Evidence

[Freodin]

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.

I really am not sure how that lines up with your OP.

After all, size is an objective, measurable fact. You might refrain from measuring for, hm, decency's sake. But still, you could... and all that talk about "belief" and "you come to a different conclusion with my facts" is for naught then.

This "evidence" that you claim to have is not available for my scrutiny. "Your" facts are not there for me to see.

On the other hand, I might have some reasonable objections to your claims.

It would be easy to counter them - just present your facts. But instead you go off and try to make me sound unreasonable for doubting you.

Why is that?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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

I do try!

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?

None of them are nitpicking. They are making the same claim and each is drawing on "personal evidence" to support its truth. The problem is that they can't all be "the largest," so we need some way of determining which claim actually has merit. We can't rely on "personal evidence" for that, since they have each supplied "personal evidence" that, while satisfactory to each of them individually, is not enough to convince us.

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."

Most people, the vast majority I imagine, would like to be right. However, we can't all be right. I could be wrong. My feeling of being right doesn't necessarily always correspond with the reality of actually being right.

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"

But what if it isn't enough? Returning to the penis size competition, you have a situation in which several males are making the same claim, and each of them is relying on their "personal evidence" as support. Is their "personal evidence" enough? How could it be, given that each of them has "personal evidence" to support his claim and yet they cannot all be right? Whose claim should we be taking seriously? The first guy who presented his "personal evidence," or the second, or the third, and so on?

 

[TillICollapse]

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.

I opened up the thread to see new posts, and this one was the one I saw first.

So what are we doing now ? Are we at "pics or it didn't happen," yet ?

 

[TillICollapse]

If a non believer would avoid using evidence I wouldn't ha e to write this post. If a non believer just didn't say anything's about their post I would have nothing to say to them... So they should keep quiet and I wont need to bother them.

Can you see how this is horribly backward thinking? You make claims that Christians constantly try to say their ideas are facts, you are not as good as them, etc. If they didn't say that (which I have never yet had trouble with even you) there would be no problems, according to you. According to you, so long as Christians can not freely speak their ideas everything will be fine?

He didn't say that. You can freely speak your ideas, but others may freely comment or challenge them. It's a two way street in a conversation. That's what makes them conversations. People challenge ideas for any number of reasons: sometimes it's because they're actually interested in what is true.

In another post you point out the difference between stating, "I believe," etc. With such a qualifier in communication, you may be less likely to be challenged imo, however you may still find others who comment concerning your own thoughts.

 

[variant]

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

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without it.

We aren't discussing philosophy when you quote scriptures without the intent to defend their assertions.

When you are, you are lecturing in a discussion forum.

 

[kristina411]

That which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without it.

We aren't discussing philosophy when you quote scriptures without the intent to defend their assertions.

When you are, you are lecturing in a discussion forum.

Have I ever used scripture in this section of the forum? If not (hint: I haven't), you might want to refrain from pointing fingers or making accusations. Just a suggestion.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

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

I don't know how I could obtain absolute certainty that the chicken is actually laying golden eggs. Like you said, I would want to at least observe the chicken for a time, but even it appeared to be legitimate, it would still seem more likely that there was a trick involved. I can't offer an explanation for half of the stuff I've seen Penn and Teller do, even when I know it's fake, so I wouldn't want to risk it with the chicken. Plus, it's a bad idea to dump everything into a single investment (and with as little as I have in the way of a life's savings right now, anyone who would be willing to sell me a golden egg-laying chicken for that amount has got to be lying).

 

[variant]

Have I ever used scripture in this section of the forum? If not (hint: I haven't), you might want to refrain from pointing fingers or making accusations. Just a suggestion.

The argument works for any assertion of belief that you wish not to be questioned or participate in a discussion of it's basis.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know how I could obtain absolute certainty that the chicken is actually laying golden eggs. Like you said, I would want to at least observe the chicken for a time, but even it appeared to be legitimate, it would still seem more likely that there was a trick involved. I can't offer an explanation for half of the stuff I've seen Penn and Teller do, even when I know it's fake, so I wouldn't want to risk it with the chicken. Plus, it's a bad idea to dump everything into a single investment (and with as little as I have in the way of a life's savings right now, anyone who would be willing to sell me a golden egg-laying chicken for that amount has got to be lying).

