Atheism

[I_am_not_mafia]

On here? I haven't seen that myself but I am happy to be proved wrong. The whole point of a burden of proof is to determine whether a claim is true. Are you sure you didn't misunderstand what they were saying?

Yes.... actually I think only on here have I seen this.  I think that what was confusing them is that the burden of proof  is on the one making a claim of truth.   Which was interpreted to mean that you can say something is false, without having to give reason for that claim.   But in claiming that it is false, you are making a claim about objective truth. 

And to clarify, I'm not trying to point fingers and I'm not saying that this applies to all atheists.  I'm not as concerned with what has happened in the past, but the future.  Talking about the definition of "atheist" doesn't get you out of a claim that you just made.   Would you agree?

OK this is starting to make more sense.

Are you sure that they weren't actually disputing your evidence and you took this as them asserting the opposite of what you were claiming?

[RoadRunner79]

1. Not my problem 
2.No
3.Yes there it's all in pattern of shift and to what . 
4.Of course it matters 
5.Not my problem

1.  For empirical claims I prefer the methods of science.  For psychological claims I'm happy to accept what you say as true for you based only on your word so long as I think you're being sincere.  I actually think consciousness is more than than capable of producing more than your conscious mind.  In fact I'll make that my psychological confession.  But if you think God is more than a co-product of consciousness with an existence and agency beyond your own mind and body, then the standard for empirical claims applies.

2.  For psychological claims, of course.  For empirical claims, where bias is found it can be corrected for.

3.  The domains of the empirical and the psychological just do have separate epistemological standards.

4.  Evidence is the name of the game where formal science is concerned.  Of course we are all capable of acting on seat-of-the-pants empirical theories in our daily lives and formal science only cares about some of those.  Without the benefit of peer review our rough and ready empirical assumptions are indeed error prone.

5.  To move your psychological confession -which is what I think belief in God is- into the realm of empirical claims you would need peer reviewed evidence arrived at repeatedly by multiple groups independently performing the experiment.  If your claims regarding God are not amenable to testing, then you should admit what you hold is a psychological claim, the truth of which may be shared by some and not by others.  The good news for you is that your psychological claim is safe from being disproven by empirical standards.

Do you think that you need a PHD or a scientific research study in order to have evidence?    At what point in the PHD process do they enhance their vision?    Science is great for telling you what will generally occur, and collecting data to apply to statistics.   And someone with more knowledge may be able to add to what was seen in order to better explain it.   However I don't see where a scientific study is required for what can be casually observed or that science is always the best tool or the high priest from which all truth comes from.

[Amarok]

1. Not my problem 
2.No
3.Yes there it's all in pattern of shift and to what . 
4.Of course it matters 
5.Not my problem

1.  For empirical claims I prefer the methods of science.  For psychological claims I'm happy to accept what you say as true for you based only on your word so long as I think you're being sincere.  I actually think consciousness is more than than capable of producing more than your conscious mind.  In fact I'll make that my psychological confession.  But if you think God is more than a co-product of consciousness with an existence and agency beyond your own mind and body, then the standard for empirical claims applies.

2.  For psychological claims, of course.  For empirical claims, where bias is found it can be corrected for.

3.  The domains of the empirical and the psychological just do have separate epistemological standards.

4.  Evidence is the name of the game where formal science is concerned.  Of course we are all capable of acting on seat-of-the-pants empirical theories in our daily lives and formal science only cares about some of those.  Without the benefit of peer review our rough and ready empirical assumptions are indeed error prone.

5.  To move your psychological confession -which is what I think belief in God is- into the realm of empirical claims you would need peer reviewed evidence arrived at repeatedly by multiple groups independently performing the experiment.  If your claims regarding God are not amenable to testing, then you should admit what you hold is a psychological claim, the truth of which may be shared by some and not by others.  The good news for you is that your psychological claim is safe from being disproven by empirical standards.

For number 2 i was only pointing out that the biases don't seriously effect my assessment because i'm aware of the methods to overcome them and can utilize them in my assessment.

---

Do you think that you need a PHD or a scientific research study in order to have evidence?    At what point in the PHD process do they enhance their vision?    Science is great for telling you what will generally occur, and collecting data to apply to statistics.   And someone with more knowledge may be able to add to what was seen in order to better explain it.   However I don't see where a scientific study is required for what can be casually observed or that science is always the best tool or the high priest from which all truth comes from

Science is the best method humans have at ascertaining the nature of reality .Nothing else even comes close .

[SteveII]

Let me get this straight. If people report an experience with God, that is not information of facts (evidence) that support the premise that God exists? Then the converse must be true: if God exists we cannot have any experience of him. This is obviously false. Your defense is some sort of shifting from 'experiences' to 'beliefs' and then to beliefs can be false and then an unjustified leap to these beliefs are false.  You don't have a logical leg to stand on here. 

