• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheists, quit confusing the two.

Skeptic Ginger said:
If I conclude something based on evidence, I also believe that conclusion is correct. I can conclude my belief is correct because I have evidence supporting that belief. You should argue your point, but not your definition of belief because there is no universally accepted definition that belief only means a conclusion without empiric evidence.
Click to expand...

Allowing words to have subjectively mutable definitions, renders logic, and to a large degree, reason, without substantive merit or meaning.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Allowing words to have subjectively mutable definitions, renders logic, and to a large degree, reason, without substantive merit or meaning.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the point that SG made. Are you doing this deliberately?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
When evidence is not found where you hypothesize you should expect to find it, you can draw a conclusion from that lack of evidence if your hypothesis is sound.
Click to expand...

It is difficult to conclude much from this level of generalization, but...if your hypothesis is sound, and well considered, I would generally agree.

There are circumstances where, with proper qualification, absence of evidence may be considered as evidence of absence, but only within the limitations of the proper qualification of those considerations.
 
godless dave said:
And here's the sound logic for getting a positive claim out of a lack of evidence:

P1: A person asserts that X exists.

P2: There is no empiric evidence suggesting the existence of X.

Therefore, X does not exist.
Click to expand...

Actually, no. All that can be logically inferred is that there is no evidence supporting the P1 assertion.
 
Tricky said:
Tricky’s hierarchy of belief. The higher in the list, the more rational.

I) Beliefs based on empirical evidence
___1) Based on personally observed empirical evidence
______a) Evidence is always the same (e.g. “gravity works”)
______b) Evidence is often the same (e.g. “aspirin works”)
______c) Evidence is reliable more than half the time (e.g. “dark clouds mean rain”)

___2) Based on reliable studies
______a) Large volumes of consistent evidence (e.g. “germ theory of disease”)
______b) Smaller volumes of consistent evidence (e.g. “polio vaccine works”)
______c) Inconsistent but with predominance of evidence (e.g. “global warming”)

II) Beliefs based on moral code
___1) Unshakable moral beliefs (e.g. “murder is bad”)
___2) Conditional moral beliefs (e.g. “lying is bad, unless you are a POW being questioned”)
___3) Variable moral beliefs. (e.g. “homosexuals are bad, except the ones I know and like personally”)

III) Beliefs based on faith
___1) Witnessing
______a) Personally witnessing phenomena you cannot explain but by faith
______b) Anecdotal accounts of phenomena you cannot explain but by faith
___2) Based on teachings of a person of faith that you respect.
___3) Based on a feeling that “it must be so”.
Click to expand...

No real problem, I just don't consider your category I issues to be "beliefs."

To me these are evidenced understandings, knowledge, and considerations.

Beliefs, faith, unsupported conjecture, fanciful ponderings, these are things that are the antonyms of evidenced, referenced, supported and empirically/logically derived considerations.
 
dafydd said:
True by his definition. I just put my mandolin back in its case. I believe that next time I open the case it will be there. Is that irrational?
Click to expand...

That depends greatly upon the circumstances. It could be an irrational belief, or it could be considered and evidentiary supported understanding.
 
dafydd said:
That has nothing to do with the point that SG made. Are you doing this deliberately?
Click to expand...

belief and faith are unnecessary and laregly irrelevent when there is evidentiary support for an understanding or consideration.
 
TShaitanaku said:
That depends greatly upon the circumstances. It could be an irrational belief, or it could be considered and evidentiary supported understanding.
Click to expand...

The circumstances are simple. Putting a mandolin back in its case. Your circumlocutions are amusing though.
 
dafydd said:
The circumstances are simple. Putting a mandolin back in its case. Your circumlocutions are amusing though.
Click to expand...

Is the case in your presence, or in your home or other secured location? If so, then your "belief," isn't a "belief" but an evidence-supported understanding or consideration.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Is the case in your presence, or in your home or other secured location? If so, then your "belief," isn't a "belief" but an evidence-supported understanding or consideration.
Click to expand...

They have a word here in Flanders,muggenzifterij,sifting mosquitoes. It means nit picking to the nth degree. You are an expert at it.
 
godless dave said:
I'm not talking about the scientific process, but the basic empirical process we all use to determine if something exists.
Click to expand...
I tend to conflate the two. One might be more formal than the other but the principles of logic and evidence are not essentially different.
 
TShaitanaku said:
Allowing words to have subjectively mutable definitions, renders logic, and to a large degree, reason, without substantive merit or meaning.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. Assuming two people mean the same thing when they use ambiguous words is not logical.

Deciding you know the correct definition of the word, "belief", and anyone using a different meaning for the word is wrong is also not logical.
 
Last edited:
TShaitanaku said:
It is difficult to conclude much from this level of generalization, but...if your hypothesis is sound, and well considered, I would generally agree.

There are circumstances where, with proper qualification, absence of evidence may be considered as evidence of absence, but only within the limitations of the proper qualification of those considerations.
Click to expand...
For example:

I hypothesize that if the Bible were truly inspired by God or some evidence God interacted with humans at some point in history that it should contain some knowledge one would not expect people of the time to have been knowledgeable about. But one does not find that.

The list of what scientific facts are absent from the Bible is evidence there was no supernatural power in communication with humans in the past. Here's the long list of bad science n the Bible from the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

The Moon is a light that rules the night. (No it is reflected light and you can see it during the day.) Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Not one word about the importance of hand washing to prevent the disease is in the Bible despite many references to things that are supposed to protect people's health.

Evidence for evolution and the age of the planet and Universe indicate the inaccuracy of Biblical myths.

No recognition there were people all over the planet besides those in the Fertile Crescent.

The absence of even a single thing God should have known and people wouldn't have in the Bible is evidence it was written entirely by men with no godly inspiration or input.
 
I generally agree.

Atheists don't seem to acknowledge the existence of philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom