Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What else?

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:21:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Obviously, I don't believe. And I would say, of course, "no".

That said, I think that if this is a serious question, you should define "objective evidence", so that those responding can properly answer.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

No. If they believe in one God, why would they believe in other spiritual concepts?
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:31:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Yes, I believe in love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose, meaning, etc. Of course my idea of "God" is probably not one you would recognize.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:34:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:21:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Obviously, I don't believe. And I would say, of course, "no".

That said, I think that if this is a serious question, you should define "objective evidence", so that those responding can properly answer.

I would suggest that "objective" and "subjective" are words which already have standardized definitions.

SUBJECTIVE: Telling someone whether you think the current temperatures is hot, cold or just right.

OBJECTIVE: Reading the temperature from a working digital thermometer.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:35:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:23:27 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

No. If they believe in one God, why would they believe in other spiritual concepts?

The last line of the OP reads; "I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:36:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:35:09 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:23:27 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

No. If they believe in one God, why would they believe in other spiritual concepts?

The last line of the OP reads; "I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts."

Oh sorry. I didn't see that.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:36:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:31:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Yes, I believe in love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose, meaning, etc. Of course my idea of "God" is probably not one you would recognize.

Let me be clear; you're claiming there is no objective evidence for love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose and meaning?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:37:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:36:07 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:35:09 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:23:27 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

No. If they believe in one God, why would they believe in other spiritual concepts?

The last line of the OP reads; "I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts."

Oh sorry. I didn't see that.

No problem. Just hoping to clarify.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:39:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:34:04 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:21:28 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Obviously, I don't believe. And I would say, of course, "no".

That said, I think that if this is a serious question, you should define "objective evidence", so that those responding can properly answer.

I would suggest that "objective" and "subjective" are words which already have standardized definitions.

SUBJECTIVE: Telling someone whether you think the current temperatures is hot, cold or just right.

OBJECTIVE: Reading the temperature from a working digital thermometer.

You've got "subjective" and "objective" properly qualified.

That rather leaves off "evidence", however--particularly given that, in some circumstances, the "evidence" may be objective, but the interpretation of the evidence as applicable is subjective.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:45:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:36:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:31:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Yes, I believe in love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose, meaning, etc. Of course my idea of "God" is probably not one you would recognize.

Let me be clear; you're claiming there is no objective evidence for love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose and meaning?

These are all feelings of subjective beings, not things to be objectified. Many people don't believe in love. There is even a theorem written by Dr. George Price explaining how altruism is nothing but an evolutionary glitch (he changed his mind later, but his theorem is still widely accepted). To a person who goes through their entire life without ever feeling loved, how would you prove to them that love exists?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:52:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:45:18 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:36:33 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:31:02 AM, Idealist wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

Yes, I believe in love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose, meaning, etc. Of course my idea of "God" is probably not one you would recognize.

Let me be clear; you're claiming there is no objective evidence for love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose and meaning?

These are all feelings of subjective beings, not things to be objectified. Many people don't believe in love. There is even a theorem written by Dr. George Price explaining how altruism is nothing but an evolutionary glitch (he changed his mind later, but his theorem is still widely accepted). To a person who goes through their entire life without ever feeling loved, how would you prove to them that love exists?

By showing them that love is quantified as an emotion characterized by various neurotransmitters accompanying raised brain activity in particular brain regions. This is objectively verifiable via fMRI scans.

A blind person can't see color. Does that mean the wavelength of light is a subjective property? There are always a few cases of people who have the inability to detect certain forms of objective evidence accepted by the rest of us - and objectively verifiable via electro-chemical devices.

So... are you still suggesting that there is no objective evidence for love, hate, good, bad, altruism, sacrifice, purpose and meaning? (Because there is.)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.


I don't think most theists would "admit" that so your point is moot.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

If I take it you mean "scientific evidence" which people conflate with confused terms like "objective evidence" which they conflate with things like evidence simplicter then I "devoutly believe" it's wrong to torture children for fun.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 9:52:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.


