Evidence

[TillICollapse]

The only real evidence of the subjective experience that we have with God is in the lives that we live.

Do you believe that a person can have an objective experience with God ?

 

[Colter]

Do you believe that a person can have an objective experience with God ?

People who experienced Jesus did. Creation is the work of God but not prove able to others.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

If that is the only real evidence you have then you don't have much at all.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The only real evidence of the subjective experience that we have with God is in the lives that we live. Atheist subversives know this

I'll happily grant this. Seeing that Christians live more or less like everybody else, the lives you live separate you not-at-all from people of other religions or no religion.

 

[kristina411]

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



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

Lol. If living free of lust, drunkenness, violence, rage, envy, selfishness is a great cost, or a cost more than minimal, I apologize. For me, its no cost at all but is desirable, more of a gift over cost if you ask me, or many other Christians.

And yet another lol moment. Now you are really just nit picking. The reference to being anxious was in reference to the chicken, stating Jesus gives comfort. A chicken laying golden eggs would not. Too many possibilities for error there, and with error comes anxiety. With Jesus there is no room for error (in my opinion and many others) because the only thing we lose is our darkness inside. Hence the lack of anxiety she giving up for following Jesus vs. Losing your entire life savings.

 

[Freodin]

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.

An objective claim needs to be backed up with objective evidence.

Subjective experiences may or may not result in any "evidence"... but the interpretation of that is necessarily limited.

I can assure you that I had lots of "subjective experiences"... even some subjective experiences that "proved" to me that there are no gods, that atheism is the correct worldview. You might find the "real evidence" for that in the life that I live, but I don't use them to convince anyone, promote anything or denigrate anyone.

In contrast to what some people (well, you!) might say, I spend my time here on this forum trying to understand why people believe something that I "know" is incorrect.
I point out things I see as evidently wrong. I ask for explanations. I ask questions. (And, yes, sometimes I engage in verbal sparring matches with trolls.)

This is the "life I live", here on this forum and in the real world. You can check out my posting history... you need a lot of imagination (which, admittedly, you have) to find anything "subversive".

On the other hand we have someone who claims to adhere to "ultimate values", but in the "life" that he presents for the outside to see has to resort to hostility, insults and fabrications.

I think all this is "evidence" for something.

 

[kristina411]

I do try!



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.



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.

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?

When in the given scenario, male 1 and male 3 spoke their sizes. Lets say they were both approximately the same size. Male two keeps saying "oh, hey, mine is bigger." But when asked about his size he provides no answer.
I would take 1 or 3 to actually take home the prize since they at least gave us reason to believe
I do frequently knowledge that I may be mistaken in some areas, even when it comes to my faith. What I do not believe, is that I am mistaken about our God, and Jesus(-who is even scientifically thought to have been a living man and his story line according to the new testament backed by non believers.
Even science has been proven to be wrong on many occasions. My God has never been "proven wrong", not that I can recall.
I always say this, there is room for science and Christianity. One does not automatically exclude the other. Science just helps us understand more about the bible than we already knew.
And nit picking comes when every word of my post is zeroed in on until some poster thinks they can find a flaw in what I have said and they work it best they can. Read my above response to another poster. Prime example of nit picking. You can see the conversation on pages 10-11

 

[Archaeopteryx]

When in the given scenario, male 1 and male 3 spoke their sizes. Lets say they were both approximately the same size. Male two keeps saying "oh, hey, mine is bigger." But when asked about his size he provides no answer.
I would take 1 or 3 to actually take home the prize since they at least gave us reason to believe

Who says that male 1 and 3 actually consented to being measured? In the scenario I outlined above, none of them is willing to have their size objectively determined. They all believe that their "personal evidence" is more than satisfactory.

I do frequently knowledge that I may be mistaken in some areas, even when it comes to my faith.

That's good.

What I do not believe, is that I am mistaken about our God, and Jesus(-who is even scientifically thought to have been a living man and his story line according to the new testament backed by non believers.

