Atheism

[RoadRunner79]

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

Is it because he's black? Because it seems that you are saying that there is no evidence and therefore no reason to convict him.

[Amarok]

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

Is it because he's black?   Because it seems that you are saying that there is no evidence and therefore no reason to convict him.

What the hell are you on about

[Mystic]

If a person takes their time to prove something, and there is many arguments for existence of God, before dismissing God and proofs for him, there needs to be some level of sincerity to the truth and not coming simply to reject.

And just like it's not good enough to assert God to existence, it's not good enough to simply deny proofs of God as proofs, with showing no rational reason why the proofs don't stand to reason.

I remember when a person to reject an argument even said it's not objective that torturing an innocent soul like a baby for eternity for no crime it has committed, to be objectively evil in all possible worlds.

And people think by denying such a premise, they can do away with an argument proving God. Goodness and God go together, you can't separate the two, neither can you separate God from his Messengers.

There are proofs and layers of the proofs, and insights and layers of insights that prove and manifest God.

What I conclude with every culture in the world having proofs of God, is Atheists are either too apathetic or rebellious to acknowledge God.

[Amarok]

If a person takes their time to prove something, and there is many arguments for existence of God,  before dismissing God and proofs for him,  there needs to be some level of sincerity to the truth and not coming simply to reject.

And just like it's not good enough to assert God to existence, it's not good enough to simply deny proofs of God as proofs, with showing no rational reason why the proofs don't stand to reason.

I remember when a person to reject an argument even said it's not objective that torturing an innocent soul like a baby for eternity for no crime it has committed, to be objectively evil in all possible worlds.

And people think by denying such a premise, they can do away with an argument proving God.  Goodness and God go together, you can't separate the two, neither can you separate God from his Messengers.

There are proofs and layers of the proofs, and insights and layers of insights that prove and manifest God.  

What I conclude with every culture in the world having proofs of God, is Atheists are either too apathetic or rebellious to acknowledge God.

Lol keep telling yourself that

[SteveII]

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 disagree. A dream can be dismissed by the "dreamer" very quickly as additional facts become available. The human mind, when functioning correctly, is capable of distinguishing what is a dream and what a Christian claims: that the presence of God is felt daily, evidenced by strength, support, peace, hope, and gentle guidance on living one's life. 

Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.

[Mister Agenda]

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

Is it because he's black?   Because it seems that you are saying that there is no evidence and therefore no reason to convict him.

Apparently it only seems he is saying that to you. Is that because Bill Cosby is black?

---

Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.

People can certainly have one-off experiences that seem real and never re-occur, and never stop seeming to have been real. My uncle had a conversation with a leprechaun when he was in the hospital. He always maintained that the leprechaun seemed as real to him as anyone else. I don't believe he was lying...but I don't believe in the leprechaun either. Non-religious people can have so-called 'religious experiences', and many have. They are just more likely to interpret them as something happening in their brains than actually being touched by a disembodied mind. No one denies that the experiences happen, the dispute is about their nature.

[I_am_not_mafia]

I disagree. A dream can be dismissed by the "dreamer" very quickly as additional facts become available. The human mind, when functioning correctly, is capable of distinguishing what is a dream and what a Christian claims: that the presence of God is felt daily, evidenced by strength, support, peace, hope, and gentle guidance on living one's life. 

Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.

Why do you think that propaganda works?

This is religious binary thinking again. This time assuming True and False exist. When in reality no one is omnipotent. We are all given a subset of facts and perspectives and this can be manipulated in corectly functioning minds. No one is 100% correct or incorrect.

Then there are the brains which are not working properly. These are more suspectible to religious experience.

If all you know is religion then you will see the world through the eyes of the religious. But it's not as effective as relying on the minds and written and reproducible impartial observations of hundreds of thousands of scientists who are each looking out for the flaws in their own hypotheses and those of others.

[Angrboda]

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 disagree. A dream can be dismissed by the "dreamer" very quickly as additional facts become available. The human mind, when functioning correctly, is capable of distinguishing what is a dream and what a Christian claims: that the presence of God is felt daily, evidenced by strength, support, peace, hope, and gentle guidance on living one's life. 

Your theory depends on the normal functioning mind to make regular, lasting mistakes that are not self corrected. That seems to only apply to religious-leaning people, and if so, that is simple question-begging: Religions people don't have religious experience because religious people don't have religious experiences.