I don't think most theists would "admit" that so your point is moot.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

If I take it you mean "scientific evidence" which people conflate with confused terms like "objective evidence" which they conflate with things like evidence simplicter then I "devoutly believe" it's wrong to torture children for fun.

Where did you see "scientific" evidence mentioned and what makes you conflate that with "objective" evidence?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 10:11:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 9:52:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.


I don't think most theists would "admit" that so your point is moot.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

If I take it you mean "scientific evidence" which people conflate with confused terms like "objective evidence" which they conflate with things like evidence simplicter then I "devoutly believe" it's wrong to torture children for fun.

Where did you see "scientific" evidence mentioned and what makes you conflate that with "objective" evidence?

Because that's what most lay people mean when they demand "objective" evidence. And I've encountered this phenomena on this website a thousand times already.

Village atheist: "Where's your evidence?!"
Theist: "Well here are some arguments (appealing to various phenomena like moral facts or the intelligibility of the universe, etc) I find convincing."
VA: "That's no evidence at all! I'm talking about evidence that is empircally testable/observable (i.e. "scientific "evidence)!!!!!111"
Tt: "Not all kinds of evidence is empircally testable/observable; we believe in many things that aren't empirically testable/observable that seem to be well evidence (a priori beliefs for example)."
VA: "So you're admitting you have no evidence?"
T: "Huh? No, I'm just saying that you should broaden your concept of evidence. I think -"
VA: "So you believe on blind faith?"
T: "No, I -"
VA: "Theists never can give evidence of their belief in God"

And down the rabbit hole we go.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 10:59:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

So again Beastt, what is "proof" to an atheist?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:51:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.


I don't think most theists would "admit" that so your point is moot.
Then please feel free... no, feel encouraged to present your objective evidence for God.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

If I take it you mean "scientific evidence" which people conflate with confused terms like "objective evidence" which they conflate with things like evidence simplicter then I "devoutly believe" it's wrong to torture children for fun.
There is no such thing as "scientific evidence". Science doesn't have its own special form of evidence. It utilizes objective evidence.

So please present your objective evidence for God.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:55:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 10:59:08 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

So again Beastt, what is "proof" to an atheist?
Please point out where anyone asked for "proof". The request was for "evidence". You do know the difference?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 12:31:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:55:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 10:59:08 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

So again Beastt, what is "proof" to an atheist?
Please point out where anyone asked for "proof". The request was for "evidence". You do know the difference?

Ok then what evidence? And would that be proof? Because if it isn't, then what's the evidance for?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 2:17:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:31:20 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:55:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 10:59:08 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

So again Beastt, what is "proof" to an atheist?
Please point out where anyone asked for "proof". The request was for "evidence". You do know the difference?

Ok then what evidence? And would that be proof? Because if it isn't, then what's the evidance for?

"Proof" (aside from math and alcohol), is a fallacious concept. If you don't understand that, then gather all of the evidence that Earth is a spheroid and present it to a flat-Earther. See how compelled they are to believe that Earth is a spheroid. People tend to be highly subjective when it comes to examining evidence. And the more emotional they are about the affected beliefs, the less subjective they become.

"Objective evidence" is an indicator. Sometimes it's conclusive, sometimes it's not. But even conclusive evidence can be ignored my a person attempting to defend an emotionally founded position. Christians demonstrate this every day with their claim of "faith".

As for what evidence, supposed God were to show himself? How would that be? Why is it that EVERY god - even those Christians are sure are just imaginary - continually hides? And while God is supposed to be the designer of the universe, and is claimed to be benevolent, there is no unexplained benevolent force in the universe. A falling boulder will just as readily smash a helpless infant, as a murdering pedophile. How about if prayer actually demonstrated some ability to alter outcomes? It has been tested dozens of times and what is shown is that it offers no change.

Since the dawn of religion, thousands of years before Christianity, gods have been claimed for hundreds of phenomena since found to be purely natural, not supernatural. If you'll check the Bible, you'll find claims that Jesus healed the sick by casting out demons. Yet we know today that disease isn't caused by demons.

