific process results in successful predictions and technology allowing us to walk on the Moon and send probes to Mars, to cure cancer, to increase agricultural production, to travel the world, to communicate via the Internet, to live in the house I do where I turn on the water an lights when I want. The evidence based world is verifiable and it works.

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs come from the imagination. There is no evidence for gods. The only gods for which one can argue are gods which don't interact with the Universe because if they did we would see the evidence. And gods which do nothing one could detect are irrelevant.

 

[epeos76]

So Ad Populum is not latin? You continue to enlighten me Anyway you're the one trying to float appeal to the masses out there, not me.

I see you did use that phrase. My apologies for sloppy reading. I'd be glad to continue the meta debate about my rather nice line "the grammar of greek logic" if you think its worth doing. It's not my fault that the grammar of greek logic is latin.

Of course you will crawdad by claiming you meant psychic in the psychological sense, but don't worry I'm sure you will be awarded your strawman merit badge all the same.

You sorted this out then? You meant religion is a sort of mind virus and its popularity is evidence that it is addictive like tobacco right? There is not really any evidence for that hypothesis.

I assume you are here because of that fact that there is a growing number of people willing to admit to atheism.

No. I'm here because I like the (humbling) honesty, intellectual chops, and enthusiasm for ideas here. I'm here in this thread, because I thought it revealed a misconception about theism. I'm still here because I'd like to sort out the undiscriminating vitriol towards theism I've seen.

Did people ever walk around obsessing about death? WTF are you talking about?

Probably. The average lifespan was 35 or so until suprisingly recently.

The only thing that changes is we have a lot more time to think about it once death darkens our door. Hence religion.

I don't spend a lot of time thinking about death. It isn't a major motive in my life. I doubt it is in most 21st century types, until they pass middle age. In any event, religion can actually increase fear of death. Why don't you provide some evidence, so I can see what you think you mean. I suspect you won't be satisfied with any interpretation I put on your claim.

I'm not complaining, I'm observing. Morality does not require religion, and I posit is impeded by it. Just as being handed a calculator impedes your ability to do long division, and more importantly you are obliged to take it on faith the calculator is giving you the correct answer.

It's certainly a hypothesis. I think religion is more like being handed an english teacher. I think it can impede morality, precisely because it is so effective at shaping some of the foundational assumptions we use to make moral decisions. You will get no argument from me that religious persons have to justify their actions by the same objective standards as anyone else.

Talk to me when the NBC Jihad starts. Until then I will simply observe no jihads or purges or crusades have been justified by TV. (tho it is definitely used as a propaganda tool of religion)

We may yet work up to Fox news/NPR violence. In my view it doesn't take much more than a tool for convincing people that they have a group identity and that it is threatened by another group. Religion certainly can do this. It can also provide a method for connecting with the alien and the outsider.

Yet you make morally certain claims.

Right. I don't fully understand the function of religion, and yet I claim some of the things it does are beneficial.

Tested and failed. Ever had a gay friend beat up for that simple fact? I have.

I am sorry for your friend. I don't think I'll share the incident it brings to mind. In any event, I acknowledge that religion can be a tool to incite violence. Are you under the impression that bully boys need a religious reason to be violent homophobes?

Yet you defend religion in broad terms, not just your own. If you made a case for your own I'd be interested to read it.

That's a response to the broad brush the atheists here are painting with. Personally, I'm an agnostic theist (thanks MobySeven for the correct label). I've observed practioners of progressive christianity in the midwest for years. It serves many powerful, community building functions, including keeping track of people who need help, producing amateur art, etc. None of those functions require belief in god. What is really impressive about it, though is its ability to teach its practioners certain social attitudes that I find deeply humbling, when I really stop to think about it. Those attitudes translate pretty well into action. I can take another, explicit stab at this, in another post, if you like.

Wow, you accuse of strawman while doing it. I didn't say that. You even quote it THEN mischaracterize it, lol. Brazen.

Why don't you explain why it is a strawman? Then I can address whatever you're actually thinking without deploying my psychic powers.

Moving on. Are you going to assert that inner experience is not subject to external manipulation? Because that was my point. When you become accustomed to faith as a valid mental process you do internalize the doctrine. It's unavoidable. Once you're on that path your ability to distinguish right from wrong is compromised by degrees. You may think you will never get past some magical line that you would somehow magically be able to tell when your 'inner experience' was telling you things that you would have previously considered abhorrent, and who knows, maybe you have that facility, tho I am not sure how it would work. What we do know is that most people do not have this facility. They believe, with certainty, whatever crap the religion they were indoctrinated told them.