Okay, so there are many things you could be mistaken about, but you cannot possibly be mistaken about your religious beliefs? Why not? There are many people who have religious beliefs that differ from your own. You obviously consider them mistaken, so why is it conceivable that you too could be mistaken? If they can be mistaken, why can't you?

Even science has been proven to be wrong on many occasions.

Yes, it's been proven wrong by science.

My God has never been "proven wrong", not that I can recall.

Have you ever been shown wrong about something, religious or otherwise?

I always say this, there is room for science and Christianity. One does not automatically exclude the other.

In principle, yes. In practice, however... there is sometimes conflict.

 

[kristina411]

Who says that male 1 and 3 actually consented to being measured? In the scenario I outlined above, none of them is willing to have their size objectively determined. They all believe that their "personal evidence" is more than satisfactory.

That's good.

Okay, so there are many things you could be mistaken about, but you cannot possibly be mistaken about your religious beliefs? Why not? There are many people who have religious beliefs that differ from your own. You obviously consider them mistaken, so why is it conceivable that you too could be mistaken? If they can be mistaken, why can't you?

Yes, it's been proven wrong by science.

Have you ever been shown wrong about something, religious or otherwise?

In principle, yes. In practice, however... there is sometimes conflict.

The scenario was my scenario so... We follow the rules of the general scenario to which male number one provided size but would not be measured there. Male two only states his is larger but never gives a size. Male three was added, I am assuming, as an example of non Christian faith to which he gave a size but did not have it measured. This is the scenario we have been working with, among many others. Point is male one and two are at least giving accounts, even without being measured they are providing their answer, while contestant number three doesnt.

I said, with my faith, I can be mistaken in some ways. You see, I saw this being brought up before I submitted that response. I can already see where this conversation is going and the responses I will get. I can be mistaken about my faith, as in the specific aspects of it. These are what seperate those who believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. I am in the Christian boat because of my faith in Jesus. I may be wrong in his teachings and how he interprets them but I do not believe I am wrong to believe Jesus as the son of God.
Now what I see happening though is the same thing that I got from my coworker. A basic mindset that because I am Christian I must dislike anyone who does not share my views. I have great Jewish and Muslim friends throughout my life. My best friend is an atheist. My favorite cousin is homosexual. Being Christian does not mean I look at others pointing and saying "you are wrong! In fact, everyone on the board seems to point that finger saying I am wrong, without providing their evidence for claiming i am wrong. I state my beliefs and it is attacked, yet I'm the one accused of saying others are wrong?
Curious indeed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The scenario was my scenario so... We follow the rules of the general scenario to which male number one provided size but would not be measured there. Male two only states his is larger but never gives a size. Male three was added, I am assuming, as an example of non Christian faith to which he gave a size but did not have it measured. This is the scenario we have been working with, among many others. Point is male one and two are at least giving accounts, even without being measured they are providing their answer, while contestant number three doesn't.

The point of the analogy was that the "personal evidences" of the men was not enough, which is why we ask for their consent to be measured.

I said, with my faith, I can be mistaken in some ways. You see, I saw this being brought up before I submitted that response. I can already see where this conversation is going and the responses I will get. I can be mistaken about my faith, as in the specific aspects of it. These are what seperate those who believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. I am in the Christian boat because of my faith in Jesus. I may be wrong in his teachings and how he interprets them but I do not believe I am wrong to believe Jesus as the son of God.

I know you don't believe that you are wrong, but is it possible that you could be, or do you believe that, in at least this one respect, you cannot possibly be wrong?

Now what I see happening though is the same thing that I got from my coworker. A basic mindset that because I am Christian I must dislike anyone who does not share my views.

Not at all! I've spoken to enough Christians to know that this is not true, and I never enter into a conversation with a Christian assuming that they are disagreeable and dislike anyone who isn't like them.