It's amazing that so many theists are so convinced that a god exists, yet absolutely baffled when the suggestion is made that there should be solid evidence to support that god's existence. Because you can't have a rational belief if there is no evidence to support that belief.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 2:44:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 2:17:59 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:31:20 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 11:55:07 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 10:59:08 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

So again Beastt, what is "proof" to an atheist?
Please point out where anyone asked for "proof". The request was for "evidence". You do know the difference?

Ok then what evidence? And would that be proof? Because if it isn't, then what's the evidance for?

"Proof" (aside from math and alcohol), is a fallacious concept. If you don't understand that, then gather all of the evidence that Earth is a spheroid and present it to a flat-Earther. See how compelled they are to believe that Earth is a spheroid. People tend to be highly subjective when it comes to examining evidence. And the more emotional they are about the affected beliefs, the less subjective they become.

"Objective evidence" is an indicator. Sometimes it's conclusive, sometimes it's not. But even conclusive evidence can be ignored my a person attempting to defend an emotionally founded position. Christians demonstrate this every day with their claim of "faith".

I don"t think anyone needs to be a English lit major to understand the most basic definition of

Proof: In the sense of making good, or showing to be true. That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. "to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).

Which strangely enough includes the word, "evidence" amazing how that works when you carry a real dictionary and not English according to Beastt dictionary.

(WOW this one is way out of touch with reality, if reality doesn"t match beastt"s view beastt just redefines it)

As for what evidence, supposed God were to show himself? How would that be? Why is it that EVERY god - even those Christians are sure are just imaginary - continually hides? And while God is supposed to be the designer of the universe, and is claimed to be benevolent, there is no unexplained benevolent force in the universe. A falling boulder will just as readily smash a helpless infant, as a murdering pedophile. How about if prayer actually demonstrated some ability to alter outcomes? It has been tested dozens of times and what is shown is that it offers no change.

Since the dawn of religion, thousands of years before Christianity, gods have been claimed for hundreds of phenomena since found to be purely natural, not supernatural. If you'll check the Bible, you'll find claims that Jesus healed the sick by casting out demons. Yet we know today that disease isn't caused by demons.

It's amazing that so many theists are so convinced that a god exists, yet absolutely baffled when the suggestion is made that there should be solid evidence to support that god's existence. Because you can't have a rational belief if there is no evidence to support that belief.

So what you are saying is God doesn"t hear you, is that correct? When you pray you are entitled an answer or the granting of your request, isn"t that what you are saying here? If you want to see or hear God your going to have to make that request on your own, and with acknowledgment of Him and His Son Jesus Christ. And in no way, shape, or form, will you know or hear God on your own terms.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 8:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 2:44:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 2:17:59 PM, Beastt wrote:

"Proof" (aside from math and alcohol), is a fallacious concept. If you don't understand that, then gather all of the evidence that Earth is a spheroid and present it to a flat-Earther. See how compelled they are to believe that Earth is a spheroid. People tend to be highly subjective when it comes to examining evidence. And the more emotional they are about the affected beliefs, the less subjective they become.

"Objective evidence" is an indicator. Sometimes it's conclusive, sometimes it's not. But even conclusive evidence can be ignored my a person attempting to defend an emotionally founded position. Christians demonstrate this every day with their claim of "faith".


I don"t think anyone needs to be a English lit major to understand the most basic definition of

Proof: In the sense of making good, or showing to be true. That which makes good or proves a statement; evidence sufficient (or contributing) to establish a fact or produce belief in the certainty of something. "to make proof: to have weight as evidence (obs.).

Which strangely enough includes the word, "evidence" amazing how that works when you carry a real dictionary and not English according to Beastt dictionary.

(WOW this one is way out of touch with reality, if reality doesn"t match beastt"s view beastt just redefines it)

Let's just focus here for a moment.