Inner experience can be manipulated. It's prone too error. That's why I think deference to better proven methods is the touchstone for reasonableness. I don't see any reason to buy your slippery slope argument, though. Are you walking around ignoring your feelings? There is plenty of evidence that they are tied up in all sorts of cognitive processes.

I would have to go with evidence over impossible to prove promises as a model for social interaction.

Verified evidence supporting a well developed theory is best. It's not usually available though (it's expensive to produce). Observational evidence supporting contingent beliefs is the best we can do in lots of situations.

Of course why would a theist bring it up? If you're here at all you know the idea faith is not an error cause is something many people here are skeptical of.

I think faith can be a cause of error. I haven't mentioned it because I thought the central thrust of SkG's challenge was showing it was possible to discriminate between god beliefs on some other basis. In all honesty I took your focus on it to be some sort of trap, so you could then shout about how I don't understand the difference between faith and reason.

Certainly I agree faith should be circumscribed. Then circumcised then castrated

That sincerely drew a snort. Cheers for style.

Seriously I do recognize faith has been used to motivate people to good. But it's not required to do good. Faith has been used to motivate people to do evil, and that evil could not have been accomplished otherwise.

Thank you for acknowledging the first point. I agree that god beliefs are not required to do good. I think that the ability to do good depends on more than reasoning, however. I have some evidence for this, posted above. I think we have to be trained and to practice particular emotional postures, to get good at them. A sort of psychic training, if you will. Religion may not have a monopoly on this, but its certainly the most common provider.

That's certainly a step, but why stop there?

I'll tell you why, because absent making faith a virtue, religion really has no legs. Even assuming a particular religion wasn't designed with social control in mind it's way to tempting to abuse the power provided by the faith consumer.

The Presbyterian church is governed by a bicameral house of representatives elected by the laity, and has more committees than a fortune 500 company with a new corporate vision. In the midwest it is also blessed with a culture of mild discomfort for extreme positions, and a voracious appetite for "polite" disagreement which advanced practioners can extend for years. There are checks and balances designed by people with your concerns in mind.

The promise of immortality or freedom from existential responsibility is the foot in the door. "I have the answers!" If you would say that any religion that goes beyond these (relatively) harmless sort of emotional sops then we might find room to agree. Though you won't like the fact I recognize them for what they are

I think there's some interesting stuff in here, possibly distorted by typing fatigue. Would you explain how existential responsibility is different from the more mundane kind I'm familiar with? And are you sneering at emotion here, or claiming you're beyond it or what? I not embarrassed by the assertion that religion involves my emotions.

But religions, all to often, don't stop there. Certainly there are socially 'polite' religions that do stop there. Really those aren't the main problem from a sociological perspective. From a human perspective although it does make me sad that people willingly befuddle and delude themselves but oh well. Even spoonfed morality can be relatively benign, but jeepers it's SO susceptible to abuse.

I think we agree on almost everything but language, meaning, context and history here. Is it fair to say you think your moral positions are entirely self-derived? Are you the master of your fate/captain of your soul? Greek logic through and through? That sort of thing?

 

[epeos76]

Could you summarize some more examples of "god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice"?

You know the honor role I think? God beliefs inspired a number of people to oppose slavery, practice non-violent social resistance, agitate for civil rights, treat native populations justly etc. etc.

On a much smaller scale, I am claiming that progressive christian beliefs (the "polite" ones people on both sides of the debate often deem insincere) teach people the emotional and social skills required to reach out to strangers and outcasts and spend sometime taking care of one another. I provided you with a number of ancedotes recounting my observations.

And for everyone of those examples there are tens of thousands of examples of a Jerry Falwell condemning people for being born gay or a Pat Robertson condemning some abortion doctor while taking church donations to buy equipment for his diamond mine in a country where the diamond trade is responsible for some of the worst atrocities one could imagine like hacking off the limbs of children with machetes.

True. I conclude from this that religion can have a profound effect on people's moral choices, and that it's important to give some thought to rules for distinguishing between them. It is a fair point to say the distinguishing characteristics are clearly not the bible or the name jesus.

Church charities often have the underlying goal of converting people to Christianity rather than simply offering charity.

Some don't of course. Some do valuable work.

