Why not deism?

[chimp3]

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.

Alright... but just to clarify: the only thing you consider evidence warranting belief is direct and empirical? You're entitled to that; but then on a practical level (and not to get semantically messy) how would you trust someone is telling the truth about a claim?

My level of trust would be based on the claim. 

If the claim is mundane: "I went to the grocery store today" I may take them at their word. There may be a receipt or video evidence but why would I give a shit? 

I expect reality to be consistent. The dead do not return to life. Humans do not regenerate lost limbs. Horses do not fly. If someone were to make such a claim I would expect extraordinary evidence. I would also be unable to verify that evidence so would insist the claimant take their claim to experts and I would await their report. As far as subjective religious experiences, cornball anecdotes hold little weight with me. Their god can come impress me personally if it chooses. It would know what would convince me.

---

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.

You seem to have a clear and precise idea of what evidence is.

Just so the rest of us can understand you, what exactly must something be to be considered evidence? 

These days you can watch real court testimony on YouTube. Lots of authorities give testimony and this is considered evidence in the trial. Then the jury has to weigh the evidence. 

Are you using a different definition than the court system?

No different. I would hope that the expert witnesses would support their argument with scientific data. I would hope the expert witness was not taken at their word just because they are considered an authority.

[Belacqua]

No different. I would hope that the expert witnesses would support their argument with scientific data. I would hope the expert witness was not taken at their word just because they are considered an authority.

In the cases I've watched so far, the experts are pretty clear on what leads them to their conclusions. It's generally science or experience in a field. 

But in this case it seems you are accepting authoritative testimony as evidence. Perhaps with the stipulation that "authoritative" includes something like "science-based."

[Inqwizitor]

My level of trust would be based on the claim. 

If the claim is mundane: "I went to the grocery store today" I may take them at their word. There may be a receipt or video evidence but why would I give a shit? 

I expect reality to be consistent. The dead do not return to life. Humans do not regenerate lost limbs. Horses do not fly. If someone were to make such a claim I would expect extraordinary evidence. I would also be unable to verify that evidence so would insist the claimant take their claim to experts and I would await their report. As far as subjective religious experiences, cornball anecdotes hold little weight with me. Their god can come impress me personally if it chooses. It would know what would convince me.

So if a bunch of your friends said they saw a horse flying around, you would say, no way, not unless I personally saddle up that flying horse, will I believe.

It's certainly not an unreasonable position. It would only get to be adamant and obstinate if they then take you to the flying horse, which you see circling the treetops, and then you assume it must be some sort of hallucination, because that sort of thing just doesn't happen.

---

No different. I would hope that the expert witnesses would support their argument with scientific data. I would hope the expert witness was not taken at their word just because they are considered an authority.

If you did not personally observe and verify that scientific data, then you are trusting them at their word. Judges are forced to do this sort of thing often, and yes they are sometimes led astray, and sometimes with tragic consequences.

[chimp3]

No different. I would hope that the expert witnesses would support their argument with scientific data. I would hope the expert witness was not taken at their word just because they are considered an authority.

In the cases I've watched so far, the experts are pretty clear on what leads them to their conclusions. It's generally science or experience in a field. 

But in this case it seems you are accepting authoritative testimony as evidence. Perhaps with the stipulation that "authoritative" includes something like "science-based."

In the court room setting I would hope that "authoritative" is a synonym for "expert". So, that includes something like science based.  In the court setting their testimony is not evidence, they are presenting evidence. Ballistics, Pathology, etc. Regarding a religious claim authorities have a much higher hurdle. If someone claims they are an authority on exorcisms I could just as easily claim I am an authority on talking, flying frogs. They have to support their claim with the evidence for demon possession, not just anecdotes.

[The Grand Nudger]

These two are fucking with you, Chimp.

[Inqwizitor]

These two are fucking with you, Chimp.

No. I realize this is the Internet and everyone is a suspected troll. But I'm being sincere and am genuinely curious about what atheists believe — or just generally what people think about things; that's why I'm here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Atheists don't believe, that's what makes them atheists.

[chimp3]

My level of trust would be based on the claim. 

If the claim is mundane: "I went to the grocery store today" I may take them at their word. There may be a receipt or video evidence but why would I give a shit? 

