Evidence

[kristina411]

I haven't personally ever been shown evidence.

Nothing. I do so, and happily.

Happiness and love are chemical phenomena that occur in the presence of certain stimuli as a result of natural selection. It's not as if we don't have a scientific backing for the existence of emotions.

Do we should only enter into marriage, believe our spouse loves us, if we can hook them to a monitor to show their love is real fist. Then we shall enter into a marriage?

 

[kristina411]

Consider the analogy I made on post #29 about the claim of a chicken that lays solid gold eggs. Would you require absolute certainty that this claim has been proven undeniably true before spending your entire life savings on such a chicken?

Ken

For your analogy, you are asking for my lifestyle to be at risk. You would be asking that I risk being homeless and poor, starving to death and potentially allowing my child to starve to death. Your analogy can not be applied to Christianity because in Christianity I lose nothing but my darkness and I gain the world.
You would be asking me to lose everything I had and risk my life falling apart. The "risk" of Christianity is nothing more than risking me one day wanting to be selfless and follow Jesus, and no one can deny how good he was.
If I did not have to risk so much I would gladly buy the chicken for a fair price.

 

[quatona]

When the subject changes from philosophy to Christian apologetics I can, and will walk away.

I didn´t say anything about when you can or can´t walk away. You can always walk away.

 

[kristina411]

For the rest of the posters, I apologize I do not have the time to single out, or patience.

What I will say, after reading them all, is that we all need to remember(both sides) that saying "I believe" is different than saying "I know for a fact". So when a poster creates a topic that says "Do you believe you are attractive? If so why do you believe it?" And I say "yes, because I see it in the mirror" that does not open me up to questions such as "what proof do you have? You must have officially been scored by a select panel of scientists, and it must be proven to be true, unlike beauty which is subjective."
Do you see why this line of questioning is not helpful? Because the poster said "what do you believe" it is already implied that I am merely giving my personal belief when I say "yes, because I have a mirror." This needs to be remembered when claiming a Christian is stating facts. This is the only type of scenario I have ever not provided facts, because it asked my belief. I am entitled to that. Now if I said "I know for a fact", you could probe for reasons. Otherwise it is my privelidge to believe as I so wish.

 

[Freodin]

For the rest of the posters, I apologize I do not have the time to single out, or patience.

What I will say, after reading them all, is that we all need to remember(both sides) that saying "I believe" is different than saying "I know for a fact". So when a poster creates a topic that says "Do you believe you are attractive? If so why do you believe it?" And I say "yes, because I see it in the mirror" that does not open me up to questions such as "what proof do you have? You must have officially been scored by a select panel of scientists, and it must be proven to be true, unlike beauty which is subjective."
Do you see why this line of questioning is not helpful? Because the poster said "what do you believe" it is already implied that I am merely giving my personal belief when I say "yes, because I have a mirror." This needs to be remembered when claiming a Christian is stating facts. This is the only type of scenario I have ever not provided facts, because it asked my belief. I am entitled to that. Now if I said "I know for a fact", you could probe for reasons. Otherwise it is my privelidge to believe as I so wish.

If all there is are contradicting statements of belief... there would not be a debate.

But there is more. Look around you. Look at other threads here. In many of them you will find Christians who make factual claims. "This is so. Accept that. Or face the consequences."

If you don't do that: fine. But then you need to grant others the same privilege that you claim for yourself.

 

[kristina411]

If all there is are contradicting statements of belief... there would not be a debate.

But there is more. Look around you. Look at other threads here. In many of them you will find Christians who make factual claims. "This is so. Accept that. Or face the consequences."

If you don't do that: fine. But then you need to grant others the same privilege that you claim for yourself.

I have never and would never say "or face the consequences", nor have I seen many Christians post such ideas but a minority. I would never do this, despite my belief on its accuracy because this mindset is what has driven so many from Christianity and most Christians today can see how destructive judgement is, especially with faith and avoid such statements for that purpose.