In Africa and for that matter, all over the world, you have the religious imposition of "abstinence only" programs imposed on groups working to prevent HIV-AIDS when the evidence clearly shows those programs are a waste of resources, and worse, you have religious pressure limiting family planning because believers want to impose their white middle class America 'values' on poverty stricken powerless women who cannot "just say no" so they are forced to have too many children, who often end up as orphans in a system that cannot care for them ..... the list is endless for the incredible immoral crap that believers are currently imposing on people who the believers have no clue what the results of their beliefs and actions have on millions of women and children in the world.

I'm outraged by this stuff. I can say that the churches I've belonged to are too. There is a whole, (generally) non-yelling swatch of responsible theists, who think this is outrageous and shameful.

I understand why actions like this make you unwilling to give any credence to a religion. I acknowledged some 800+ posts ago that this is not an academic or cost-free debate. Rules of proof aside, religion, and christiantity in particularly, clearly has the burden of justifying why we should keep it around.

To me though, thinking as clearly as possible about religion means reconciling the good stuff with the bad stuff. I'd like to take an evidence based approach to what religion is as well as what it isn't.

I don't see any benefit in pretending to be blind to the distinctions between religious beliefs and I don't much respect a view that dismisses the choices of many, many people here, in this country, who are often less well educated and less well off as the bleating of a bunch of useless sheeple. I'd like to go forward with them and don't believe it can be done any other way.

Are you one of those believers, epeos? Believing in your narrow little world view, never having been to a third world country

No. I'm well travelled. My passport has some cool stamps on it. I speak Chinese. I pay attention. I'm also well read, dashing, bold, and true. My torso can't compare with Faithk's, however.

Do you think it is possible you see what you want to see and disregard the rest?

It is possible, but no more for me than for anyone. Slightly less so because I'm a skeptophile. My dearest hope is to someday be declared a real live skeptic. I understand there is someone here in charge of that.

(lai-la-lai)

ETA (or should it be mm-mm-mm?)

 

[epeos76]

From my vantage point, that area of the discussion has been addressed.
Perhaps you can expand on that versus concentrating on the personal impugnment.

Fair enough. It would be nice if you were willing to police the otherside a bit too, though.

 

[articulett]

Fair enough. It would be nice if you were willing to police the otherside a bit too, though.

I think there has been enough of that going on. In fact if you look at the words used, you might be surprised at who is being the most abrasive.

You liken god to a pulley. But pulleys are physical... If you believed in an invisible pulley that was immeasurable, then I would find that a bit crazy. On this forum do you consider any believers "wooish" or do you mostly just post to defend your beliefs? How do you treat those with beliefs that you don't share... say, reincarnation? Or conspiracy theorists? How about the believers of psychics? I want to know why you think we should respect your opinion regarding "god" more than you respect those types of opinions--which may be different in "form", but not in regards to evidence. They may all have helpful or harmful elements. The bottom line is that you don't think these things are true-- but you think your god beliefs are. We are trying to find out why. If you think god is of more essence that an "invisible immeasurable pulley" (whatever that might be), then you would need to tell us why for us to respect that as more than belief in an "invisible immeasurable pulley" that you may well have imagined.

To a skeptic all of this stuff may as well be exactly that. Real material pulleys exist. I'm not sure if invisible immeasurable ones do, so I don't believe in them. The same goes for consciousness. We know that it exists in living people with brains... we don't know that any kind can exist absent a brain. God and souls are entities that fall in that category, and so --like invisible pulleys-- most skeptics have no reason to believe in any of them unless indoctrinated to "need" such a belief.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well let's just say that compassionate non-judgmental religious crowd you are describing certainly are hard to see with all the judgmental horrible religious right wingers that are in the news and affecting the laws and policies of this nation, epeos.

My comment would be that you are attributing to religion what I attribute to good people because they are good people. Religion does not make them good or bad. If it did, all the religious people you are talking about would be good. But they aren't. Belief in God does not seem to be a variable with any correlation to good people doing good deeds. An occasional correlation with select individuals is all I see. You're giving God more credit than the evidence supports is deserved.

 

[Mobyseven]

Moby was rude to her.

Okay, seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. Yeah, maybe I was a bit short with Beth. I was short with her because she was incredibly rude to me, and tried to treat me like a moron. You want to go and play the 'big bad Mobyseven' card? Go right the hell ahead. I'm right here, waiting for polite discussion the minute it comes my way - give me attitude though, and you can be damn sure you'll get it right back at you. Beth was rude to me, and I was as patient with her as I could be right up until the point I gave her my honest and reserved opinion - that she was being deliberately evasive and ignoring arguments that contradicted her preconceived notions, and I gave her that opinion in private because I didn't want to be rude by calling her on it in public.