We cannot have an experience that would allow us to know that the cause of the experience is the theodic maker of the universe. That is not something that is possible to know by any experience. You might be left with a feeling of certainty or knowledge about what you experienced, but actual knowledge of such a being is inaccessible to humans. Even if some being contacts us with a revelation or something, we have no way to evaluate the experience as truly being 'from God'. We'd have to be omniscient ourselves to be able to know that what 'touched' us was the all-knowing and all-powerful creator of the universe. The most we can ever get from a personal experience of contact with something that seems to us divine, even if we eliminate something just happening in our brain as a possibility (which we can't do), we are still just left with a personal experience that seemed to us divine, for some other reason than our internal brain activity. That doesn't get you t a capital G God. It doesn't even get you to an intangible spirit, aliens with mind-affecting rays could be the cause. If God is real, personal experiences aren't enough to show it.

If you mean 'know' to be certain knowledge, okay, I agree. However, one is entirely justified to believe that the experience are from God (with a capital 'g') when it is in the typical Christian context: I believe the message of the NT and that God will be a presence in my life if I sincerely ask. Then I sincerely ask and subsequently feel God's presence and see its effects on my inner life. The inferred connection between these events is more than reasonable--even authenticating, to a certain degree, the underlying belief. You started with a hypothesis/prediction and getting the predicted results is evidence that the hypothesis is true. 

Now, if everyone's personal experience of the divine were consistent, that would be something to pay more attention to. It would at least require explanation if large numbers of Hindus started having visions that inspired them to become Christians, and the visions were theologically consistent, to boot (agreed on things like baptism and what is necessary for salvation)! Or if God could be counted on to give verifiable information that we couldn't possibly have obtained on our own.

By your own argument, you can't rule out that the experiences are similar. God's presence is not about visions or theological revelations. God's final theological revelations are in the NT. God's presence is a strength, support, peace, hope, and guidance for your personal life as well as being willing to be used to further the message of the Gospel or otherwise effect God's plan. 

That Middle Easterners had different divine experiences than people from India or China is par for the course. It's what we'd expect if those experiences have more to do with brain chemistry than an omnipotent supernatural influence.

If there's a God, it can certainly contact you. But you can't know your experience was genuinely from God. All you've got to go on is 'feels', and anything that could contact you could probably make you feel any way it wanted to about it. And drugs can provide similar experiences (not to mention schizophrenia), which I find telling.

In context, I can a be reasonably certain. Additionally, confidence in your experiences are not in a vacuum -- every individual has a slightly different cumulative case undergirding their beliefs.

[I_am_not_mafia]

That Middle Easterners had different divine experiences than people from India or China is par for the course. It's what we'd expect if those experiences have more to do with brain chemistry than an omnipotent supernatural influence.

If there's a God, it can certainly contact you. But you can't know your experience was genuinely from God. All you've got to go on is 'feels', and anything that could contact you could probably make you feel any way it wanted to about it. And drugs can provide similar experiences (not to mention schizophrenia), which I find telling.

In context, I can a be reasonably certain. Additionally, confidence in your experiences are not in a vacuum -- every individual has a slightly different cumulative case undergirding their beliefs.

Context actually often tells us how divine experiences aren't actually divine at all. For example, it's interesting how people's religious experiences reflect the religious culture that they are already immersed in. My 'religious experience' where I heard a demonic voice behind my head just as I was getting to sleep mirrored the role playing experience I had that same evening.

Point is, people are using the same brain to determine what is a response to a sensory input, a religious experience or a momentary imbalance of function. The brain is very active and dynamical system with different parts very finely balanced. You cannot trust the same brain to tell the difference. This is why we require impartial observers.

[RoadRunner79]

In context, I can a be reasonably certain. Additionally, confidence in your experiences are not in a vacuum -- every individual has a slightly different cumulative case undergirding their beliefs.

Context actually often tells us how divine experiences aren't actually divine at all. For example, it's interesting how people's religious experiences reflect the religious culture that they are already immersed in. My 'religious experience' where I heard a demonic voice behind my head just as I was getting to sleep mirrored the role playing experience I had that same evening.

Point is, people are using the same brain to determine what is a response to a sensory input, a religious experience or a momentary imbalance of function. The brain is very active and dynamical system with different parts very finely balanced. You cannot trust the same brain to tell the difference. This is why we require impartial observers.

I would agree, that you need corroborating evidence.  Either from other people, or other sources of evidence.

[LadyForCamus]

It does.  But my standard of evidence for supernatural claims like the ones in the Bible are much higher than for a claim that a powerful, rich, male celebrity took advantage of vulnerable women.  For one, I know Bill Cosby exists...

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

These are all good questions. First, I want to say yes; we’re all at risk of inherent biases effecting our standards of evidence for any given claim. I think there is a latent danger of our subconscious processing nudging us to accept claims and assumptions a priori, for emotional reasons rather than well-evidenced ones. Because of this, it’s important that we constantly challenge the claims we’re most certain of. This is the only way to self-correct for bias.

What evidence would it take for me to be convinced a god exists?  I honestly don’t know.  It would probably have to be scientific in nature.  In the case of Cosby, we know (or can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt) of several facts surrounding the claim that increase the likelihood of it being true. We know:

1. Bill Cosby exists.
2. He was/is a wealthy, influential, and well-respected celebrity 
3. There is a clear pattern of men with such status preying on vulnerable women
4. The women offering testimony exist, and we can interview them.