I can give you my belief and give you evidence for that belief that supports my reasoning. I do not have to but I do. When I gather the evidence I make my conclusion. You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient? It is not your conclusion, it is mine.
So for every poster on here who decides that they have won over a discussion because the evidence is not enough for them, you have won a battle against yourself, not the other poster, because at the end of the day the "evidence" is more than sufficient for the believer.

You can state flaws, that are reasonable, within someone's evidence but how many times in the short time I have been here, has my evidence been blown off because "well it could have meant small blue aliens with tin hats". That is a large jump, and unrealistic discussion-unless you can back up with your own evidence that said alien exists- is pointless.

We begin to debate like corrupt politicians trying to find flaw with the poster, making snide remarks, condemning the other person. The topic gets twisted and always ends in a tug of war, battle of who can nit pick, read between the lines, and continuously demand more than necessary. If it is in true request for answers, the request for evidence would not be demanded, the person providing the evidence would not be ridiculed and the heated debated would be heated and not useless Locker room complex arguments.

 

[KCfromNC]

For your analogy, you are asking for my lifestyle to be at risk. You would be asking that I risk being homeless and poor, starving to death and potentially allowing my child to starve to death. Your analogy can not be applied to Christianity because in Christianity I lose nothing but my darkness and I gain the world.
You would be asking me to lose everything I had and risk my life falling apart. The "risk" of Christianity is nothing more than risking me one day wanting to be selfless and follow Jesus, and no one can deny how good he was.

If I just say that I want to be selfless and follow Jesus and then do nothing else ever related to religion, I'm saved and never have to worry about it again? Cool, done.

I'd imagine you'd think this is approach won't work, though. I'd have to do more than just make a claim and never follow through with it. That means that despite your claim here, there is a real cost to choosing to pretend to be Christian.

 

[KCfromNC]

For the rest of the posters, I apologize I do not have the time to single out, or patience.

What I will say, after reading them all, is that we all need to remember(both sides) that saying "I believe" is different than saying "I know for a fact".

Sure enough. So why all the talk about people ignoring evidence in the OP if we're just talking about sharing random subjective feelings?

 

[bhsmte]

Show me where I have ever claimed evidence without proving.

You are sourly mistaking "I believe" with "I have proof".

Any claims I have stated I had proof, I gave proof. Any claims I stated to be fact I gave evidence (statistics and links to places you could find the evidence). Yet my belief is demanded proof for as well and that is how it is turned into Christian apologetics.

Proof means evidence.

Are you familiar with courts of law. A person is found guilty when the prosecution has presented adequate evidence to prove their case. Evidence or proof would not include the prosecuting attorney standing up and saying; "the defendant did this crime and you must find him guilty"

Please show us, where you have presented evidence, to prove anything.

 

[Freodin]

I have never and would never say "or face the consequences", nor have I seen many Christians post such ideas but a minority. I would never do this, despite my belief on its accuracy because this mindset is what has driven so many from Christianity and most Christians today can see how destructive judgement is, especially with faith and avoid such statements for that purpose.

I can give you my belief and give you evidence for that belief that supports my reasoning. I do not have to but I do. When I gather the evidence I make my conclusion. You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient? It is not your conclusion, it is mine.
So for every poster on here who decides that they have won over a discussion because the evidence is not enough for them, you have won a battle against yourself, not the other poster, because at the end of the day the "evidence" is more than sufficient for the believer.

You can state flaws, that are reasonable, within someone's evidence but how many times in the short time I have been here, has my evidence been blown off because "well it could have meant small blue aliens with tin hats". That is a large jump, and unrealistic discussion-unless you can back up with your own evidence that said alien exists- is pointless.