NO... I said "focus". That doesn't mean half-read what I posted, and then run to an online dictionary to see how words are used, rather than what they mean. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's what dictionaries offer - word USE. But even within this definition you've provided, the problem that I noted is clear... if you read... if you THINK!

Look at the very first portion of the definition; "In the sense of making good, or showing to be true."

True to who's satisfaction? Is the Bible true? Look to the first 17-verses; earth before stars, water before the atmosphere, plants before the sun, and liquid water without heat. To me, that "proves" the Bible is false, and certainly was not inspired by any creator of the universe.

But to a Christian; it "proves" nothing of the sort.

So AGAIN (and I hope you read it this time), "People tend to be highly subjective when it comes to examining evidence. And the more emotional they are about the affected beliefs, the less objective they become." (Corrected from the previous post.)

I can show you the actual stages of human embryonic development and then show you the description in the Qur'an where it claims the zygote starts as a drop of sperm. It never even mentions the egg, which is the bulk of the material which forms into a zygote, and then a fetus. It also claims man is formed from an essence of mud. Then it claims that this matter becomes a "clot of blood", which is purely untrue. It later states that the skeleton then forms, and the flesh then forms over the skeleton. None of this is even close to accurate.

To atheists and Christians alike, this is "proof" that the Qur'an is wrong, and at least offers very good "evidence" that the Qur'an is not what Muslims claim it to be. But show this to a Muslim and see what it "proves" to them. Do you think you'll find one who will say, "Well, that PROVES it! I've been following the wrong religion!"? Of course you won't. And why is that?

It's because religious beliefs are held on an emotional basis, not on the basis of dispassionate reason. So have I offered "proof" that the Qur'an is false? Have I offered "proof" that the Bible is false?

ABSOLUTELY! But does it "prove" anything to you? Does it "prove" anything to a Muslim? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

So is it "proof"? It depends on who you ask, and whether they're assessing the "EVIDENCE" objectively, or subjectively dismissing, evading or trying to explain their way around the evidence.

So is "proof" a valid concept? Absolutely not! Because the concept doesn't place a standard on who must be convinced. I could sit and show you false claims, known forgeries, known fables, changed text, and demonstrably false information in the Bible, until your ears bleed. But are you going to see any of that (or all of it), as "proof" that the Bible is just the work of ancient, relatively ignorant, and highly superstitious men - unaided by any external spiritual influence? Of course not! You're not interested in evidence which shows the Bible to be false. You're so emotionally tied to the belief that the Bible is the word of God, that it wouldn't matter if God himself came to you and told you he had nothing to do with that book. You'd likely accuse him of being Satan in disguise. You reject, avoid, distort, excuse, and dismiss evidence based on your level of desire to believe, not on any rational objective ("honest"), standards. So what is proof to any rational, intellectually honest, dispassionate individual, will not be "proof" to you.

So the concept itself is broken because it relies not just on the strength of the EVIDENCE, but also upon the willingness of the observer to accept the conclusion supported by the evidence.

Are you with me now? Or do I have to go back through my 12-years of on-line debate - each of which has continued to demonstrate the reasons why the word "proof" is both inappropriate in a debate setting, and rejected in a scientific setting? The entire concept of "proof" is anti-scientific, and due to the subjectivity of the observer, completely fallacious. "Proof" can only apply to the purely objective observer, and then...

... it can still be wrong.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 9:30:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 2:44:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 10/17/2014 2:17:59 PM, Beastt wrote:

It's amazing that so many theists are so convinced that a god exists, yet absolutely baffled when the suggestion is made that there should be solid evidence to support that god's existence. Because you can't have a rational belief if there is no evidence to support that belief.

So what you are saying is God doesn"t hear you, is that correct? When you pray you are entitled an answer or the granting of your request, isn"t that what you are saying here? If you want to see or hear God your going to have to make that request on your own, and with acknowledgment of Him and His Son Jesus Christ. And in no way, shape, or form, will you know or hear God on your own terms.

Nooooooo!