She wants to lie about me in this thread, she can do it - but I will call her on it each and every time. Rude? Maybe. I call it keeping people honest.

It may sometimes be appropriate. Even pretending Beth's posts were all deeply flawed it is hard to see how patiently attempting civil discussion justifies that kind of treatment, though.

I'm sorry - 'pretending'?

Also, I'll cut you some slack on the assumption that you haven't been following all this from the beginning, but you'd best know that we've all attempted patient, civil discussion with Beth in the past. There's only so many times you can have the same erroneous argument repeated at you politely before you figure out that perhaps the person isn't being as polite as they superficially seem.

I can point to your post and say, "that's English". I could do it even if ever single mind that understood the language disappeared (though in that case, I would presumably be making the equivalent statement in some other language). Someone would have to be around to do the pointing, but that gets a bit arcane for me.

It has been at least suggested that some components of justice and mercy would fall out of a proper analysis of group behavior. The buzz words would be game theory, reproductive utility, group strategies etc. I can google something, but I bet you're at least as familiar with this idea as I am. That suggests they deserve a similar classification.

SkG and various neurologists have suggested that our moral sense is the result of the fact that we are hard wired with an emotional "grammar" to help us navigate group dynamics. There is evidence that we can influence the shape and scope of those feelings.

I think (but can't prove) that has almost always been one of the functions of religion. If that's right, then the appropriate god beliefs may very well foster certain qualities of mercy or justice that wouldn't necessarily arise without an equivalent stimulus.

Excellent - we've established that you can't tell the difference between abstract concepts like language and ink on a page.

I'm off to watch an episode of Firefly, and then maybe if I can be bothered I'll come back and have the same damn discussion I've had a thousand times over. I'm reasonably sure it won't make a damn bit of difference either way.

People always complain that they aren't given a chance. They never seem to realise that they're giving you the exact same argument you've heard a thousand times before. Nobody wants to think they're predictable...

 

[Beth]

This is quite lengthy (did I strike a nerve?) so I cut quite a bit. If there is anything I miss responding to that you feel deserves an answer, please point it out to me again.

I think this may be our disconnect. I can consider an experience that something I saw was red to be evidence that it is red, yet still be aware that I could be mistaken and change my mind based on other evidence. This is even easier to do when the experience is regarding an intangible thing and I was not the person who had the experience. To say that the experience was due to A does NOT mean I cannot later conclude it was something else. To presume otherwise is to confuse evidence with proof.
No, I understand the point you are making here. I simply don’t agree with you on this point. See below.

We are arguing what is evidence vs what is a conclusion. You say you understand. But you do not understand the difference between an observation which is confirmable, and something one imagines which is not confirmable.

Actually, I quite understand this difference between confirmable and not confirmable. That is what separates scientific caliber evidence from non-scientific caliber evidence and why I admitted long ago that the evidence for god, such as it is, is not of scientific caliber.

Agreeing or disagreeing with me is irrelevant. The issue here is the definition of evidence. I've already said, you can believe what you want, but you cannot change the rules of what is and what is not evidence.

It seems to me that it is you who want to change the definition of what is and what is not evidence. By your definition, testimony presented under oath in a trial would not constitute evidence. You are trying to limit the definition of evidence to that which meets the criteria of publishable scientific evidence. I don’t think that is appropriate for all contexts, including this discussion. My point is that most people don’t limit ‘evidence’ so strictly so it’s perfectly reasonable for them to accept their own personal experiences and those of people they trust on this matter.

And you can believe internal messages are or personal experiences could be evidence of an external thing such as a god. In fact, at this point, I see no hope of further progress.

Bolding and correction mine. Yes, I think that similar experiences of many different people across different cultures may indicate some sort of external stimulus for their experiences. What it is, I can’t say but it does seem to get consistently labeled ‘god’.

That you and other people want to give validity to that internally generated stimuli is nice, but the skeptical and the scientific communities do not. So you can make the statement that you personally don't know where the evidence ends and the conclusion begins.

Normally I wouldn’t have any difficult with the two, but the way you are using the words is confusing me. Can you describe a viable method to distinguish between what you are terming ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that can be applied to all sorts of different situations appropriately? Because, as it is, it appears to me you're just making up your definitions in order to exclude testimonial evidence for things you don't believe in.