Not to judge Mathilda's experience, but her demonic voices would typically be described as a hypnopompic hallucination. Likening them to a dream is probably misleading. People mistake hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations for reality quite frequently.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

Thank you for your response Lady,

On the subject of biases; I wanted to make a comment first of my opinion.   I agree, that we all have biases, and sometimes they can be difficult to spot or get past.  We look at the world through our past experience and our individual world view.  In my view, the matter of evidence is a logical problem.  We apply reason and principles in a systematic and consistent way.   This is what the field in philosophy called epistemology is all about.  Much like algebra, you can create generic principles, which stand on their own, and then you work to the details of any particular case to apply those principles.  And as it is an issue of logic, given certain premises and using these principles and reasons, the conclusion will follow from the premises.  You can apply the principles learned from other situations and apply them to something unfamiliar and expect a reasonable outcome (unless there is some reason not to such as a category error).  There are disagreements among philosophers concerning epistemology, but these are on what the principles should be (for gaining knowledge), not that different conclusions follow the same reasoning for different things.

This is a little difficult to me, because in my view, you seem to be talking about persuasion, and not reasoning from the evidence.  Perhaps your standards are higher, and I have no problem with that, if they are applied consistently.  With subjective and moving standards which aren't even defined, I think it is difficult to tell if you are biased or reasonable in your conclusions.   They cannot be evaluated and comparisons can't be made, because it is not defined.  If I'm honest, (and I'm not trying to be harsh) it sounds more like a feeling to me, that is un-falsifiable.   It can't be tested to see if it is sound or not.  As well with such a subjective scale, it seems hard to evaluate or criticize anyone for not believing evidence.  The jurors may have loved Cosby, and simply raised the bar for the evidence, not because it wasn't sufficient for knowledge, but because they have difficulty believing that this nice man from TV could do such things.  They may be swayed by the evidence or they may not.  It has nothing to do with the evidence or what should follow from that evidence.  And this same principle could easily be applied to any other type of evidence as well.  I admit, that sometimes there are a lot of variables, and it may not be a neat little formula, but I think we should strive to be logically consistent. 

Towards your lists;  Bill Cosby exists.   I agree, I don't think that solipsism is rational and that we are perceiving a real person outside of ourselves.  He is wealthy and influential;  again I agree.  Some men of such status prey on vulnerable women.  I agree again, but none of these things give us any knowledge that it would follow that he had raped these women as claimed.  The women exists (again I think this as uncontroversial as it is unimportant.  I actually only know of these women from what I have heard on the news.   We can interview them?   I don't think that it is reasonable that everyone be able to interview them personally.   I also don't think it is necessary.  I think it is enough that they where vetted and their claims tested.  This is also a problem in concerns of historical evidence.   Does our knowledge of the past get a little bit smaller every time someone dies?  Do we erase events that happened years ago, where we can no longer interview the witnesses?  I don't believe that history becomes mere stories as the last witness who can testify passes away.

As to claims of the Bible (in particular the new testament)  In another thread, I talked with someone about what I see as the difference between claims and evidence.  A claim to me, is the conclusion.  For example the claim that we evolved through some kind of Darwinian evolution from common species.  The evidence would be the information and reasons which support this claim (and any evidence against it).  This evidence may be shared through testimony.  That is knowledge may be shared, which points to the claim or conclusion.  Even in further education I would expect that much of the evidence would be shared through testimony and the knowledge gathered by others.  I don't think that we need to go around the globe and re-dig things up, nor would I expect to.  In the Bible i would say that there are claims, and there is also evidence.   The testimony of those who shared what they saw and experienced.   The history that followed it.   This can't just be compared to some fictional story.   The followers of Christ appear right after in the time and place, for which they take their name.  Don't confuse the claims from the evidence and reasons for those claims.     Look at what they say they saw, is their corroborating evidence.  How did they act afterwards?   Was their claims self serving or embarrassing?  How did they act in the face of persecution?  There are a number of ways that we can test evidence and testimony.   One other thing I wanted to touch on, before a final statement I would disagree, that most of the Bible violates any immutable law of nature.  For one, the laws of nature are not a set of rules, that must be followed. It is the ways that the things which make up the universe behave.  If they behave differently, that just means that some other cause must be in play.  Gravity will cause the glass I dropped off my desk to fall and the impact cause it to shatter.   If I am quick enough to stop  it and lift it back up onto the table.  I didn't violate the law of gravity.   The law of gravity was acting the same as it always does.   The difference is I was able and chose to intervene.  Another cause was introduced.

Lastly I want to talk about something which seems circular to me.  You seem to be indicating that the evidence is not sufficient because you don't believe that it is possible already.   But the reason you appear to give that you don't believe it; is that there is not enough evidence.  Despite the it's catchy phrasing there is no epistemological rational for the motto of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Why if it is logical and and reasonable wouldn't the same knowledge follow for one thing which is similar to another (without further reason not to). Do you think that our beliefs and what we know should be based on good evidence and rational? Again it seem circular to measure the evidence to a belief in a claim, but then how much you need to measure is based on how much you believe the claim. Of course you will never reach the end conclusion you are traveling in an infinite circle.

[Amarok]

A wall of text that symbolizes nothing. Essentially shitting all over hard work .