(May 9, 2025 at 8:10 pm)Alan V Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:54 pm)The Architect Of Fate Wrote: Johnny just keeps digging he will be in the earths core before long 

Far too many Christians who post at atheist forums are know-it-alls.  That clashes badly with Christians' assumed humility, but I guess that figures with the self-appointed.

However, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that they believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit no matter what kind of nonsense they spout.

Lies for Jesus, I have encountered this phenomenon quite a bit.

(May 10, 2025 at 3:50 am)Sheldon Wrote: evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Note the word "indicating." 

A fact can only indicate something if it has been interpreted in the light of previous knowledge.

(May 9, 2025 at 8:17 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 8:10 pm)Alan V Wrote: However, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that they believe they are guided by the Holy Spirit no matter what kind of nonsense they spout.

Nope, I'm guided by my degree in cognitive science. Why would I not speak with confidence?

It's not confidence, it is strident and arrogant, not that this matters of course, what's important is your spiel is at odds with the dictionary for a start, is unsupported by any evidence, you have failed to offer a single reason for your belief, or even properly define it, beyond the broad title of the sect / denomination, 


If your opinion is relevant within a scientific field of study, then you could point to a broad consensus in that field, rather than simply claiming it, then sulking when citations were offered suggesting you were wrong. Otherwise this is the same appeal to authority fallacy you used, when you claimed you had falsified the theory of evolution, and that your position as an undergraduate in psychology, made you the most qualified on that site (AR) to make the claims you were making, Just as is the case now, the evidence does not support this. 

Education alone does not make someone correct, or what they are claiming true, or even sound. Both you and @Belacqua seem to make this error. Either the facts support claims, or they do not, regardless of the educational level, or even intelligence of the person making or disputing those claims.

(May 10, 2025 at 4:05 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 3:50 am)Sheldon Wrote: evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Note the word "indicating." 

A fact can only indicate something if it has been interpreted in the light of previous knowledge.

Why are you telling me this? What does this have to do with you disputing the commonly held definition of the word evidence? What does it have to do with anything I posted come to that.

(May 9, 2025 at 8:26 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 6:31 pm)Sheldon Wrote: Evidence is simply the available body of facts or information, indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Whether that evidence is sufficient on any given proposition is another matter, but the more that evidence is interpreted subjectively, the less reliable it becomes, the more objective it is, the more reliable it becomes.

I don't think it's true to say that evidence is the available body of facts or information. 

So you were using semantics to remove the word indicate form the dictionary definition I quoted and linked, to use sophistry, so you could have a gotcha moment. Also pretending I had in anyway disputed that facts must necessarily rely on previous knowledge. I have seen creationists for example, interpret evidence from the theory of evolution, and come up with conclusions that are at odds with universal conclusions among elite scientists in that field of study. Now, who do we think is more likely giving a subjective interpretation, and who is following very strict protocols for examining evidence, to remove subjective opinions as far as is possible. 

If you and John want to believe it is the former, then you're of course entitled to, but I cannot concur. 

Why is the only question?

Interpreted and indicate are not necessarily the same thing obviously, and on it's own interpretation could be entirely subjective. This is why john is wrong, as science and its methods are designed specifically to remove just such subjective bias, move the what the evidence indicates as far away from subjective interpretation as possible.

(May 9, 2025 at 7:47 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 9, 2025 at 7:30 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I strongly urge you to read the entire article. Or, if you’ve already done so, get someone to explain it to you.

I am the only one here in a position to explain it. Unless, of course, you know someone here who's also taken graduate courses on the philosophy of science?

That would be me.

Boru

(May 10, 2025 at 4:09 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 4:05 am)Belacqua Wrote: Note the word "indicating." 

A fact can only indicate something if it has been interpreted in the light of previous knowledge.

Why are you telling me this? What does this have to do with you disputing the commonly held definition of the word evidence? What does it have to do with anything I posted come to that.

If you also think that objective evidence is often not straightforward, self-evident, and indisputable, then we aren't disagreeing. 

The facts which you consider objective evidence of one thing, based on your interpretation, may indicate something different to someone else. 

If you're fine with that, then there's no fight.

(May 10, 2025 at 4:23 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 4:09 am)Sheldon Wrote: Why are you telling me this? What does this have to do with you disputing the commonly held definition of the word evidence? What does it have to do with anything I posted come to that.

If you also think that objective evidence is often not straightforward, self-evident, and indisputable, then we aren't disagreeing. 

The facts which you consider objective evidence of one thing, based on your interpretation, may indicate something different to someone else. 

If you're fine with that, then there's no fight.

Fortunately for the human condition, science is not a democratic process.

Boru

(May 10, 2025 at 4:23 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 4:09 am)Sheldon Wrote: Why are you telling me this? What does this have to do with you disputing the commonly held definition of the word evidence? What does it have to do with anything I posted come to that.

If you also think that objective evidence is often not straightforward, self-evident, and indisputable, then we aren't disagreeing. 

Why would you even suggest this, when I have made no such claims? Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, I have said this to you, before now. 

Quote:The facts which you consider objective evidence of one thing, based on your interpretation, may indicate something different to someone else. 

Clearly I would not claim something was objective evidence if it was based solely on my subjective interpretation. Though again I fail to see what this has to do with john claiming science is not evidence based, or you disputing the oxford English definition of that word?

Quote:If you're fine with that, then there's no fight.

Fine, now do you accept that the more subjective bias that can be removed from evidence, the more reliable it becomes, do you accept that this is primarily what the methods of science are designed to do? Do you accept that science requires evidence, only John has claimed this would be bad scientific practice.

If john has anything approaching objective evidence for a deity he's not shared it, nor any evidence of any kind come to that, and I asked him repeatedly to offer his best reason for holding that belief. Instead he went on a trolling spree, making ever more outrageous claims.

(May 10, 2025 at 4:33 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 10, 2025 at 4:23 am)Belacqua Wrote: If you also think that objective evidence is often not straightforward, self-evident, and indisputable, then we aren't disagreeing. 

Why would you even suggest this, when I have made no such claims? Objectivity is a scale not an absolute, I have said this to you, before now. 

Quote:The facts which you consider objective evidence of one thing, based on your interpretation, may indicate something different to someone else. 

Clearly I would not claim something was objective evidence if it was based solely on my subjective interpretation. Though again I fail to see what this has to do with john claiming science is not evidence based, or you disputing the oxford English definition of that word?

Quote:If you're fine with that, then there's no fight.

Fine, now do you accept that the more subjective bias that can be removed from evidence, the more reliable it becomes, do you accept that this is primarily what the methods of science are designed to do? Do you accept that science requires evidence, only John has claimed this would be bad scientific practice.

If john has anything approaching objective evidence for a deity he's not shared it, nor any evidence of any kind come to that, and I asked him repeatedly to offer his best reason for holding that belief. Instead he went on a trolling spree, making ever more outrageous claims.

Good, we agree.

When you get all fighty-fighty like this it comes across as emotional. You might want to work on this in the future.

As for John's arguments, I don't speak for him.

You might find that people who approach these issues differently from you would be more likely to discuss them if you were less accusatory. You come across as though you are in some kind of comic book battle between good and evil, and you often type personal insults. These tend to shut down discussion.