You can make the claim the conclusion is evidence for the conclusion. But the bottom line is the skeptical and the scientific communities do not see one's imaginary belief in gods as evidence of gods.

I haven’t denied that at any time, nor do I find that an unreasonable position for someone to take. It’s the insistance on using only that definition of evidence and the certainty of the conclusion that god does not exist based on that definition that bothers me. That is what allows so many here to class those who do believe in god as irrational or delusional. They are not, or at least no more likely to be so than the atheists I am acquainted with.

At the least, I hope you can see that your claim it is weak evidence or it is not scientific quality evidence is a straw man.

No. I don’t follow why that is a straw man in the least. Isn’t a straw man when I make up an weak pretend argument and claim that it yours? I’m saying that weak or non-scientific quality evidence is how I view it and that it isn’t an unreasonable POV, but a fairly common one. Particularly among people who are not scientists. I saying that accepting such evidence doesn’t make them irrational or delusional or even incorrect in a case where the truth cannot be proven one way or the other.

I don’t think it’s possible to draw a distinct line between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ that you are attempting. I think you have to include what the person thinks is the cause of the experience as part of the evidence being evaluated. When you try to exclude it, you end up with nonsense like claiming the experience of seeing something that is red is the ‘evidence’ and the description of it as red is a conclusion and not evidence.

In the case of believing what the god experience was, the belief doe not become evidence. And the belief you see something red does not become evidence either, the red thing is the evidence. The person in either case may or may not be correct. But the red thing is the evidence and in the case with the god belief, there is no evidence, only the belief.

So, by this definitions, when I read an article in a scientific magazine, that isn’t evidence they are presenting, they are just reporting their conclusions. And when when people cite scientific publications, you do not consider that evidence that supports their arguments, but just conclusions. I think this delineation between evidence and conclusion you are advocating is, frankly, nonsensical.

I am asking you to give an example of what you would consider evidence for the existence of god, assuming god is a non-material being that doesn’t involve a personal subjective experience. That is not, despite your protestations to the contrary, an unusual definition of god. In fact, it doesn’t even have to be a god. Give me an example of evidence for any non-material thing that exists, such as justice or mercy, that doesn’t involve a person’s subjective experience and subsequence ‘conclusion’ about what they experienced. I don’t think you can and I think that is why you refuse to answer the question. As I said above, I think the line you are trying to draw between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusion’ does not exist when discussing intangible things.

It is a false accusation to claim I refused to answer. Don't go off on that imaginary defense here please. I did in fact answer. And after how many pages of discussion over conclusions vs evidence, I do resent that rationalization that I must be unable to answer something and am refusing.

You are asking for a contradiction. You are asking how one can prove something for which there is no evidence.

I am not asking for proof. I am not asking for actual evidence. I am asking for what you would consider to be evidence, as opposed to a conclusion based on a personal experience, for the existence of an intangible object.

However god beliefs may have begun and even if all human conceptions of god were known to be inaccurate, it does not invalidate the proposition that some god exists. What evidence would you accept for the existence of some god that does not depend on identifying similar human experiences that are reported to be due to god? In short, what evidence could be presented that would change your mind about your conclusion that no god exists?

What evidence would you accept that invisible pink unicorns populate my backyard?

Well, you could claim that you have communicated with them psychically. That would be testimonial evidence. I repeat, perhaps I need to make this my mantra - evidence is not proof. I can accept that it is evidence. It is not especially convincing evidence. If you then introduced me to them and I, too, was able to communicate with the psychically, that would be far more convincing evidence to me, but I doubt anyone else would believe us and that would be understandable.

The evidence is overwhelming that god beliefs come from the imagination.

For many specific god beliefs, that is true. But not for all.

There is no evidence for gods.

No, there is no verifiable consistent evidence. There is not proof. But despite your insistence to the contrary, that is not the same as NO evidence. I think this is where we started the discussion.

The only gods for which one can argue are gods which don't interact with the Universe because if they did we would see the evidence. And gods which do nothing one could detect are irrelevant.

Irrelevant is not the same as non-existent. I have not been debating the relevance of such a god. That would be a subjective value judgment.

 

[Mobyseven]

...and again, we see the same argument. And again, the criticisms of the argument have not been addressed. And again we shall be chastised if we even think about pointing that out.