If I were about to buy the chicken and I wanted to obtain "absolute certainty" before buying the bird by observing it lay golden eggs, would you find this unreasonable? because I would not require such proof if I were told a chicken laid regular eggs?

Ken

 

[KnowtheSilence]

If I were about to buy the chicken and I wanted to obtain "absolute certainty" before buying the bird by observing it lay golden eggs, would you find this unreasonable? because I would not require such proof if I were told a chicken laid regular eggs?

Ken

I'm thinking that maybe we have different things in mind when we say "absolute certainty." I use it to mean a certainty that admits no room for doubt, a certainty that is believed to be impossible to be wrong. I do think that that standard of certainty is unreasonable, outside of a few things like your own existence and the laws of logic. So, strictly speaking, yes, it would be unreasonable to seek absolute certainty about the chicken with the golden eggs. But that doesn't mean that the magic chicken vs. a normal chicken are anywhere in the same ballpark when it comes to the probability of being true or in terms of the amount of evidence needed to believe in one compared to the other.

 

[KCfromNC]

The only cost is following Jesus. This includes giving up sin but I want to give it up.

So then your earlier claim about the costs being minimal were incorrect.

If you have understanding on the teachings of Jesus, you would have no cause to feel anxious.

The only one who has mentioned anxiety related to these beliefs is you. I think you're projecting a bit here.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

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.

The issue Kristina is that many theist's do state that they are claiming facts. I have challenged Muslims on the World religion forum when they claim that a women is not following the word of Allah by not wearing a full Burka covering. Some Christians are prepared to send others to an eternal Hell, of course its not their doing its the unbelievers fault etc, but they are the vehicle for the words, thus they are the ones who are being challenged, because the bible is open to interpretation and they have chosen to interpret it as such, or embrace an outlook that does. These ideas need to be challenged, they will be challenged. After a while one gets bored of the challenge and slipping into mild mocking can ensue. I have a limited numbers of posts for that reason, I tire of the challenge and walk away and try not to mock others beliefs, but in sharing narrow minded ideology that's the risk they face. Its like your mirror analogy, you are free to believe you are beautiful and the mirror is the basis for that belief, but don't start shouting at others how beautiful you are, and decrying all others as ugly as a result. Belief should be a private affair for the most part, and when its not its open to critique. If you don't like it you are free to stop posting, its the same for all of us.

 

[kristina411]

The issue Kristina is that many theist's do state that they are claiming facts. I have challenged Muslims on the World religion forum when they claim that a women is not following the word of Allah by not wearing a full Burka covering. Some Christians are prepared to send others to an eternal Hell, of course its not their doing its the unbelievers fault etc, but they are the vehicle for the words, thus they are the ones who are being challenged, because the bible is open to interpretation and they have chosen to interpret it as such, or embrace an outlook that does. These ideas need to be challenged, they will be challenged. After a while one gets bored of the challenge and slipping into mild mocking can ensue. I have a limited numbers of posts for that reason, I tire of the challenge and walk away and try not to mock others beliefs, but in sharing narrow minded ideology that's the risk they face. Its like your mirror analogy, you are free to believe you are beautiful and the mirror is the basis for that belief, but don't start shouting at others how beautiful you are, and decrying all others as ugly as a result. Belief should be a private affair for the most part, and when its not its open to critique. If you don't like it you are free to stop posting, its the same for all of us.

I have seen very few posts declaring such things or posting about "non believers go to hell."
If you do not like the fact that non believers are said to.go to hell, that is up to you. It is stated in the Bible which is the guideline for Christianity. It is debated if hell is an actual place or if it is death of the spirit but it is at the root of the faith.
Now have I seen posters preach on this? Yes, but very few have I seen start the conversation.
I once was questioned by a co worker of mine. She saw my cross and asked if I was a Christian. When I said yes she look disgusted and practically yelled "well how do you feel about gay people? You think they are going to hell? Isn't that what your belief system is?"
My response? "Yes, being homosexual is a sin. The bible clearly states this. But so is smoking the cigarette I am about to smoke outside. We all sin. I am not concerned about their sin, I am concerned about my own. If their sin causes me to sin I will care. Otherwise, Jesus told us specifically to refrain from judgement and I will do so." She did not accept this answer, as many do not, but that is on her. Truth is, Christianity has changed greatly and the movement has become love, forgiveness, patience. The words of Jesus are put to use and only every once in a while do we get radicals running out to the streets just to condemn them.
A Christian aught to speak truth when questioned, but refrain from allowing that truth to taint the heart. That was the message Jesus delivered. Not to damn everyone.
Yes there are exceptions but one needs to remember the exceptions are not the majority
ETA: After 14 years, I quit smoking back in August! Still can't believe I actually quit

 

[TillICollapse]

I have seen very few posts declaring such things or posting about "non believers go to hell."
If you do not like the fact that non believers are said to.go to hell, that is up to you. It is stated in the Bible which is the guideline for Christianity.

