Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article

[Jeffonthenet]

There's still the issue of establishing who is "reliable". I stand by my position that corroborating evidence is required for non-mundane claims.

In a court situation I would perhaps agree. However, in our lives, I don't think so. It seems to me to be a question of how trustworthy the person is and the evidence that they are sane etc… And if we simply consider God as likely as Santa, then it seems to me that we are, without evidence, doing so…. unless one will present evidence to show this. However, no one i have ever met has been able to do this convincingly.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, your argument here amounts to lowering our standards for your special friend? Thanks, I'll pass. No one has done what convincingly, precisely? Presented evidence that Santa and God are equally as likely (which is to say not at all likely)? Just wtf are you doing asking for evidence all of a sudden, isn't my personal testimony enough? Thought not. Laying that aside, you're asking for evidence that exists, and is easily within your reach, so I call BS. Convincing, you say..I think you mean "convincing to you"...and I'm willing to assume that this is a case not entirely unlike those things which "seem fair" to you. This was easily the least competent attempt to shit the burden of proof I've ever seen, largely due to how transparent it was.

[Jackalope]

There's still the issue of establishing who is "reliable". I stand by my position that corroborating evidence is required for non-mundane claims.

In a court situation I would perhaps agree. However, in our lives, I don't think so.

(emphasis added)

In your life. I'm sorry, but when it comes to fundamental beliefs that I would be expected to dedicate my life to, I'm going to need more than just the say so of someone I may trust.

You may live in a universe where people do not lie, do not misinterpret what they witness, or exhibit confirmational bias, but I do not.

Tell me, what color is the sky on the planet you live on?

It seems to me to be a question of how trustworthy the person is and the evidence that they are sane etc…

Oh, look, there's that E word. So there is evidence involved?

Please tell me I don't have to explain to you how people, even in large groups, even those who are of sound mind and stout moral character, can still be wrong.

And if we simply consider God as likely as Santa

Nice strawman. Is that all you have?

[Tobie]

There's still the issue of establishing who is "reliable". I stand by my position that corroborating evidence is required for non-mundane claims.

In a court situation I would perhaps agree. However, in our lives, I don't think so. It seems to me to be a question of how trustworthy the person is and the evidence that they are sane etc… And if we simply consider God as likely as Santa, then it seems to me that we are, without evidence, doing so…. unless one will present evidence to show this. However, no one i have ever met has been able to do this convincingly.

If you give good evidence that god should be considered more likely to exist than santa, I will consider it so, however, as things stand, no evidence has been given to make either worth considering likely at all. A personal testament may be all the proof you require to believe in some supernatural being, but dubious statements from dubious people are never things I would consider proof enough for me to change my lifestyle, especially when they contradict science.

[Jeffonthenet]

In a court situation I would perhaps agree. However, in our lives, I don't think so. It seems to me to be a question of how trustworthy the person is and the evidence that they are sane etc… And if we simply consider God as likely as Santa, then it seems to me that we are, without evidence, doing so…. unless one will present evidence to show this. However, no one i have ever met has been able to do this convincingly.

If you give good evidence that god should be considered more likely to exist than santa, I will consider it so, however, as things stand, no evidence has been given to make either worth considering likely at all. A personal testament may be all the proof you require to believe in some supernatural being, but dubious statements from dubious people are never things I would consider proof enough for me to change my lifestyle, especially when they contradict science.

I've asked many atheists for reasons to consider God as likely as Santa and I haven't found any good ones. If you want to apriori consider God as likely as Santa you should at least have a justifiable reason, and God's existence does is no way contradict science.

[Tobie]

If you give good evidence that god should be considered more likely to exist than santa, I will consider it so, however, as things stand, no evidence has been given to make either worth considering likely at all. A personal testament may be all the proof you require to believe in some supernatural being, but dubious statements from dubious people are never things I would consider proof enough for me to change my lifestyle, especially when they contradict science.

I've asked many atheists for reasons to consider God as likely as Santa and I haven't found any good ones. If you want to apriori consider God as likely as Santa you should at least have a justifiable reason, and God's existence does is no way contradict science.

A god existing does not necessarily contradict science, but almost all of them do, due to the properties that various religions give them.

Anyway, you considering our reasons for considering the existence of god as or less likely than santa (who at least was human, if you go by the St Nick stuff, but if you santa is the invention of Coca Cola, god is as likely as santa) not good is no surprise to me, seeming as you assume one exists. What is not justifiable about citing lack of evidence as a reason for not considering the existence of god very likely? Why don't you give me a justifiable reason for considering the existence of god a likely possibilty?

[Jeffonthenet]

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evoluti...ar-violin/

If you would like to comment, I would appreciate if you read the whole article.

