Athiest's are wrong, God Exists, Science proves it

[Brian-M]

If I hear that bit about iron chariots one more time my head will explode.

What's wrong with using the iron chariots example to point out that the Biblical god clearly wasn't omnipotent?



*listens intently for the sound of a cranial explosion*

 

[marplots]

Mighty big "if" there, and one (so far) unsupported by false equivalences.

Does that mean you agree with the hypothetical but don't think there's any application of it?

 

[marplots]

YOU are the one who has to answer the very "good questions".

I posed the questions in response to your above speculations that "feeling the presence of god" by people holds more sway than objective verifiable science and that if many have that "feeling of the presence of god" then that lends it even more "heft".

Why is the onus on me to answer someone else's religious quandaries? I'm an atheist, I don't feel the presence of God at all - so anything you get from me will be second hand.

I am surprised that one's own experiences and judgements would not rank higher on the "independent verification" scale than anecdotes, even stories from strong authorities.

 

[marplots]

What's wrong with using the iron chariots example to point out that the Biblical god clearly wasn't omnipotent?



*listens intently for the sound of a cranial explosion*

** Pop ***

Metaphorical head explosion. Apparently, one of the few medical conditions that can be cured by wishful thinking. All better now.

(But if you care for an answer from the religious, I posted a link upthread.)

 

[Trakar]

A "big-foot" believer.

Thanks, hadn't heard that one yet.

 

[Pixel42]

I think I do understand the point being made: if you raise an objection to a believer for which there is a standard answer (even if you in fact know that standard answer and consider it inadequate) they will assume you haven't done sufficient research to participate in a meaningful discussion and dismiss you.

There's a good example in the current homeopathy thread: pointing out that all water has had contact with poo simply reveals that you don't know what succession is, therefore you don't know enough about homeopathy to argue against it.

 

[fuelair]

That's bizarre. I just read that because it's posted in another thread. Very good article. Three thumbs up (two of mine and one panda thumb).

I posted it in the science threads where I felt it might be necessary/useful!!

 

[marplots]

I think I do understand the point being made: if you raise an objection to a believer for which there is a standard answer (even if you in fact know that standard answer and consider it inadequate) they will assume you haven't done sufficient research to participate in a meaningful discussion and dismiss you.

There's a good example in the current homeopathy thread: pointing out that all water has had contact with poo simply reveals that you don't know what succession is, therefore you don't know enough about homeopathy to argue against it.

I'm guilty of it with homeopathy. And the unfortunate result is that I end up "talking past" the other person - they recognize how shallow my understanding is and can use that to dismiss what might otherwise be valid counter arguments.

But maybe the reason is we really don't want to engage at all. Like a camel's nose in the tent thing.

 

[ehcks]

I am surprised that one's own experiences and judgements would not rank higher on the "independent verification" scale than anecdotes, even stories from strong authorities.

One's own experiences and judgements are anecdotes.

 

[marplots]

One's own experiences and judgements are anecdotes.

Yes they are. But they have an apodictic element that stories from other people do not. Hence the ranking.

This isn't some radical dogma I've just invented. It's a common enough riposte to say something like, "Well, you could go out, try the experiment yourself, and verify the science." The power in that is the "try it yourself" bit.

I'd even say one of our most treasured skeptical challenges is "show me the evidence" - with the word "me" an important ingredient.

 

[Pixel42]

Yes they are. But they have an apodictic element that stories from other people do not. Hence the ranking.

This isn't some radical dogma I've just invented. It's a common enough riposte to say something like, "Well, you could go out, try the experiment yourself, and verify the science." The power in that is the "try it yourself" bit.

I'd even say one of our most treasured skeptical challenges is "show me the evidence" - with the word "me" an important ingredient.

There have been plenty of woo slingers here who have insisted that the way to convince myself that their anecdote about, say, visiting a particular psychic is compelling evidence that he/she is genuine is to visit that psychic myself. No, it isn't, because I have the same cognitive biases and fallible perceptions and memory as they do. A carefully blinded scientific experiment is the way to convince me, and I wouldn't need to be present myself (let alone conduct it myself) as long as I was convinced the scientific method had been scrupulously followed.