We begin to debate like corrupt politicians trying to find flaw with the poster, making snide remarks, condemning the other person. The topic gets twisted and always ends in a tug of war, battle of who can nit pick, read between the lines, and continuously demand more than necessary. If it is in true request for answers, the request for evidence would not be demanded, the person providing the evidence would not be ridiculed and the heated debated would be heated and not useless Locker room complex arguments.

So who are you to tell me that I am wrong? You believe that you are right and I am wrong and I do believe I am right and you are wrong.

When our different beliefs to not come into, hm, "real world conflict", we can agree to disagree.

But what are we going to do when this is not possible?

 

[KCfromNC]

my evidence been blown off because "well it could have meant small blue aliens with tin hats".

I'd be curious to see this quote in context - assuming it even is a quote.

That is a large jump, and unrealistic discussion-unless you can back up with your own evidence that said alien exists

You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient?

I'll just let you argue with yourself here.

That's the biggest problem with the epistemology used for religious claims - they're so wishy-washy that it makes it tough not to devolve into special pleading for the particular fantastic claims that people wish were true.

 

[kristina411]

If I just say that I want to be selfless and follow Jesus and then do nothing else ever related to religion, I'm saved and never have to worry about it again? Cool, done.

I'd imagine you'd think this is approach won't work, though. I'd have to do more than just make a claim and never follow through with it. That means that despite your claim here, there is a real cost to choosing to pretend to be Christian.

The only cost is following Jesus. This includes giving up sin but I want to give it up. Its common belief in the Christian world that you don't have to be without sin. This is highly debated, much more productively however in my experience.
I want to be sin free because sin leads to pain. I will not go into specific sins and if you would like to create a threw on such topic I would be happy to respond but I do not wish to derail this thread.

Is it not desirable to live without ever giving in to our temptations that cause problems? Our anger that keeps us from loving each other? Our greed that causes others to go hungry? Our jealousy? It is desirable to live the way we are Instructed. If you have understanding on the teachings of Jesus, you would have no cause to feel anxious. He demands only what is right and just. He explains law vs. Sin and the way we are expected to live, even if you are not Christian, should be the way we all want to live. Loving one another equally. Giving what we don't need to those who do. Being happy with what we have. Forgiveness.

Selfishness, adultery, lies, selfishness, pride I could go on and on... These are the things I have to lose and I am more than willing to throw them away.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never and would never say "or face the consequences", nor have I seen many Christians post such ideas but a minority. I would never do this, despite my belief on its accuracy because this mindset is what has driven so many from Christianity and most Christians today can see how destructive judgement is, especially with faith and avoid such statements for that purpose.

I can give you my belief and give you evidence for that belief that supports my reasoning. I do not have to but I do. When I gather the evidence I make my conclusion. You may come to a different conclusion with my facts but if I find my evidence substantial who are you to tell me I am wrong? Who are you to say my conclusion is wrong because you don't think the evidence is sufficient? It is not your conclusion, it is mine.
So for every poster on here who decides that they have won over a discussion because the evidence is not enough for them, you have won a battle against yourself, not the other poster, because at the end of the day the "evidence" is more than sufficient for the believer.

Okay, so what you consider evidence is sufficient for you. It is personally enough to convince you, but why suppose that it must therefore also convince us? If you suppose that, you are implying that it is unreasonable for us not to agree with you, given the claimed evidence. That carries with it the notion that we ought to agree, yet we obviously do not, so either we are failing to reason through this properly, or your evidence isn't as good as you thought. This is how a debate begins.

 

[kristina411]

I'd be curious to see this quote in context - assuming it even is a quote.





I'll just let you argue with yourself here.

That's the biggest problem with the epistemology used for religious claims - they're so wishy-washy that it makes it tough not to devolve into special pleading for the particular fantastic claims that people wish were true.

Go back to the illuminati thread and view the posts and you will see. I haven't the time for nit picking and someone demanding something from me that is so trivial. Another post after mimicked the same idea but I don't feel inclined to search for hours to find it. Be my guest. You want the answers, its up to you to find em.