I have great Jewish and Muslim friends throughout my life. My best friend is an atheist. My favorite cousin is homosexual. Being Christian does not mean I look at others pointing and saying "you are wrong! In fact, everyone on the board seems to point that finger saying I am wrong, without providing their evidence for claiming i am wrong. I state my beliefs and it is attacked, yet I'm the one accused of saying others are wrong?

I don't think you are being attacked at all. Your appraisal of the situation (that you are being attacked) is completely out of step with my appraisal of it, in which your expressed views are simply being discussed.

 

[Freodin]

The scenario was my scenario so... We follow the rules of the general scenario to which male number one provided size but would not be measured there. Male two only states his is larger but never gives a size. Male three was added, I am assuming, as an example of non Christian faith to which he gave a size but did not have it measured. This is the scenario we have been working with, among many others. Point is male one and two are at least giving accounts, even without being measured they are providing their answer, while contestant number three doesnt.

I said, with my faith, I can be mistaken in some ways. You see, I saw this being brought up before I submitted that response. I can already see where this conversation is going and the responses I will get. I can be mistaken about my faith, as in the specific aspects of it. These are what seperate those who believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. I am in the Christian boat because of my faith in Jesus. I may be wrong in his teachings and how he interprets them but I do not believe I am wrong to believe Jesus as the son of God.
Now what I see happening though is the same thing that I got from my coworker. A basic mindset that because I am Christian I must dislike anyone who does not share my views. I have great Jewish and Muslim friends throughout my life. My best friend is an atheist. My favorite cousin is homosexual. Being Christian does not mean I look at others pointing and saying "you are wrong! In fact, everyone on the board seems to point that finger saying I am wrong, without providing their evidence for claiming i am wrong. I state my beliefs and it is attacked, yet I'm the one accused of saying others are wrong?
Curious indeed.

Well, perhaps you should practice your nitpicking skill a little bit more... you might see that people do not point and say "you are wrong" but that you could be wrong. Case in point: archeopterix last post.

But that exactly is the point were are trying to make when we (sceptics, unbelievers) talk about "evidence": we all have our beliefs and convictions. But the best way to find out who is really wrong or right is evidence. Not perfect, not infallible, but the best way.

Your size comparison example is cute, but ultimately meaningless: no one is really affected by it. It could be settled by evidence, but who cares?

Let's take a different example: you are at court, being accused of a serious crime. Your personal subjective experience says "I didn't do it." You stand accused, so there is at least one other person who has a serious personal subjective experience that says "Oh yes, you did it!"
You could face a lifetime in prison or even capital punishment - rather serious consequences.

Wouldn't you rather have a way for the truth to be found? Wouldn't you rather be faced with a sceptic on the jury who wants to see where the evidence leads, instead of a person who says "at least they were giving accounts ... I believe the accused / the accuser".
Would you place your trust on objective evidence or on people who either believed you or not?

Now if we are to believe (some, quite a lot of) Christians, the question of God is rather like the situation at court than a size contest.

 

[kristina411]

Well, perhaps you should practice your nitpicking skill a little bit more... you might see that people do not point and say "you are wrong" but that you could be wrong. Case in point: archeopterix last post.

But that exactly is the point were are trying to make when we (sceptics, unbelievers) talk about "evidence": we all have our beliefs and convictions. But the best way to find out who is really wrong or right is evidence. Not perfect, not infallible, but the best way.

Your size comparison example is cute, but ultimately meaningless: no one is really affected by it. It could be settled by evidence, but who cares?

Let's take a different example: you are at court, being accused of a serious crime. Your personal subjective experience says "I didn't do it." You stand accused, so there is at least one other person who has a serious personal subjective experience that says "Oh yes, you did it!"
You could face a lifetime in prison or even capital punishment - rather serious consequences.

Wouldn't you rather have a way for the truth to be found? Wouldn't you rather be faced with a sceptic on the jury who wants to see where the evidence leads, instead of a person who says "at least they were giving accounts ... I believe the accused / the accuser".
Would you place your trust on objective evidence or on people who either believed you or not?

