The nature of evidence

[Edwardo Piet]

I'm a pseudo skeptic. I'm also never sarcastic.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, yeah.

[Pat Mustard]

Lying Plagiarist!  
Eh, what can you expect from a Seminarian?  He just wants to graduate from college so he can start lying to his own little church and rape all of the altar boys.  Little baby college-boy witch-doctor in training - - he's just practicing, after all.

Hey! You are being unfair there! When I posted the links on the topic about "Heaven" a mod came to me and asked me I couldn't post any links until I don't know what, and now you are insulting me and calling me everything because I didn't!?
And not only that, you assume that "He just wants to graduate from college so he can start lying to his own little church and rape all of the altar boys.", what is the evidence for this claim? If you would knew what you are talking about you wouldn't have said it, first of all, the cases of paedophilia happened in the Catholic Church, not in the Orthodox Church, where we have no "altar boys" and priests get married before ordination, so before insulting me you can get documented. I am not going to insult back because it is not my style, I am educated and you are an atheist, how can I expect some education, after all? It is funny how all of you overuse the word evidence when you did not provide any evidence for your beliefs either, which are just that, beliefs.

Yes, the original article was posted by Clark Carlton, and, no matter what any moderator says, since now I will be posting every source even if they bann me for infringing the rules, alright?
Do any of you have anything to say about said article, which is why I posted it?

So your excuse for plagirism is that you didn't want to break the 30/30 rule? As a university studeny you know the first rule is always cite your sources

You know you could have PMed a mod and asked them for permission to post the relevant links and they'd probably ok it. Hell you could have cited them even without posting links saying "I got these from site X and site Y, please google site X: topic A and Site Y: topic B". But no you had to pretend that you were giving us original research.

But what should I expect from an arse brained idiot only an arse brained excuse for something that would have him expelled if he submitted it at uni?

[Cyberman]

Links are not necessary, as long as sources are cited. The two are not synonymous. And that's fucking hard to spell when you're drunk. Please don't make me do it again.

[Ben Davis]

---

Hello.

I have listened and witnessed that, when debating about God, the main questions that is present within the atheist party is that they do not believe in God because there is no evidence for Him. I am interested but also confused, because I need to understand what "evidence" really means, certainly what for some people is enough "evidence" for others is not even close to that, so, my questions are:

1. What does the word "evidence" mean?
2. What kind of said evidence would be necessary for you to actually believe there is a God?

---

Late to the party on this one. I don't really have a lot to add other than summary for Wryetui's benefit.

1. The definitions of evidence provided have covered the difference between factual and anecdotal, their relative value and the difference in added value between argument and experiment. Facts matter, robust investigative and demonstrative methodology matters, personal testimony does not.

2. The ignostic position demonstrates the practical impossibility of answering this question with any measure of accuracy. If you can't even list the attributes of the thing that you claim exists, how can you possibly hope to demonstrate it, let alone expect people to be able to speculate on their reaction to it's potential existence. How are we to tell, for example, the difference between 'god' and a very powerful alien being with universe-creating capabilities? By your god's impossible omni-bilities? I think not. And if the bible, your central claim for your god's existence, can't be trusted as an accurate list of attributes, from what source can you claim any descriptions? In that respect, other religions have one up on Yahweh: at least I'd recognise Ganesh if I saw him!

As an addendum to my answer to 2.: in practical terms, if I were to encounter a being so powerful as to be able to create universes and it told me that it was a god, I might well agree with it to save my own skin. I wouldn't necessarily believe it or worship it however if my life depended on it and there were no repercussions that I was uncomfortable with, I'd probably play along. Belief can be such a fickle and precious thing, just ask members of the Clergy Project.

[abaris]

And that's fucking hard to spell when you're drunk. Please don't make me do it again.

Interesting. As far as I am concerned, I find it even easier to speak or type my mind when being pissed. Works in a foreign language too. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The ensuing hangover is a different matter entirely.

[Pat Mustard]

No, that's your projection. Think of it in a courtroom situation - the only position held by the attorney for the defence is "the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against my client to meet the burden of proof". Sure, if Joe Blow didn't do it someone else must have,but that's neither the purview of the defence nor the issue under discussion.

Theists have a burden of proof, since they are the ones with something to prove. Atheists, in matters pertaining to atheism, do not.

I really can't make it any simpler without using crayons.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.   If you are claiming that something is false, then you have the burden to show the reasons/evidence for that claim.  I have run into a fair number of people who didn't understand this.  Atheist do have the burden of proof, as soon as they make any claim which is not agnostic.

Actually the claim is that god exists, for one simple reason we don't, with our current level of knowledge, have sufficient evidence to think he exists, is the positive one here. Thus anybody who says that he does is making the claim, not those who are taking the position of disbelief. It doesn't matter how many believe or how fervently they believe, the known facts currently support their claims to be truthful.

That is why you have the burden of proof, not I.

[Pat Mustard]

Links are not necessary, as long as sources are cited. The two are not synonymous. And that's fucking hard to spell when you're drunk. Please don't make me do it again.

Oh, sorry for making you get yourself drunk.

[ignoramus]

Parents tried to teach me (and my 2 sisters) Greek as young kids.
This was their only language as immigrants to Australia.

Having cats all my life, I naturally spoke to the cats in Greek as a young kid.
For some stupid reason, I still baby talk to my cats even now, and only in Greek!

(I found an old black and white photo of me as a baby in a cot with a big fat ass cat sitting on me!)

This may explain my unnatural obsession with them. They may have indoctrinated me then!
Maybe their purring sound triggers a buried command in me:
FEED ME NOW!

[Cyberman]