I expect reality to be consistent. The dead do not return to life. Humans do not regenerate lost limbs. Horses do not fly. If someone were to make such a claim I would expect extraordinary evidence. I would also be unable to verify that evidence so would insist the claimant take their claim to experts and I would await their report. As far as subjective religious experiences, cornball anecdotes hold little weight with me. Their god can come impress me personally if it chooses. It would know what would convince me.

So if a bunch of your friends said they saw a horse flying around, you would say, no way, not unless I personally saddle up that flying horse, will I believe.

It's certainly not an unreasonable position. It would only get to be adamant and obstinate if they then take you to the flying horse, which you see circling the treetops, and then you assume it must be some sort of hallucination, because that sort of thing just doesn't happen.

---

No different. I would hope that the expert witnesses would support their argument with scientific data. I would hope the expert witness was not taken at their word just because they are considered an authority.

If you did not personally observe and verify that scientific data, then you are trusting them at their word. Judges are forced to do this sort of thing often, and yes they are sometimes led astray, and sometimes with tragic consequences.

Unfortunately in the court setting the prosecution and defense get limited chances to "prove" their case. Fortunately we have an appeals process which might reverse an unjust ruling. However, re: scientific claims, we can observe the peer review process which is ongoing. 

As far as flying horses scenario, if it was the seventies, and you knew my friends and I, evidence would not be an issue.

---

These two are fucking with you, Chimp.

Time to fling the poo?

---

These two are fucking with you, Chimp.

No. I realize this is the Internet and everyone is a suspected troll. But I'm being sincere and am genuinely curious about what atheists believe — or just generally what people think about things; that's why I'm here.

Just so you know, I work as a Registered Nurse. I am sitting at my desk at home reading the new 2020 guidelines for ICD-10 coding. (2020 starts for me October !st). Preparing for a huge change in the Medicare payment model. I studied intro Political Science, Anthropology in college. Mostly Psychology and Biology. If you want deep philosophy there are those onboard that can provide that. I am an atheist because I don't believe the believers and their silly anecdotes. I am not seeking to be convinced.

[The Grand Nudger]

When -isn't- it time to fling the poo? 

[Belacqua]

In the court room setting I would hope that "authoritative" is a synonym for "expert". So, that includes something like science based.

Well, I guess it depends on the topic. If it's something amenable to scientific study, then sure, an expert is someone who knows about scientific study. 

  In the court setting their testimony is not evidence, they are presenting evidence. 

I'm not sure I understand the difference. Are you wanting to differentiate between the authority of the person speaking and the persuasiveness of the facts he gives? If so, I agree with you that the witness's personal clout is not what's important. 

On the other hand, it turns out that in a lot of cases the facts are not conclusive, and different experts can reach different conclusions from the same facts. In real life, science-type approaches aren't definitive, sad to say. 

Ballistics, Pathology, etc. Regarding a religious claim authorities have a much higher hurdle. If someone claims they are an authority on exorcisms I could just as easily claim I am an authority on talking, flying frogs. They have to support their claim with the evidence for demon possession, not just anecdotes.

Right. I'm fine with that. Ballistics et.al. have lots of empirical backup. Exorcisms not so much. 

The case I've been watching on YouTube is a sad little high school cheerleader who didn't want to be pregnant so much that she ignored it and finally gave birth on her own in the bathroom. The expert testimony comes down to whether the baby was stillborn or whether the cheerleader killed it through neglect after a few minutes. This turns out to require a surprising amount of personal interpretation among the expert doctors. 

What I want to say about evidence, though, is broader. To me, it is dangerous and a bit arbitrary to say that any and all evidence must only be science. (And by science I mean: empirical, repeatable, quantifiable, theory-embedded.) To me, evidence is anything that gives added believability to a proposition. Depending on the proposition in question, I think this could include the personal opinion of someone experienced. It could include common sense. Other things too, depending on the topic.

I am not saying that I want to put spooky ghost stories on an equal basis with science. I am only saying that in the real day-to-day world, where we have to decide things, we should value all input. And I acknowledge that this puts a higher burden on us, because I am not drawing clear boundaries on what I'll accept. It's case-by-case, you-have-to-use-your-brain type situations. 

It would be easier if science were conducted by purely rational angels. But people are fallible, and scientists are people. And especially when much scientific research is paid for by for-profit groups who -- surprise! -- come up with the results that are profitable for themselves, even science needs extra grains of salt.

---

[quote pid='1933183' dateline='1568940028']
These two are fucking with you, Chimp.

If I'm included in "these two," then please know that I'm not fucking with you. I am sincere.