 

[cyborg]

By your definition, testimony presented under oath in a trial would not constitute evidence.

Last time I checked both prosecution and defence get to present testimony presented under oath.

Presumably they do so such that their presented evidence leads to different, and opposite, conclusions.

Hmm... if only we had some sort of "cross-examination" process whereby the opposing side has the chance to argue that the evidence does, in fact, not support the conclusion it is purported to do so.

(You really just don't seem to grasp the "evidence is not conclusion" thrust here even when your analogies undermine it.)

 

[Beth]

Last time I checked both prosecution and defence get to present testimony presented under oath.

Presumably they do so such that their presented evidence leads to different, and opposite, conclusions.

Right. Evidence is not the same as proof. Difference conclusions can be drawn from the same evidence.

Hmm... if only we had some sort of "cross-examination" process whereby the opposing side has the chance to argue that the evidence does, in fact, not support the conclusion it is purported to do so.

Yes, imagine a world in which different ideas could compete to see which is the best. What a paradise that would be, eh?

(You really just don't seem to grasp the "evidence is not conclusion" thrust here even when your analogies undermine it.)

Oh, that evidence is not the same as a conclusion is not an issue for me. It's the claim that testimony isn't evidence, but a conclusion that bothers me. If a witness says that the perpetrator drove a red car away from the scene, I'd call that evidence. Skeptigirl claims it is a conclusion and therefore, not evidence. Only the car itself would constitute evidence. Do you agree with her definitions?

 

[cyborg]

It's the claim that testimony isn't evidence, but a conclusion that bothers me. If a witness says that the perpetrator drove a red car away from the scene, I'd call that evidence. Skeptigirl claims it is a conclusion and therefore, not evidence. Only the car itself would constitute evidence. Do you agree with her definitions?

The statement being presented as evidence and what circumstances lead to the utterance of the statement are two different things.

 

[epeos76]

Well let's just say that compassionate non-judgmental religious crowd you are describing certainly are hard to see with all the judgmental horrible religious right wingers that are in the news and affecting the laws and policies of this nation, epeos.

I sympathize with you. It's worth noting that the progressive churches are shrinking while the fundies grow. I think the strain I like is in danger of disappearing.

I'm interested in the problem of how to be good people. I think we can at least agree that there is some work involved, and some technique too. I would certainly never suggest that everything required can be found in religion, or that religion was a requirement.

If that were true, all those religious people etc.

Here we disagree. This would only be true if the fundies were correct, and the bible worked by magic. It still seems reasonable to me to look at the different results reached by people who consider themselves to be practicing different beliefs.

 

[Beth]

The statement being presented as evidence and what circumstances lead to the utterance of the statement are two different things.

Yes. That doesn't answer the question though. Do you agree with skeptigirl's definition of evidence such that any type of testimony cannot be considered evidence? Just to clarify, she stated:

You saw something red. It was the red thing that is the evidence. You observed it. You concluded you saw red. Your conclusion was not the evidence. Your conclusion was based on the evidence, the red thing you saw.

 

[articulett]

Someone's memory of a red car is evidence of a memory... the red car is evidence of the red car... but memories are fallible... Really believing that an alien visited is evidence that people can believe crazy things... it's not evidence that an alien visited. Extraordinary claims take extraordinary evidence... not "feelings" and premature conclusions or feel good inferences. The same for god.

Cars exist. Red exists. So far, no evidence for any form of consciousness without a material brain exists. None. Zilch. We have tons of evidence that people have been having delusions about such things for eons-- ghosts, demons, gods, furies, thetans, etc. So far, zero measurable evidence.

We have tons of evidence that people are prone to believe certain things that are fallacious.

We have no evidence that immaterial forms of consciousness can exist. None. Not Xenu. Not god. Not demons. Not aliens that do anal probes in the night. For a person to rationally believe ins such things there would need to be convincing measurable evidence. Otherwise, there is nothing to distinguish your god from known delusions such as those things you don't believe in.

And rest assured, epeos, I'm not interested in your respect any more than you are interested in mine. I was just wondering if anyone has a decent answer to the OP. Since no one does, I'll just go on assuming that you believe your woo for the same reason Tom Cruise believes his-- it makes you feel special and super duper an in on a secret.