I'm not being rhetorical: shouldn't it be called Biblianity then or something to that effect ? If the Bible is the guideline for a religion, shouldn't that religion be named after the Bible then ? Concerning the term "Christianity" I used to have the assumption it meant Christ would be giving the guidelines, not the Bible per se.

It is debated if hell is an actual place or if it is death of the spirit but it is at the root of the faith.
Now have I seen posters preach on this? Yes, but very few have I seen start the conversation.
I once was questioned by a co worker of mine. She saw my cross and asked if I was a Christian. When I said yes she look disgusted and practically yelled "well how do you feel about gay people? You think they are going to hell? Isn't that what your belief system is?"
My response? "Yes, being homosexual is a sin. The bible clearly states this. But so is smoking the cigarette I am about to smoke outside. We all sin. I am not concerned about their sin, I am concerned about my own. If their sin causes me to sin I will care. Otherwise, Jesus told us specifically to refrain from judgement and I will do so." She did not accept this answer, as many do not, but that is on her. Truth is, Christianity has changed greatly and the movement has become love, forgiveness, patience. The words of Jesus are put to use and only every once in a while do we get radicals running out to the streets just to condemn them.
A Christian aught to speak truth when questioned, but refrain from allowing that truth to taint the heart. That was the message Jesus delivered. Not to damn everyone.
Yes there are exceptions but one needs to remember the exceptions are not the majority
ETA: After 14 years, I quit smoking back in August! Still can't believe I actually quit

If you witnessed someone on the street being attacked viciously, would you attempt to help ? Perhaps call 911 ? Let's say you didn't have a phone you could use to call for help, it was just you: would you help ?

If it was a loved one being attacked viciously, someone you cared for dearly, would you attempt to help them as well ? Would it be different for you to help them verses a stranger ?

All in all ... would you at any point think these people deserved to be attacked viciously ?

 

[Eyes wide Open]

I have seen very few posts declaring such things or posting about "non believers go to hell."
If you do not like the fact that non believers are said to.go to hell, that is up to you. It is stated in the Bible which is the guideline for Christianity. It is debated if hell is an actual place or if it is death of the spirit but it is at the root of the faith.
Now have I seen posters preach on this? Yes, but very few have I seen start the conversation.
I once was questioned by a co worker of mine. She saw my cross and asked if I was a Christian. When I said yes she look disgusted and practically yelled "well how do you feel about gay people? You think they are going to hell? Isn't that what your belief system is?"
My response? "Yes, being homosexual is a sin. The bible clearly states this. But so is smoking the cigarette I am about to smoke outside. We all sin. I am not concerned about their sin, I am concerned about my own. If their sin causes me to sin I will care. Otherwise, Jesus told us specifically to refrain from judgement and I will do so." She did not accept this answer, as many do not, but that is on her. Truth is, Christianity has changed greatly and the movement has become love, forgiveness, patience. The words of Jesus are put to use and only every once in a while do we get radicals running out to the streets just to condemn them.
A Christian aught to speak truth when questioned, but refrain from allowing that truth to taint the heart. That was the message Jesus delivered. Not to damn everyone.
Yes there are exceptions but one needs to remember the exceptions are not the majority
ETA: After 14 years, I quit smoking back in August! Still can't believe I actually quit

Just as a correction, I stated eternal hell. If hell is to be a place of pain and torment then I think the word eternal is a standout. Eternal means without beginning or end. As I have said to other posters, if hell is eternal, when does it start? If it starts at our physical death it can’t be eternal as that defies the meaning of the word. So that leaves us with the position that either hell is not eternal after death, or that hell (potentially) is part of life and its eternal process. I believe Jesus referenced a smoking rubbish pile in his reference to hell, perhaps symbolic of what we are capable of creating as a collective through our thoughts and applied actions, and internally as an individual through our own thought processes, imaginations, fears and selfishness etc. If I have an image of what I see as an idea to strive towards, I will no doubt have an image of its opposite. So the kingdom coming to earth can really just be us creating with an absence of fear, selfishness and with our imaginations kept in check, as best we can, then the collective can create something different, but that collective being shaped from the standpoint of the individual and not the collective, (self realization of sorts) and that the kingdom is symbolic of our true home as a creative species in what we create here on earth, one yet to be attained. This would mean understanding ourselves as the valid component there, not understanding scripture, although I know this helps some. Psychology and neuroscience will do a better job of this in future than religion. Perhaps God does work in mysterious ways hey.

In reference to homosexuality, a relationship with an absence of love (to show you care) is the dysfunctional element to it. That can be within any and all relationships regardless of gender. We innately know these things, I know this, I don’t need anything or anyone to tell me otherwise. By the same token smoking is dysfunctional to your health, you know this, so you strive to give them up. (or perhaps smoke such a low number that the dysfunction is almost eradicated.) Well done for giving up though, I smoked from 14 years of age to 32, not easy to let go.

 

[Ken-1122]

opps

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Actually the way I phrased it on post #29, I said if the person said his chicken laid an egg everyday, I would take him at his word and would be willing to buy the chicken based upon his word, but if he claimed his chicken laid a golden egg everyday, his word would no longer be sufficient and I would require confirmation via observation before buying it.
I then asked if you felt this was unreasonable. I was making the point that extra ordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. Do you agree?

K

Of course.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm thinking that maybe we have different things in mind when we say "absolute certainty." I use it to mean a certainty that admits no room for doubt, a certainty that is believed to be impossible to be wrong. I do think that that standard of certainty is unreasonable, outside of a few things like your own existence and the laws of logic. So, strictly speaking, yes, it would be unreasonable to seek absolute certainty about the chicken with the golden eggs. But that doesn't mean that the magic chicken vs. a normal chicken are anywhere in the same ballpark when it comes to the probability of being true or in terms of the amount of evidence needed to believe in one compared to the other.

Yes we do have different things in mind when we say “absolute certainty”.
Actually the way I phrased it on post #29, I said if the person said his chicken laid an egg everyday, I would take him at his word and would be willing to buy the chicken based upon his claim, but if he claimed his chicken laid a golden egg everyday; now his word would no longer be sufficient and I would require confirmation via observation before buying it.

I then asked if you felt this was unreasonable. I was making the point that extra ordinary claims require an extraordinary amount of evidence. Do you agree?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course.

sounds like we agree.

K

 

[Colter]

Bear with me for a few moments, try to keep up if you will. I understand some wont see the idea but that is life.

I have unfortunately allowed myself to become frustrated in this forum. I have gotten frustrated on numerous occasions over this idea of "evidence". When I post in this forum, despite my initial post, it always leads to "what is your evidence to believe what you believe?" Everything diverts back to evidence.

Yet when evidence is give, it is not enough. So a post goes up asking what exactly is enough to constitute evidence. The response is a general scientific method of 100% proof and accuracy before the idea can be entertained. After all, what intellectual lives without facts?

The problem comes, however, when you let this search for "hard 100% certain facts" into all of your life. If it has to be so completely undeniably proven to be accurate, must the rest of life be the same?

If we must base our religious belief on cold, hard, undeniable, with certainty, no doubts about it mindset, what is to stop you from applying this logic to other areas of life?

Are you married? Can I see the evidence (cold hard factual evidence that con not be disputed) that you used when deciding that this person, with complete and utter certainty-without any cause for dispute- would be the person that you could enter into a binding life long marriage that you share your lives. Is love really that cold that the feeling, the faith, that you love each other is not enough? If faith and love is not enough to believe in God, it certainly can't be enough to believe in love.

Or happiness. I need cold hard facts to know I am happy. I may feel happy but maybe I'm delusional? Feeling happy, experiencing happiness is not enough evidence to claim I am happy correct?

I see this logic applied to belief system but tell me, do you require as much "evidence" about everything in life?

I will respond tomorrow or Monday. I have been putting everything off today for far too long.

The only real evidence of the subjective experience that we have with God is in the lives that we live. Atheist subversives know this, they hide behind demands for at-will testable proofs as a straw man which may appear as evidence of their materialist contentions.