 

[kristina411]

Okay, so what you consider evidence is sufficient for you. It is personally enough to convince you, but why suppose that it must therefore also convince us? If you suppose that, you are implying that it is unreasonable for us not to agree with you, given the claimed evidence. That carries with it the notion that we ought to agree, yet we obviously do not, so either we are failing to reason through this properly, or your evidence isn't as good as you thought. This is how a debate begins.

There is a difference in debate and a battle of penis sizes where one side doesn't show but tells their size, and the other male never gives his size only points out how his opponent could be wrong at his assertion that he I larger. Round and round it goes.

 

[Freodin]

There is a difference in debate and a battle of penis sizes where one side doesn't show but tells their size, and the other male never gives his size only points out how his opponent could be wrong at his assertion that he I larger. Round and round it goes.

Err, why are you here again?

 

[kristina411]

Err, why are you here again?

Read my original post. Penis sizes may have been too graphic but I have tried giving the example of politics but clearly it is not understood.

 

[kristina411]

Now I am going to attempt to put away my phone to get things done so I will be back, but possibly not for a couple days, to respond.
Take care and God bless!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is a difference in debate and a battle of penis sizes where one side doesn't show but tells their size, and the other male never gives his size only points out how his opponent could be wrong at his assertion that he I larger. Round and round it goes.

What a strange analogy. I don't see how this analogy even applies, but let's go with it, if we must...

Suppose someone did claim to be "the largest," but then, instead of actually submitting his penis for measurement to determine whether the claim had any merit, he simply offered his own "personal evidence" that this was the case. For example, he recounted many lovers of his who claimed that he was "the biggest" they've seen. Another man makes a similar claim, but he too refuses to have his penis measured. And then another appears and says exactly the same thing, but like the first two he forgoes any attempt to have his penis measured. All of these men are making a very grand claim, and yet none of them is willing to offer anything more than his own "personal evidence". How are we to determine which man's claim actually has merit given that none of them is willing to actually "stand up" to scrutiny.

Hopefully I shouldn't have to make explicit what "penis size" is supposed to represent in this analogy... Again, you chose this analogy.

 

[kristina411]

What a strange analogy. I don't see how this analogy even applies, but let's go with it, if we must...

Suppose someone did claim to be "the largest," but then, instead of actually submitting his penis for measurement to determine whether the claim had any merit, he simply offered his own "personal evidence" that this was the case. For example, he recounted many lovers of his who claimed that he was "the biggest" they've seen. Another man makes a similar claim, but he too refuses to have his penis measured. And then another appears and says exactly the same thing, but like the first two he forgoes any attempt to have his penis measured. All of these men are making a very grand claim, and yet none of them is willing to offer anything more than his own "personal evidence". How are we to determine which man's claim actually has merit given that none of them is willing to actually "stand up" to scrutiny.

Hopefully I shouldn't have to make explicit what "penis size" is supposed to represent in this analogy... Again, you chose this analogy.

Lol I didn't want to be back to respond but I couldn't resist just to let you know it made me laugh.

The thing is, with your post, the first is telling his size, and the third. The second doesn't even attempt to give his own, merely points out flaws in how the two could be wrong. Doesn't seem very effective to me, at least two sides are giving what evidence they have and stating their reasons for coming the the conclusions. Seems like fella number 2 is too insecure to tell his side and instead just nit picks the others. See how this is ineffective?

When someone gives their reason for their conclusion, you make your own conclusion but it is useless and just causes disagreement when your personal conclusion is overshadowed with a need to be right, a need to demand more when no one has told you "you have to believe what I am telling you."

You state the flaws in the evidence, or tell how you believe that evidence could be applied differently and keep it to that. This is how debate works. Someone else retorts if they continue. A debate does not say "nope, evidence isn't enough so I will toss it out all together and think I have one the argument with my ability to say "it isn't enough"

If we are to debate make it productive.