From my perspective, religion makes people feel more moral, but their "morality" or niceness or whatever only seems evident to others that believe like them. When you look at their words, they sure aren't more pleasant or logical or nice or funny or compassionate. They are not good listeners... they tend to be pedantic and judgmental while feeling readily offended when people are far less abrasive than them. At least that's my observation. You are much ruder than the people you think of as rude. And if someone used your inane words back on you, you'd see exactly how pedantically delusional you sound. Really-- Any woo-- Tom Cruise or Sylvia Browne could use your words to pretend the same nothingness and avoid answering the OP.

There is no good reason to believe in your god or your woo any more than there is to believe in any other... each woo just feels that they, personally, can't be fooled-- that they are chosen and that all those who believe differently are deluded. That's what you are avoiding saying with all your mock offense, semantics, and pedantry. Your god is an invisible immeasurable "pulley" that you believe in, and you feel special for believing in it and are made that we think you are as deluded as the woos you laugh at or are offended by.

 

[Faithkills]

...and again, we see the same argument. And again, the criticisms of the argument have not been addressed. And again we shall be chastised if we even think about pointing that out.

I chastise thee, I chastise thee, I chastise thee!

Now say the "Hail Dawkins'" and call me in the morning

Am I missing something or isn't all Beth doing with the walls of textual fluff just saying "I think Ad Populum shouldn't be a valid criticism"?

 

[articulett]

Yes. That doesn't answer the question though. Do you agree with skeptigirl's definition of evidence such that any type of testimony cannot be considered evidence? Just to clarify, she stated:

You are confused as to what it's evidence for. If you wish on a star and your wish comes true... that is NOT evidence that wishing on a star works... If you believed that it was that is evidence that humans confuse correlation with causation because superstition is a primitive way of learning. We avoid stuff associated with bad things and repeat actions associated with the pleasant.

Science makes this technique less prone to error.

Of course, Beth has me on ignore, because she wants to believe that "believing you've had a god experience" is evidence for a god experience. But it is no more a god experience than the experience of a person believing that someone is possessed is evidence of demon possession.

For a rationalist to believe that consciousness could exist absent a material brain-- would take extraordinary evidence-- the kind every one could confirm for themselves... measurable evidence-- that is if you were really interested in knowing whether such things could exist or not.

 

[epeos76]

Okay, seriously, this is a bit ridiculous...

You had a fight with her. In the process you were "short". It's not a hanging offense. If you look above you'll find some acknowledged snipiness on my part (I'm sure you can find short, shirty, "impugnment" and rudeness too, acknowledged or not). Hell, I'm from the midwest, we have some forms of politeness that have more in common with a knife fight than with principles of kindness.

She put you on ignore. So what? Why not be forthright about the fact that any real discussion between people with serious differences who care about their ideas is likely to involve some tension? The goal is to minimize. As you keep reminding me, a response is not a right.

There's only so many times you can have the same erroneous argument repeated at you politely . . .

I've felt the same way myself.

Excellent - we've established that you can't tell the difference between abstract concepts like language and ink on a page.

Moby7 you're simply not coming to grips with my point. Language is a thing first, and an abstract concept second. I won't cross-examine you on this, because I'm sure you've been over the trivial premises many weary times. I'll just suggest you consider the idea that there is reason to believe that - at any level of abstaction - language has non-arbitrary properties independent of human thought.

One piece of evidence for this is that it has origins in evolutionary biology. It's not a pure invention.

Firefly! Comrade, the only meaningful dispute we can have now is over the proper language to be applied to Kaylee's grin.

 

[epeos76]

And rest assured, epeos, I'm not interested in your respect any more than you are interested in mine.

You traduce me articullet. You wouldn't piss me off so much if I wasn't impressed by your commitment to doing your homework. I just don't think much of your penchant for categorizing people as a class and attributing icky inner qualities to the class you don't like.

 

[articulett]

I chastise thee, I chastise thee, I chastise thee!

Now say the "Hail Dawkins'" and call me in the morning

Am I missing something or isn't all Beth doing with the walls of textual fluff just saying "I think Ad Populum shouldn't be a valid criticism"?

That's pretty much it... lots of people claim to have a god experience (whatever that means); therefore, she thinks there might be something to it (whatever that is).

Lots of people believe in demon possession or reincarnation and have experiences that they feel prove it... but those don't matter to Beth... just the belief that makes her feel special.

I'm not sure what epeos is saying other than playing the "offended" card, but he/she seems to think that morality is related to religion or is proof of god or something. But every religion thinks that people of their religion are more moral than those who believe differently. And I think non believers may be the most moral of all-- at least I find them more honest.