Perfection!

[Edwardo Piet]

It's nuts because you're directly contradicting yourself Evie.

You can have any colour as long as it's black.

What are you talking about?

Believing on evidence is not nuts because believing without evidence - the alternative - is nuts. Believing on evidence is of course, sane. It's, I'm sure, what even most theists do with almost every aspect of their life but they stray away when it comes to religious matters.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I'm talking about your insistence that you'd consider anything but then also not consider everything. It seems words have a way of tying you in knots. Our conversations always spiral off with your love affair with your own words... until I have to baby feed the point to you.

Many times you've used the "I know of no evidence" line to dismiss considering an idea.

That's the opposite of dismissing considering it. It's saying "I'm prepared to consider it, just provide some evidence."

I know of no evidence at least so far.

EvF

What part of this do you not consider contradictory?

[Edwardo Piet]

I consider belief without evidence, I consider belief with evidence. But I choose evidence. I am sided with evidence because it is rational.

I consider anything without evidence, but I only believe with evidence - because that's sane.

What I said was not contradictory because I was saying that saying "I know of no evidence" does not mean that I won't consider any evidence - so where's the contradiction?

I can consider something seriously without believing but I can't consider something seriously and also believe without evidence -if I believe, I have evidence whether valid or invalid.

EvF

[fr0d0]

Listen up: you said "I'm prepared to consider it, just provide some evidence."

In response to: "Many times you've used the "I know of no evidence" line to dismiss considering an idea."

In other words, you won't consider something unless evidence is presented to you first. Is that as clear to you as it is to me?

Now you're saying something different, and something that you refuse to do when we've talked about this in depth... at those times you'll climb back into your "I won't consider anything without evidence" pram.

So which is it Evie? Will you consider it or won't you. And I'll fucking quote you on it next time it comes up.

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm talking about two different kinds of considering here. Considering the possibility, which I will - I consider all possibilites - and actually "considering" as in putting it into practice (as you seem to think that I am not truly considering the matter unless I am in favour of it to at least some extent?).

I do consider the possibility of belief without evidence being rational, of course! - Because - I thought as you already knew? - I'm a full blown agnostic. I accept the possibility of anything. But that's different to probability..... based on the probability I, in practice, choose to believe on valid evidence and not on lack of it (faith-based belief) - because I consider that more rational and more likely to be the truth - which I care about.

And also with me it's really a matter of being unconvinced, and I just - at least so far - remain completely unconvinced by faith-based belief - I consider it baseless -... evidence-based belief however, I find compelling.

EvF

[fr0d0]

In no way do I think anyone needed to actually believe to consider anything. Speaking personally, I would say it's impossible to fully understand from disbelief.

Evidence based belief is also no belief. Hence evidence based belief cancels itself out.

[Edwardo Piet]

Evidence based belief is still belief by definition otherwise it wouldn't be any kind of belief at all.

When you say it is impossible to fully understand from disbelief, I presume you are talking of Christians who you believe are enlightened via their belief.... I am unconvinced by this without having your evidence first (valid or invalid) - evidence is for convincing.

EvF

[fr0d0]

I don't believe it is belief. It's simply 'knowledge'.

Christians aren't 'enlightened' just living out the belief and so can experience what is said to be true.

You said (in another thread) that me telling you something was so was evidence enough for you to consider it valid evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

I, as an agnostic, believe that knowledge cannot be absolutely known... - as far as I know - and something either is or isn't true, either is or isn't "knowledge" whether it is believed or not. Not all belief is true and hence "knowledge" but all knowledge requires belief.

I see it as a belief by the common definition of belief - not specifically religious belief - just belief. Belief can be with or without evidence. It can be evidence based or faith based (which is simply the belief but with a lack of evidence - which insufficient evidence).

Christians aren't 'enlightened' just living out the belief and so can experience what is said to be true.

How does believing it make their belief any more valid? Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Well surely it is - until there is actually a valid reason to it being the case. HOW does their belief help them understand better in anyway - can you evidence this? Or are you just going to answer with "it just does" - which is kind of circular isn't it? "It does because it does?".

You said (in another thread) that me telling you something was so was evidence enough for you to consider it valid evidence.

I was just using an example of taking directions, how someone's word can be evidence in some situations - if you go on the basis that what they are saying is more likely to not only be not lying - but also more likely to be true than not.

I do not apply it to all cases. But I was using an example of what you consider something to be a matter of "trusting" someone as in... faith-based - I consider evidence based.

If you have good reasons to trust someone then that's evidence that they're trustworthy - whether valid or invalid, it is evidence to you.

Whether you are telling the truth or not on this God matter... I certainly do not consider that at all evidence that God actually exists because that does not logically infer in anyway as far as I can tell (I think).

EvF

[fr0d0]

I, as an agnostic, believe that knowledge cannot be absolutely known... - as far as I know - and something either is or isn't true, either is or isn't "knowledge" whether it is believed or not. Not all belief is true and hence "knowledge" but all knowledge requires belief.

If you saw someone come up to you and slap you in the face... you wouldn't say "I believe that person just slapped me in the face" BECAUSE that would be saying that you weren't sure. No, you'd say "I know that person just slapped me in the face". Get off your absolutes bandwagon - it doesn't apply here.

Christians aren't 'enlightened' just living out the belief and so can experience what is said to be true.

How does believing it make their belief any more valid? Isn't that kind of circular reasoning? Well surely it is - until there is actually a valid reason to it being the case. HOW does their belief help them understand better in anyway - can you evidence this? Or are you just going to answer with "it just does" - which is kind of circular isn't it? "It does because it does?".

If you think, having never driven a car, what driving a car is like, it isn't the same as actually driving a car. People can tell you what it's like, and you can be prepared given that information.

Same with actually believing in God and trying to think what believing in God might be like. I can tell you how great and wonderful it is, and how everything suddenly makes sense, but you can't actually know that until you believe yourself.

You said (in another thread) that me telling you something was so was evidence enough for you to consider it valid evidence.

If you have good reasons to trust someone then that's evidence that they're trustworthy - whether valid or invalid, it is evidence to you.

Whether you are telling the truth or not on this God matter... I certainly do not consider that at all evidence that God actually exists because that does not logically infer in anyway as far as I can tell (I think).

So it's evidence EXCEPT when it applies to God? Why the exception?