Holy crap! What did I write that even sounded anything close to "God doesn't hear me"? Are you reading with your eyes closed, or just your mind?

I'm not talking about a subjective anecdotal view of prayer. I'm talking about large-scale, methodologically correct (double-blind), objective research. For example; the STEP Project. (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This particular study focused on heart patients in 6 different hospitals. They were each randomly assigned to one of three groups.
- 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer
- 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer
- 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer.

The doctors were unaware who was, or was not receiving prayer. And the researchers gathering the data were unaware who did, or didn't receive prayer (double-blind). Only when all of the data was collected and compiled, was it compared to information on who had received prayer, and who had not. And the outcome was that there was no statistically significant difference in the recovery rates or length of time necessary for recovery, between those patients for which prayer had been offered, and those for which prayer had not been offered.

The only statistically significant variation was among those patients who knew they were receiving prayer, and that was in the form of a slightly elevated rate of complications, hindering recovery. So those who knew they were receiving prayer had a slightly inferior recovery rate.

This is just one of dozens of such studies. However, in five studies, there was a conclusion that prayer might offer some very minor advantage. All five of those studies were found to be methodologically unsound, for example; one particular study (the "Byrd Study" if I recall correctly), was claimed to use a double-blind methodology, but in peer-review it was found that some of the researchers gathering data, were indeed aware of which patients had, and had not received prayer. When objective methodologies are followed, the statistics bare out that prayer offers no alteration to outcomes.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bulproof
Posts: 25,197
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 10:03:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 10:11:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:52:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.


I don't think most theists would "admit" that so your point is moot.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

If I take it you mean "scientific evidence" which people conflate with confused terms like "objective evidence" which they conflate with things like evidence simplicter then I "devoutly believe" it's wrong to torture children for fun.

Where did you see "scientific" evidence mentioned and what makes you conflate that with "objective" evidence?

Because that's what most lay people mean when they demand "objective" evidence. And I've encountered this phenomena on this website a thousand times already.

Village atheist: "Where's your evidence?!"
Theist: "Well here are some arguments (appealing to various phenomena like moral facts or the intelligibility of the universe, etc) I find convincing."
VA: "That's no evidence at all! I'm talking about evidence that is empircally testable/observable (i.e. "scientific "evidence)!!!!!111"
Tt: "Not all kinds of evidence is empircally testable/observable; we believe in many things that aren't empirically testable/observable that seem to be well evidence (a priori beliefs for example)."
VA: "So you're admitting you have no evidence?"
T: "Huh? No, I'm just saying that you should broaden your concept of evidence. I think -"
VA: "So you believe on blind faith?"
T: "No, I -"
VA: "Theists never can give evidence of their belief in God"

And down the rabbit hole we go.

Ah I see, you write a little imaginary conversation and that supports you conflating scientific evidence with objective evidence?

Whatever floats your boat, I guess.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 10:11:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:52:37 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 10/17/2014 9:10:33 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:

Village atheist: "Where's your evidence?!"
Theist: "Well here are some arguments (appealing to various phenomena like moral facts or the intelligibility of the universe, etc) I find convincing."
VA: "That's no evidence at all! I'm talking about evidence that is empircally testable/observable (i.e. "scientific "evidence)!!!!!111"
Tt: "Not all kinds of evidence is empircally testable/observable; we believe in many things that aren't empirically testable/observable that seem to be well evidence (a priori beliefs for example)."
VA: "So you're admitting you have no evidence?"
T: "Huh? No, I'm just saying that you should broaden your concept of evidence. I think -"
VA: "So you believe on blind faith?"
T: "No, I -"
VA: "Theists never can give evidence of their belief in God"

And down the rabbit hole we go.

So it seems the problem is understanding the difference between objective evidence, and constructing an argument. Do you think flat-Earthers just believe the Earth is flat out of faith? They DO have arguments.

For instance, if the Earth is spherical and rotating, how come centrifugal force doesn't fling everything off into the atmosphere? Or... if the Earth is flying through space at 66,000 mph along a circular path around the sun, what keeps the oceans from being flung to the outward side of the planet due to the curvature of Earth's path?

