Question For Fellow Atheists - Extraordinary Evidence

[Ken-1122]

I'm not a scientist, but you know that we all believe in certain "facts" about the nature of the universe, of forces operating in the physical realm that are unseen and uncharted, etc

In the same ways a crime scene investigator can go to a crime scene and look at the evidence left behind, and often figure out how the crime was committed, an astronomer can look at the stars and planets and figure out a lot of stuff about them as well. This is not the same as simply taking somebody’s word for it, or faith, like you have with theism.

And many people believe in spiritual forces or entities quite apart from believing in a Creator God.

I put those people in the category as God believers

The evidence for some sort of a supreme being is much stronger than all of that,

No! There is no scientific evidence of a supernatural being. You can’t compare claims of God where there is no empirical evidence to the empirical evidence of science.

but when it comes to the subject of God, we expect to get out the litmus paper, ready to say "no way" unless "I can hold it, see it, taste it. Then maybe I'll believe!"

If the claims of God stood up to the scrutiny of science; we would all believe. It's really that simple! All you gotta do is provide the same type of evidence science is required to present and you will be believed. Otherwise you will be seen as expecting special treatment. You wouldn't want that now would ya?


Ken

 

[essentialsaltes]

I'm betting I can find at least 3 different connections that lead me to contacts with people at JPL. Next cubicle over is a Cal Tech Grad. I'm sure he knows a classmate who went that route. I know 2 other guys who at least used to work at JPL. Have not seen them for years, but have another friend who most likely has. I can head back to my college and find a prof there who knows someone at JPL.

In short I can check. And I can be pretty sure my checking would show there is no moonbase. That or would show evidence that we do have some entirely radical form of transport.

Yes, if you remained unconvinced that sufficient evidence had been presented for this extraordinary claim, you could (and apparently would) go to some extraordinary effort to gather more evidence.

 

[keith99]

Yes, if you remained unconvinced that sufficient evidence had been presented for this extraordinary claim, you could (and apparently would) go to some extraordinary effort to gather more evidence.

Just a few calls. Not like I'd be making my own telescope from scratch.

BTW part of why I trust science is because I duplicated so much of the basics in labs. I know there are millions of others who have done the same.

I've learned to figure out where footprints should be and with time I've learned how to figure out who would be in a position to see those footprints.

 

[madaz]

Now, would you guys agree that the quote is misapplied when we are facing claims regarding that which is a priori defined as "supernatural"?

Hi quatona.

Although Carl (bless his mind) was probably referring to supernatural claims when he voiced that quote, I think its more applicable to non supernatural claims.

Now before you fellow atheists raise your eye brows at me, I do reject the existence of EVERYTHING supernatural, but the reason I agree with quatona is because the only evidence for such claims (from my own perspective) are from personal testimony. Its just plain unlikely that any evidence for the supernatural which can be scrutinized, inspected and verified, will ever exist. However it would be considered "extraordinary evidence" such evidence manifests itself to the scientific method.

So yes Quatona, I agree, Carls quote appears essentially misapplied when facing claims which are priori defined as supernatural.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Ok, so before the thread goes down the hill all threads go sooner or later, thanks to all your responses! Much appreciated.

Yes, I agree: In this context the quote makes sense.

Now, would you guys agree that the quote is misapplied when we are facing claims regarding that which is a priori defined as "supernatural"?

I don't think so.... I think almost by default any supernatural claim would fall into the extraordinary claim category.

Why? Because we have no evidence the supernatural exists, and if we were to confirm it, it would completely alter everything we know about the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

Now, would you guys agree that the quote is misapplied when we are facing claims regarding that which is a priori defined as "supernatural"?

The problem with supernatural stuff is different. By definition of the people pimping for it, there no way to know anything about it. So it isn't a question of how much evidence we'll find or not and how convincing it may or may not be. The problem is that the supernatural is impossible to talk about at all since it can't by definition interact with the natural world in any way at all. Anything anyone says about it is just a guess with no possible empirical backing, even hypothetically.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not a scientist, but you know that we all believe in certain "facts" about the nature of the universe, of forces operating in the physical realm that are unseen and uncharted, etc.

Please, tell me more about what you feel I must believe in order to make your claim true.

The evidence for some sort of a supreme being is much stronger than all of that, but when it comes to the subject of God, we expect to get out the litmus paper, ready to say "no way" unless "I can hold it, see it, taste it. Then maybe I'll believe!"

The evidence is so strong that you're already trying to explain away the fact that it is going to be weaker than evidence for stuff everyone actually accepts. That's not exactly a convincing approach.