Now if we are to believe (some, quite a lot of) Christians, the question of God is rather like the situation at court than a size contest.

And like the chicken laying golden eggs, your scenario of a crime can not be accurately replied as becoming a Christian does not require you to lose anything of positive value. You can liken religion to something such as a crime, or as the golden egg dispute)loss of life time savings- but that shows how negative and inaccurate your views of Christianity are.
Penis example is to show-at least the other two contestants have a chance to win the contest while the second contestant has no issue in sitting back and taking a loss.
We have nothing to lose (of positive value) in becoming a Christian, everything to lose in losing the faith. So- if these scenarios apply, the non believers would be the ones proving they have nothing to lose-or have done nothing wrong.

I have never, nor have I seen anyone, say that an atheist is not entitled to their beliefs. As I said, some of the radical Christians you may be referring to but it has been made clear that I am not one, nor are the majority of Christians.

I have been accused of basically everything a radical Christian does in this thread, and all of it is false. Yet no fingers are being pointed? Hmm...

 

[kristina411]

The point of the analogy was that the "personal evidences" of the men was not enough, which is why we ask for their consent to be measured.



I know you don't believe that you are wrong, but is it possible that you could be, or do you believe that, in at least this one respect, you cannot possibly be wrong?



Not at all! I've spoken to enough Christians to know that this is not true, and I never enter into a conversation with a Christian assuming that they are disagreeable and dislike anyone who isn't like them.



I don't think you are being attacked at all. Your appraisal of the situation (that you are being attacked) is completely out of step with my appraisal of it, in which your expressed views are simply being discussed.

This response is much more appropriate, but if you take an honest look at the posting going on, every one of yall know that liking God to aliens, Santa, the Easter bunny- is extremely offensive to Christians. Yet its done, and more often much more polite.
Being repeatedly accused of doing things I have not, is attacking me. Nit picking to find flaws she there aren't is attack. Singling out a post because the person believes the Christian and not atheist view, with arrogance (not saying you have done this) is attack.

We may get all frustrated but if there is a question-its better left asked instead of the poster being mocked. And that happens in pretty much every single thread. Makes one wonder if this is the reason this board is low on Christians in the philosophy section. They are clearly outnumbered here. But I'm not afraid of numbers.
You would find, if you knew me, that I am a very rational and intelligent person. I did not come to the Christian faith because I was told it was right. After years of questioning I came because the evidence pointed me here. May point someone else elsewhere but what does religious evidence have to do with philosophy.
But I'm guessing because Christian Apologetics is not allowed-or is there a section for it?- that it id brought here?
I'm not accusing you specifically because I can't really keep up with all of the negativity and there have been a couple posters I disagree with but respect much more and going by this post you make be one of them.

Honest questioning is one thing but if one doesn't like the answer, instead of mockery they should just let it go.

 

[Freodin]

And like the chicken laying golden eggs, your scenario of a crime can not be accurately replied as becoming a Christian does not require you to lose anything of positive value. You can liken religion to something such as a crime, or as the golden egg dispute)loss of life time savings- but that shows how negative and inaccurate your views of Christianity are.
Penis example is to show-at least the other two contestants have a chance to win the contest while the second contestant has no issue in sitting back and taking a loss.
We have nothing to lose (of positive value) in becoming a Christian, everything to lose in losing the faith. So- if these scenarios apply, the non believers would be the ones proving they have nothing to lose-or have done nothing wrong.

I didn't intent for that courtroom example to be a direct comparison of "becoming a Christian" or liken religion to a crime or any kind of loss. I think you are a little overreacting here... perhaps showing how negative and inaccurate your views of, well, me, are. ( No offense meant, just a little light banter.)

The example was meant to show one thing and one thing alone: that in some cases, it can be very important to have a better shot at "truth" than pure belief.

You said it yourself here: "We have [...] everything to lose in losing the faith."