So... are you convinced that the standard heliocentric view of Earth is false? Hmmm.... I wonder why not.
Could it be that these are simply arguments which ignore the factors which explain these phenomenon?

And isn't it just as likely that Christians utilize the same kind of arguments, which ignore the evidence contrary to the conclusion they've selected before-hand?

If you've every been around a "moody" female with whom you've had a romantic relationship, you know perfectly well that when someone is willing to be irrational, they can argue absolutely any point. When you dismiss yourself from the need to be rational, it opens up absolutely every path for argument anyone might ever wish to take.

But there is a vast difference between constructing an argument, and presenting objective evidence. Objective evidence points to its own path, and its own conclusions. And those conclusions must always be rational.

Sooo.... back to SQUARE ONE!

What objective evidence can you provide for the existence of God?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 10:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

I believe in the illuminati and that they are dangerous. I believe the rich have the ability to help us and have the cures to illnesses like Ebola, but only wish to keep it for themselves because of their greed. These are two things I believe to be true by no support of objective evidence.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:03:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 10:19:54 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

I believe in the illuminati and that they are dangerous.
The "illuminati" is a name provided to a number of groups, some of which are confirmed to exist, and many of which are not.

I believe the rich have the ability to help us and have the cures to illnesses like Ebola, but only wish to keep it for themselves because of their greed. These are two things I believe to be true by no support of objective evidence.
I would suggest that the cost of health care in the U.S. and similar countries is indicative of a level of disingenuousness in their concern for the optimal level of health care. Clearly, when hospitals are charging $8 for an aspirin and $63 for 1-day's rent for the blanket on a bed, the focus is on profits, not care. Granted, there is a significant leap between these observations and the assumption that cures exist which they are sequestering from the public, but the two would go hand-in-hand. For instance, with the billions of dollars attained in cancer treatment, there is significant room for conjecture that a cure might be less profitable.

At any rate, thank you. I believe you're the first to actually provide what is requested in the O.P. That said, is your belief in the Illuminati completely disconnected from your religious beliefs?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2014 11:26:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 11:03:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 10/17/2014 10:19:54 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

I believe in the illuminati and that they are dangerous.
The "illuminati" is a name provided to a number of groups, some of which are confirmed to exist, and many of which are not.

I believe the rich have the ability to help us and have the cures to illnesses like Ebola, but only wish to keep it for themselves because of their greed. These are two things I believe to be true by no support of objective evidence.
I would suggest that the cost of health care in the U.S. and similar countries is indicative of a level of disingenuousness in their concern for the optimal level of health care. Clearly, when hospitals are charging $8 for an aspirin and $63 for 1-day's rent for the blanket on a bed, the focus is on profits, not care. Granted, there is a significant leap between these observations and the assumption that cures exist which they are sequestering from the public, but the two would go hand-in-hand. For instance, with the billions of dollars attained in cancer treatment, there is significant room for conjecture that a cure might be less profitable.

At any rate, thank you. I believe you're the first to actually provide what is requested in the O.P. That said, is your belief in the Illuminati completely disconnected from your religious beliefs?

It is separate. It is mainly focused on my interest in the music world and politics. I also believe that marketing is using a mixed teaming scheme to control our will. The one movie that showed this philosophy was "Branded." It's slow at first, but catches up.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 2:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

That Lady Gaga was not born female and is actually a very talented drag queen.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2014 3:23:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/18/2014 2:49:42 AM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 10/17/2014 12:16:56 AM, Beastt wrote:
Most theists will admit that they have no objective evidence for the existence of God, yet they believe devoutly that God does exist. Some won't admit that they have no evidence, but can't seem to provide any.

My question here is just this; is there anything else which you devoutly believe exists, yet have no objective evidence to support? And I'm talking about other than so-called "spiritual" concepts.

That Lady Gaga was not born female and is actually a very talented drag queen.

There might be a tiny bit of evidence for a little talent.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire