Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[Anima]

And the many, many non-Catholics you simply ignore? 

So that is pretty much non-responsive as it is selective sampling.

I believe your quote was against theist which I am defending. As such I am not obligated to provide proof in defense of your position. That is your job to support your claim not mine

Which, had you read my response with understanding, was not what I said.

Aristotle's (or Aquinas's or Darwin's or anyone's) ideas do not take into account later ideas.  They must always be evaluated in light of newer knowledge.

They have been so evaluated and not have been considered utterly refuted.

Because he's a pompous weasel who won't admit that he used the wrong word? 

Considering that I looked the word up before I used it to verify it is the one I wanted I think it is the word I meant to use. I have used it incorrectly before which is why I know that it did not mean magnitude. As my pomp admitted then and admitted in this thread.

No.  You keep making this error.  It is not lack of proof, it is lack of evidence.  

There is no evidence of any gods.

I am not the one who said there was lack of proof. Do you really think you are going to be better served by the term evidence? I have no problem supplanting the word as the argument does not change. All information considered knowledge is supported by implicit circumstantial empirical evidence. If held to this standard than sufficient evidence does exist to support the existence of deity or deities. Appeal to a standard of evidence that is explicit direct impirical evidence would render all information considered knowledge as insufficiently evidenced.

As stated, I have a very difficult time believe that "no" answer is not predicated on anything and is simply a no because.  Now if you wish to stress it is a simple no because, then so be it as long as you are willing to accept a yes because.

You misunderstand (willfully?) his response.  The lack of belief is because of the lack of evidence.

They claimed it is not. Their statement is that they do not believe because they do not believe.

[quote='Anima' pid='955826' dateline='1433165756']
How would you propose I answer the claim that religion keeps people ignorant?

By suppressing knowledge and education.

As illustrated by defending my position with various sources from educated people granting knowledge on the subject.

That was once true of the Catholic Church when it had political power.   It no longer does and is no longer a major factor in science or education.

Islam was an educational power until it turned inward and fundamentalist.  It no longer educates, it only suppresses.

It is still true of the Catholic church world wide and even in the European and western world.

The Catholic Church had the power, the wealth, and the purpose to educate priests and princes.  It did not extend this to everyone.

They were pretty much the only game in town, so your argument lacks any persuasiveness.

Limited resource means nothing could be extended to everyone. However, the church did extended it to all members of the clergy regardless of social status upon entering the institution. Princes and paupers were educated by the church in the same way.

You keep making this mistake.  I only ask for evidence.  I am not a rigid thinker like you who demands 'proof'.

I am surprised your cohorts are not criticizing you for abiding by a less rigid standard of evidence
(Though what is implied is what is evidenced is proved and what is proved has evidence)

It was not I who demand "proof". That was your cohorts. But let us play the word game and supplant proof with evidence (which really does not change the argument one iota). Will implicit circumstantial empirical evidence do? That is the only evidence that we have of anything that we state is a fact. And if this will do then as stated before there is sufficient implicit circumstantial empirical evidence to support the theist position.

---

Indeed I do.  My standard is lower than the atheist and in accordance with that of the scientific method.  I hold the threshold of proof in all things to be implicit circumstantial empirical proof.

If that is bullshit than so is all the knowledge supported by it (which is all knowledge supported by experience).

Your standards are so low because you do not understand what constitutes evidence.

Perhaps you are right. Being that I have been formally educated in multiple areas of engineering and mathematics I may have missed that understanding somehow.

Please, help me to understand by telling me what constitutes evidence.

---

I would argue that Kant was referring to the existence of the concept that is god rather than there being evidence for the existence of the being itself.

You could argue that. But he was referring to both the ontological and epistemological being of God.

---

I think we are all biased.  Bias tends to ensure that, once we are headed toward one conclusion, we will keep going in the direction of that conclusion.  That's what bias is, viewing the evidence with a preference for one direction over another.  Thus the atheist reinforces her disbelief while the theist reinforces her belief.  Neither can clearly see the reasons of either side because of the working of that bias.

I became an atheist largely because I recognized that I was using reason inconsistently in support of my beliefs.  Now, having embraced atheism, I'm greeted with a host of ostensible 'reasons' for maintaining my disbelief.  Standard arguments, about the incompatibility of various religious beliefs, their geographic dispersion, objections to various theist arguments, and so forth.  To say that I disbelieve due to a lack of evidence would, I think be in error.  I disbelieve, and then I have reasons which reinforce my disbelief.  Just as a theist believes, and then has reasons for that belief.

In short, I recognize that part of my disbelief is bound up in bias against belief, which leads me to certain reasons, whereas a theist in their bias to believe is bound up in bias to believe.  I don't know what I'm trying to say, other than that I acknowledge I have a bias against theist beliefs.

An excellent post!!! I think this is likely the case for both parties. Though I would hate to think we are prisoners of our own bias. If I might ask what methods do you think one might utilize to overcome their own bias?