Note that we don’t have to take any of the above on faith or assumption, because there is a plethora of actual evidence to support each of the numbered. Additionally “Bill Cosby is a rapist”, is a mundane claim in the sense that it does not require I accept any propositions that violate established, scientific principles describing our physical universe.  

Now, let’s look at the various supernatural claims of Christianity, including but not limited to: an Omni-god exists outside of space and time, he created the universe, Jesus was the son of god and also god, Mary was impregnated by god absent intercourse, Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life, heaven and hell exist, angels exist, souls exist, and Jesus performed miracles. What facts do we know beyond reasonable doubt about any of these claims?  We know:

1.The claims are contained in a book called the Bible that was catalogued thousands of years ago.
2. The Bible contains the alleged testimony of people who lived during that time period and supposedly witnessed these supernatural events (though we have no way to question these witnesses, if they existed at all, because they’re long since dead.)
3. We know a great number of humans believe these claims are true.
4. We know Christians worship and pray to the god they believe in.
5. We know Christians believe they have a personal relationship with god.

In the Bill Cosby example, the numbered facts are pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of the claim being true.  In the case of the numbered facts regarding Christianity, they are merely reassertions of the claims themselves. Additionally (and most importantly), accepting these claims requires assumptions that violate what can be demonstrated about the known laws of the universe for no other reason than the sake of the claims themselves.

These two scenarios aren’t even in the same stratosphere in terms of likelihood.  So my personal, subjective evidentiary standard for the Bill Cosby claims is far lower than for Christian claims.  I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is a rapist.  I’m not yet convinced that god exists.

[Amarok]

I would agree, that you need corroborating evidence.  Either from other people, or other sources of evidence.

The later yes the former no

[RoadRunner79]

I would agree, that you need corroborating evidence.  Either from other people, or other sources of evidence.

The later yes the former no

Set the pudding pop man free!

[Amarok]

Set the pudding pop man free!

Again not comparable . So kindly stop trying to play up eyewitness testimony to protect your sacred cult texts . It has not worked for you on all the other threads it won't now

---

So what evidence would be sufficient to learn that something exists?  Do you think that bias effects your standards of evidence?   There is no epistemological foundation for a shifting standard of evidence. Which is why I asked if evidence matters. What type of evidence would it take?

These are all good questions. First, I want to say yes; we’re all at risk of inherent biases effecting our standards of evidence for any given claim. I think there is a latent danger of our subconscious processing nudging us to accept claims and assumptions a priori, for emotional reasons rather than well-evidenced ones. Because of this, it’s important that we constantly challenge the claims we’re most certain of. This is the only way to self-correct for bias.

What evidence would it take for me to be convinced a god exists?  I honestly don’t know.  It would probably have to be scientific in nature.  In the case of Cosby, we know (or can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt) of several facts surrounding the claim that increase the likelihood of it being true.  We know:

1. Bill Cosby exists.
2. He was/is a wealthy, influential, and well-respected celebrity 
3. There is a clear pattern of men with such status preying on vulnerable women
4. The women offering testimony exist, and we can interview them.

Note that we don’t have to take any of the above on faith or assumption, because there is a plethora of actual evidence to support each of the numbered. Additionally “Bill Cosby is a rapist”, is a mundane claim in the sense that it does not require I accept any propositions that violate the established, scientific principles describing our physical universe.  

Now, let’s look at the various supernatural claims of Christianity, including but not limited to: an Omni-god exists outside of space and time, he created the universe, Jesus was the son of god and also god, Mary was impregnated by god absent intercourse, Jesus was dead for three days and came back to life, heaven and hell exist, angels exist, souls exist, and Jesus performed miracles. What facts do we know beyond reasonable doubt about any of these claims?  We know:

1.The claims are contained in a book called the Bible that was catalogued thousands of years ago.
2. The Bible contains the alleged testimony of people who lived during that time period and supposedly witnessed these supernatural events     (though we have no way to question these witnesses, if they existed at all, because they’re long since dead.
3. We know a great number of humans believe these claims are true.
4. We know Christians worship and pray to the god they believe in.
5. We know Christians believe they have a personal relationship with god.

In the Bill Cosby example, the numbered facts are pertinent to evaluating the likelihood of the claim being true.  In the case of the numbered facts regarding Christianity, they are merely reassertions of the claims themselves. Additionally (and most importantly), accepting these claims requires assumptions that violate what can be demonstrated about the known laws of the universe for no other reason than the sake of the claims themselves.

These two scenarios aren’t even in the same stratosphere in terms of likelihood.  So my personal, subjective evidentiary standard for the Bill Cosby claims is far lower than for Christian claims.  I’m convinced that Bill Cosby is a rapist.  I’m not yet convinced that god exists.

It is annoying when theists desperately try and compare the bible or Jesus to totally not comparable things  
No Jesus is not like Cesar or Alexander the Great or any other ancient figure . 
No the bible is not like any historical document 
No the people wrote the bible show no indications of being equal to bill Cosby's victims