I've asked many atheists for reasons to consider God as likely as Santa and I haven't found any good ones. If you want to apriori consider God as likely as Santa you should at least have a justifiable reason, and God's existence does is no way contradict science.

A god existing does not necessarily contradict science, but almost all of them do, due to the properties that various religions give them.

Anyway, you considering our reasons for considering the existence of god as or less likely than santa (who at least was human, if you go by the St Nick stuff, but if you santa is the invention of Coca Cola, god is as likely as santa) not good is no surprise to me, seeming as you assume one exists. What is not justifiable about citing lack of evidence as a reason for not considering the existence of god very likely? Why don't you give me a justifiable reason for considering the existence of god a likely possibilty?

I don't grant that there is a lack of evidence, and science does not contradict the existence of the God of Jesus Christ unless you assume this God is dependent on biblical inerrancy. (see my debate on this site for more http://atheistforums.org/thread-13986.html) And even if I cannot show you God's existence is likely, it in no way follows that it is as unlikely as Santa Clause. It also seems to me a bit intellectually arrogant to simply declare that what a large percentage of the worlds population believe to be true is self-evidently false. If this is what you must do to justify atheism I submit that atheism is founded upon straw.

[Tobie]

http://sententias.org/2012/01/04/evoluti...ar-violin/

If you would like to comment, I would appreciate if you read the whole article.

A god existing does not necessarily contradict science, but almost all of them do, due to the properties that various religions give them.

Anyway, you considering our reasons for considering the existence of god as or less likely than santa (who at least was human, if you go by the St Nick stuff, but if you santa is the invention of Coca Cola, god is as likely as santa) not good is no surprise to me, seeming as you assume one exists. What is not justifiable about citing lack of evidence as a reason for not considering the existence of god very likely? Why don't you give me a justifiable reason for considering the existence of god a likely possibilty?

I don't grant that there is a lack of evidence, and science does not contradict the existence of the God of Jesus Christ unless you assume this God is dependent on biblical inerrancy. (see my debate on this site for more http://atheistforums.org/thread-13986.html) And even if I cannot show you God's existence is likely, it in no way follows that it is as unlikely as Santa Clause. It also seems to me a bit intellectually arrogant to simply declare that what a large percentage of the worlds population believe to be true is self-evidently false. If this is what you must do to justify atheism I submit that atheism is founded upon straw.

So resorting to an appeal to popularity now, eh? In a bygone era, the majority of people believed the sun revolved around the Earth, yet it is not true. What is true isn't necessarily what is popular, and vice versa. It is a logical fallacy to make an appeal to popularity/tradition.

If you cannot show God is likely, why should we take his existence to be more likely than that of Santa Clause? There is more evidence for the existence of Santa Clause, the Anatolian guy who put money in peoples' shoes.

Why don't you allow a lack of evidence as a reason to think that the existence of god is unlikely? It's what they do in the scientific community to decide on the validity of various hypotheses, are you saying they're doing it wrong? Or are you just saying that the existence of god is a special case? If the latter, why do you feel you are justified in this?

[downbeatplumb]

I don't see where belief in a santa differs with the belief in god one iota.

The theist argument seems to be "you are equating god with an obviously made up character!".

To which I would have to answer in the affirmative and ask them what their point is.

The santa hypothosis has many elements that are similar to the god hypothosis.

1: He is omniscient (he knows when you are sleeping, knows when you're awake).
2: There is a reward/punish element to the belief system based on morals, (you'd better be good for goodness sake)
3: There are supernatural acts (traveling around the world with the aid of flying creatues)
4: You are indoctrinated into this belief by your parents, peers and media.

The only difference that I can see is that people grow out of the santa belief.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't grant that there is a lack of evidence,

Oh good, so there is evidence, whereabouts?

and science does not contradict the existence of the God of Jesus Christ unless you assume this God is dependent on biblical inerrancy. (see my debate on this site for more http://atheistforums.org/thread-13986.html)

A book upon which you depend for any information on this character, however flawed or innerant (whichever the case may be). If you'd like to undermine the reliability of the bible as a source of information on this character be my guest.

And even if I cannot show you God's existence is likely

Why would this be the case, there's evidence right?

, it in no way follows that it is as unlikely as Santa Clause.

Well, people do get toys on christmas..explain that. Checkmate!

It also seems to me a bit intellectually arrogant to simply declare that what a large percentage of the worlds population believe to be true is self-evidently false.

No one simply declared anything of the sort. The god proposition has been done to death the world over, it's not my fault (for example) that we didn't find what we expected when we went a'searchin.

If this is what you must do to justify atheism I submit that atheism is founded upon straw.

Except that this isn't whats done to "justify atheism"..so..amusingly, that comment about straw is spot on, but you got the objects reversed (somehow).