Everything... that is important, isn't it?
So I should be aiming for the best way to find out the truth.

You believe. Your belief is important for you... not only subjectively, because it makes you feel good, but because you think that it has an objective result. You also think that unbelievers and non-Christians lose out on that objective result. (Yes, you might not go around and tell unbelievers that, but you do believe that, don't you?)

And I do not believe what you believe. But I understand that it is important for you... and I understand that you (if not you personally, then "you" as a huge number of theists) want it to be important for me as well.

But I do not believe! I don't have the slightest idea of how you do it, or how I am supposed to do it.

I am trying my best to follow the way that I know works. Why do you think I am unreasonable for doing so?

I have never, nor have I seen anyone, say that an atheist is not entitled to their beliefs. As I said, some of the radical Christians you may be referring to but it has been made clear that I am not one, nor are the majority of Christians.

I have been accused of basically everything a radical Christian does in this thread, and all of it is false. Yet no fingers are being pointed? Hmm...

No one has accused you of anything like that. Calm down, relax... no one is trying to point any fingers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This response is much more appropriate, but if you take an honest look at the posting going on, every one of yall know that liking God to aliens, Santa, the Easter bunny- is extremely offensive to Christians.

It's not intended to be offensive; rather, it's usually to make a point through an analogy.

Yet its done, and more often much more polite.
Being repeatedly accused of doing things I have not, is attacking me. Nit picking to find flaws she there aren't is attack. Singling out a post because the person believes the Christian and not atheist view, with arrogance (not saying you have done this) is attack.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I haven't seen anyone attack you, but I have seen plenty of people commenting on your posts and discussing your views. Not agreeing with those views, or dissecting them ("nitpicking" if you prefer), is not the same as an attack on you.

We may get all frustrated but if there is a question-its better left asked instead of the poster being mocked. And that happens in pretty much every single thread. Makes one wonder if this is the reason this board is low on Christians in the philosophy section. They are clearly outnumbered here. But I'm not afraid of numbers.

I'm not sure what the demographic makeup of the Philosophy subforum is. That's an interesting question. Perhaps we should do a poll?

You would find, if you knew me, that I am a very rational and intelligent person.

I never said that you weren't rational or intelligent. I'm not sure why, but you seem to be taking any and all criticism of your views as a personal attack. It's not.

I did not come to the Christian faith because I was told it was right. After years of questioning I came because the evidence pointed me here. May point someone else elsewhere but what does religious evidence have to do with philosophy.
But I'm guessing because Christian Apologetics is not allowed-or is there a section for it?- that it id brought here?

Sadly there is no longer a section for apologetics. For some reason the topic is forbidden.

I'm not accusing you specifically because I can't really keep up with all of the negativity and there have been a couple posters I disagree with but respect much more and going by this post you make be one of them.

Honest questioning is one thing but if one doesn't like the answer, instead of mockery they should just let it go.

If someone doesn't like the answer then surely that could form the starting point for a potentially edifying conversation? For example: why don't they like the answer? Could you provide a better answer? And so on...

 

[kristina411]

I didn't intent for that courtroom example to be a direct comparison of "becoming a Christian" or liken religion to a crime or any kind of loss. I think you are a little overreacting here... perhaps showing how negative and inaccurate your views of, well, me, are. ( No offense meant, just a little light banter.)

The example was meant to show one thing and one thing alone: that in some cases, it can be very important to have a better shot at "truth" than pure belief.

You said it yourself here: "We have [...] everything to lose in losing the faith."

Everything... that is important, isn't it?
So I should be aiming for the best way to find out the truth.

You believe. Your belief is important for you... not only subjectively, because it makes you feel good, but because you think that it has an objective result. You also think that unbelievers and non-Christians lose out on that objective result. (Yes, you might not go around and tell unbelievers that, but you do believe that, don't you?)