 

[Albion]

The evidence is so strong that you're already trying to explain away the fact that it is going to be weaker than evidence for stuff everyone actually accepts. That's not exactly a convincing approach.

I have no idea what you're talking about there, considering that my point was that the evidence for a god is much stronger than it is for many other aspects of life that we all unquestioningly believe --even without evidence of the level that atheists demand for God.

 

[quatona]

The problem with supernatural stuff is different. By definition of the people pimping for it, there no way to know anything about it. So it isn't a question of how much evidence we'll find or not and how convincing it may or may not be. The problem is that the supernatural is impossible to talk about at all since it can't by definition interact with the natural world in any way at all. Anything anyone says about it is just a guess with no possible empirical backing, even hypothetically.

Yes, that was pretty much my point. "Extraordinary evidence" (in regards to the allegedly "supernatural") is almost an oxymoron. So why demand it, in the first place?

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I will pray for those who do not see what God done with everything around you.

 

[Albion]

In the same ways a crime scene investigator can go to a crime scene and look at the evidence left behind, and often figure out how the crime was committed, an astronomer can look at the stars and planets and figure out a lot of stuff about them as well. This is not the same as simply taking somebody’s word for it, or faith, like you have with theism.

Sounds good...except that theists don't do that. I guess the idea that we just believe everything about God for no reason other than that we'd like for there to be a Supreme Being is just the jargon that atheists like to use among themselves. It's not accurate, however.

put those people in the category as God believers

Ah, "God believers." Am I supposed to be calling you a "God denier" then??

 

[quatona]

my point was that the evidence for a god is much stronger than it is for many other aspects of life that we all unquestioningly believe --even without evidence of the level that atheists demand for God.

Since you seem to be speaking for us all, care to give one or two examples of an aspect of life that I unquestioningly believe?
And while we are at it, care to tell me what evidence (what level of evidence) for God I demand?
Just so I finally get to know what I believe and demand, and so I can start comparing the internal consistency of your claim that I believe things for which there´s less evidence than I demand for God´s existence.

 

[Albion]

Since you seem to be speaking for us all, care to give one or two examples of an aspect of life that I unquestioningly believe?

And while we are at it, care to tell me what evidence (what level of evidence) for God I demand?

My friend, I can't even figure out which side of this atheist-theist divide you are on. You don't identify yourself as an atheist.

 

[Albion]

Nm

 

[KCfromNC]

I have no idea what you're talking about there, considering that my point was that the evidence for a god is much stronger than it is for many other aspects of life that we all unquestioningly believe --even without evidence of the level that atheists demand for God.

My point was making vague assertions and then running away from backing them up with anything more than repetition of the claims is hardly convincing. Still waiting for the list of exactly what claims about reality you're so convinced I'm taking on faith on a level similar to that required to believe in your god ... and based on the pattern here, I'm not expecting that fact to change. Feel free to surprise us, though.

I'm not sure if you can't see the problem or if you think you're being tricky. Depending on the answer you might be fooling yourself, but you're not doing much to convince me.

 

[KCfromNC]

I will pray for those who do not see what God done with everything around you.

At least we're getting the full show of non-responses to discussions about the lack of evidence for religious claims. We already heard from the everyone has faith that reality is real therefore it is obvious Jesus died for our sins crowd. Here we have the I'll butt in an offer a passive-aggressive claim that non-Christians are blind to some obvious evidence that I'll also fail to offer up.

Perhaps we should include a discussion of the merits of the Emperor's New Clothes.

 

[quatona]

My friend, I can't even figure out which side of this atheist-theist divide you are on. You don't identify yourself as an atheist.

Of course you are free to leave your assertions unsubstantiated.

 

[Albion]

Of course you are free to leave your assertions unsubstantiated.

If you don't think what I referred to is accurate--which would be pretty hard to believe--go ahead and try to disprove it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sounds good...except that theists don't do that. I guess the idea that we just believe everything about God for no reason other than that we'd like for there to be a Supreme Being is just the jargon that atheists like to use among themselves. It's not accurate, however.

Are you suggesting that when it comes to what is written in the bible, Christians are not taking somebody else's word for it?
However; my point was; the method astronomers use to get information about the stars and planets should not be compared to the method religious people use to get information about their God

Ah, "God believers." Am I supposed to be calling you a "God denier" then??

I'd prefer Ken


Ken

 

[quatona]

If you don't think what I referred to is accurate--which would be pretty hard to believe--go ahead and try to disprove it.

You made the claims - you substantiate it. You making wild claims doesn´t put me under any burden.
You could at least give an example for those beliefs without evidence that you referenced, for starters.