Sorry; only just noticed this.
Ah, so I implied that, did I? I detect a rat, from the way that you chose not to give a direct quote of my saying it.
If evidence isn't credible, why would it? Are you in the habit of believing six impossible things before breakfast based on nothing more than non-credible evidence, purely for convenience's sake? Your head must be spinning constantly.
Then demonstrate that it is commonly said and prove me wrong.
I can only speak for myself, though I would be surprised if there was a consensus opinion that disagrees with me. I don't know where "committed belief" came from, I think I hear goalposts shifting, but put it in a courtroom setting - if the evidence truly is compelling actually to evidence that which is claimed, then I would agree that belief is, or can be, justified. Now all you have to do is pony up some evidence so we can dissect it.
(December 15, 2015 at 11:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(December 15, 2015 at 9:24 pm)Stimbo Wrote: How long should I wait for these links? I'm new around here.
About three posts after you asked.... someone did say that the exact words "no evidence". They clarified this a few posts later (perhaps because he read our discussion) and changed it to no credible evidence. You later changed your tune from insufficient evidence to imply there was not "the slightest atom of credible evidence to be found."
Ah, so I implied that, did I? I detect a rat, from the way that you chose not to give a direct quote of my saying it.
(December 15, 2015 at 11:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What is the difference between no evidence and no credible evidence? In the link to the Stanford encyclopedia which someone referenced, it defines evidence as that which justifies belief. Do you think that non-credible evidence is justification for belief?
If evidence isn't credible, why would it? Are you in the habit of believing six impossible things before breakfast based on nothing more than non-credible evidence, purely for convenience's sake? Your head must be spinning constantly.
(December 15, 2015 at 11:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I do think that it is understandable that if it is commonly said that there is "no evidence" that one may understand it to mean exactly that. And it may be somewhat rash to claim a straw man.
Then demonstrate that it is commonly said and prove me wrong.
(December 15, 2015 at 11:16 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: However; I stand corrected and now understand that you (and do you speak for all or most atheists in your strawman claim?) do think there is that which justifies belief in God (even if insufficient for committed belief).
I can only speak for myself, though I would be surprised if there was a consensus opinion that disagrees with me. I don't know where "committed belief" came from, I think I hear goalposts shifting, but put it in a courtroom setting - if the evidence truly is compelling actually to evidence that which is claimed, then I would agree that belief is, or can be, justified. Now all you have to do is pony up some evidence so we can dissect it.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