And I do not believe what you believe. But I understand that it is important for you... and I understand that you (if not you personally, then "you" as a huge number of theists) want it to be important for me as well.

But I do not believe! I don't have the slightest idea of how you do it, or how I am supposed to do it.

I am trying my best to follow the way that I know works. Why do you think I am unreasonable for doing so?


No one has accused you of anything like that. Calm down, relax... no one is trying to point any fingers.

If I had the time I could go back and highlight all the condescending posts, or all the posts of "you are wrong", the posts of mockery and even a poster admitting to mockery. It can be denied but it doesn't change the truthfulness of the matter.
The discussion starts with questioning but more often than not leads to attacks. Do I care if I am attacked? No. Do I care if I am accused of being what I'm not? Not really but I will be sure to correct the assertions.

We can say no one has pointed fingers, we can say that it is always honest reasonable questions. Doesn't make it true though.
And I am calm so I'm curious as to your position. I am perfectly calm, I am trying to bring awareness to the tactics displayed on this board, to no avail apparently.

If you can not see the double standards, the hypocrisy, there is nothing left.

Again, its one thing to disagree and have a formal debate, its another to carry on the way posters have been doing so.

I suppose likening an atheist to a moral less person would be offensive. But to liken God to a fictitional character when you know they will be offended is just the same.
But I don't liken atheists to moral less people, only the radicals do. So should I assume the atheists on this board are also "radical atheists"?

 

[KCfromNC]

Lol. If living free of lust, drunkenness, violence, rage, envy, selfishness is a great cost, or a cost more than minimal, I apologize. For me, its no cost at all but is desirable

If it is zero cost or effort involved, then why haven't you been living this way your whole life? Something's not adding up here.

 

[KCfromNC]

And like the chicken laying golden eggs, your scenario of a crime can not be accurately replied as becoming a Christian does not require you to lose anything of positive value.

Sure it does, depending on what you consider positive. For example, I find believing things despite the evidence to be a negative thing, yet many versions of Christianity require it.

I have been accused of basically everything a radical Christian does in this thread

I must have missed those posts.

 

[KCfromNC]

If I had the time I could go back and highlight all the condescending posts, or all the posts of "you are wrong", the posts of mockery and even a poster admitting to mockery.

Just to clarify, the only use of the word "mock" in this thread aside from yours is a poster saying they tend to drop out of a conversation rather than use that tactic. And the only post I could find with the phrase "you are wrong" was from one of yours.

 

[Freodin]

If I had the time I could go back and highlight all the condescending posts, or all the posts of "you are wrong", the posts of mockery and even a poster admitting to mockery. It can be denied but it doesn't change the truthfulness of the matter.
The discussion starts with questioning but more often than not leads to attacks. Do I care if I am attacked? No. Do I care if I am accused of being what I'm not? Not really but I will be sure to correct the assertions.

We can say no one has pointed fingers, we can say that it is always honest reasonable questions. Doesn't make it true though.
And I am calm so I'm curious as to your position. I am perfectly calm, I am trying to bring awareness to the tactics displayed on this board, to no avail apparently.

If you can not see the double standards, the hypocrisy, there is nothing left.

Again, its one thing to disagree and have a formal debate, its another to carry on the way posters have been doing so.

I suppose likening an atheist to a moral less person would be offensive. But to liken God to a fictitional character when you know they will be offended is just the same.
But I don't liken atheists to moral less people, only the radicals do. So should I assume the atheists on this board are also "radical atheists"?

I sincerely apologize if I ever offended or attacked you. I ensure you that if it happened, it was unintentional.

I noticed that you didn't react to the main part of my last response, instead you focused on the (in my view very minor) point of the potential attacks against your person.

So I have to ask: are you still interested in talking about the question of evidence and how it relates to our conversation, or do you want to focus on the mean behaviour of radical atheists on this forum?

I am still very interested in hearing your thoughts on the first topic - especially your thoughts on my example, now that I (hopefully) made my intention with it clear.

So what do you say?