The difference is not that the evidence is obtained by me personally but that it is obtained using the scientific method. Yes it's ideal if I can conduct the experiment myself, but that's not the essential part of how the evidence is obtained.

 

[marplots]

There have been plenty of woo slingers here who have insisted that the way to convince myself that their anecdote about, say, visiting a particular psychic is compelling evidence that he/she is genuine is to visit that psychic myself. No, it isn't, because I have the same cognitive biases and fallible perceptions and memory as they do. A carefully blinded scientific experiment is the way to convince me, and I wouldn't need to be present myself (let alone conduct it myself) as long as I was convinced the scientific method had been scrupulously followed.

The difference is not that the evidence is obtained by me personally but that it is obtained using the scientific method. Yes it's ideal if I can conduct the experiment myself, but that's not the essential part of how the evidence is obtained.

But we are talking ranking here. Are you saying that personal involvement wouldn't rank higher than something you heard, all else being equal?

 

[Pixel42]

But we are talking ranking here. Are you saying that personal involvement wouldn't rank higher than something you heard, all else being equal?

I suppose the fact that someone else could be making the whole thing up makes my personal experiences rank slightly above other peoples'. But I prefer to assume that those who come here to tell their anecdotes are doing their best to honestly describe their experience, and then consider how I would best explain it if it was me it had happened to.

An anecdote does not become objective evidence just because I was the one who experienced it.

 

[marplots]

An anecdote does not become objective evidence just because I was the one who experienced it.

Yeah, I agree. I had in mind a believer who had "experienced" God - whatever that might mean. As objective evidence, it sucks, and it has little power to convince me. But, as subjective evidence, centered on the believer, it has a great deal of power to convince.

That's really all I was referring to with the notion of ranking.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Yeah, I agree. I had in mind a believer who had "experienced" God - whatever that might mean. As objective evidence, it sucks, and it has little power to convince me. But, as subjective evidence, centered on the believer, it has a great deal of power to convince.

That's really all I was referring to with the notion of ranking.

What is subjective evidence to you? What is objective evidence?

 

[Pixel42]

Yeah, I agree. I had in mind a believer who had "experienced" God - whatever that might mean. As objective evidence, it sucks, and it has little power to convince me. But, as subjective evidence, centered on the believer, it has a great deal of power to convince.

That's an interesting example, because I had what I suppose could be described as an anti-religious experience when I was about 12. I was praying one night, and I was suddenly filled with the absolute conviction that there was nothing and nobody out there listening; that my words were disappearing into the void. I've never been more certain of anything in my life. It was quite terrifying whilst it lasted.

It was that experience that turned me into an atheist, but it's not the reason I'm an atheist now. The only thing that can be safely concluded from such experiences, whether positive or negative, is that the human mind is a remarkable thing. And I knew that already.

 

[ehcks]

But we are talking ranking here. Are you saying that personal involvement wouldn't rank higher than something you heard, all else being equal?

That's one of the problems with woo. If you think something happened to you, you stop accepting evidence that it didn't happen at all. You put too much emphasis on your own memories.

 

[marplots]

What is subjective evidence to you? What is objective evidence?

Subjective - the experience relative to the experiencer
Objective - what is visible generally that may induce a common experience.

Evidence is not really of one type or another, except in reference to whomever is evaluating it, since whatever is imbedded in an external object (what we'd say was objective) still has to be filtered through whomever is evaluating it (a process we'd say was subjective).

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

That's one of the problems with woo. If you think something happened to you, you stop accepting evidence that it didn't happen at all. You put too much emphasis on your own memories.

Nothing as nothing can't happen, it is in practice always something else

 

[Brian-M]

(But if you care for an answer from the religious, I posted a link upthread.)

Okay, link found. It starts out saying that the traditional translation is wrong, and it was the people of Judah, not God who were thwarted by the chariots of iron. Possibly debatable, but I'll go along with it.

So the reason given for the outcome is that while God was "with" the people of Judah, he wasn't "with" them to the extent of ensuring victory? (And they follow this with speculation about the reasons God might have for being unwilling to ensure victory.)

It seems to me that they're effectively claiming that God was "with" them in the sense of sitting on the sidelines cheering them on, rather than actually participating, which is a somewhat silly claim.