Faith is not "without evidence" argument

Damocles said:
That is simply incorrect. I have informed you of the reality and you choose to remain purposefully and dutifully ignorant. Believing "without seeing" is not the same thing as believing without evidence. They believe eyewitness reports that you choose to believe are not enough to convince you, but you don't get to choose your own facts and label the evidence as "non existent" because you prefer it that way.

Again, eyewitness accounts are considered evidence in every court in this land, to pretend that they are not evidence to fit in your "there is no evidence at all" assertion is just being purposefully disingenuous, not only to others, but deliberately so to yourself.
Click to expand...

Not only is there no evidence for Christianity, but there's evidence against it.

Have you ever heard of Philo of Alexandria? He was a Jewish writer and mystic who died around the year 50 AD. He wrote extensively about Judaism and the city of Jerusalem. We know about Pilate's so-called "shield controversy" thanks to Philo and his meticulous cataloguing of Jerusalem politics. Philo, being a mystic, was also immensely interested in finding the Jewish Messiah.

So why doesn't Philo ever mention the wonderworker who, according to the Gospels, spent three years becoming famous in Israel performing miracles for massive crowds? Mathew's Gospel claims that, after Jesus was crucified, the tombs of the prophets opened and the prophets wandered Jerusalem. Why doesn't Philo mention this extraordinary event? Philo spent pages detailing the most mundane things about life in Jerusalem, yet these fantastic events seem to have missed his purview. Weird, huh?

Of course, if you apply Occam's Razor to this conundrum, it becomes obvious that Philo never wrote about this traveling miracle man because such a miracle man never existed.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Thanks for, once again proving you are a disingenuous person who expects others to answer his questions but rarely, if ever, answers theirs. Such character traits indicate you are a liar who makes false claims such as your relations, your education and your level of expertise.

If you were an honest, logical person I'd be happy to discuss some of your questions, at least the logical ones. Sadly, you have quickly proven you are neither.
Click to expand...

Personal attacks are the final refuge of the defenseless.
 
IBDaMann said:
You are in error. Damocles is correct that no one is required to prove anything. One glance at the cowardly, undereducated leftists on JPP and one can instantly see a complete absence of even willingness to support one's argument. Leftists NEVER support their claims; they simply hurl insults as though that somehow suffices. So one has to wonder where you ever got the nutty idea that religious people somehow answer to you.

If you wish to be correct on this matter, the wording has to be to the effect of the one making an affirmative argument bearing the responsibility to support that argument if he wishes to convince another rational adult. If gfm7175 for example, tells me that he believes that a man walked on water, and believes that the same man died but came back to life, ... but gfm7175 has no particular need for me to also believe as he does, then he doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. He is free to believe as he wishes and there isn't anything anyone can do about it.

If tomorrow he has a change of heart and he finds that he really needs for me to join his congregation, well then he's going to have to put up with a whole lot of questions from me about the physics-defying parts of his claims ... but the extent to which he supports his arguments is entirely up to him, and I'm in charge of determining if I'm convinced. gfm7175 might try the strategy of opening with the miracle of the wine at Cana, draw me in and get me interested. Then, when I'm starting to like this Jesus guy, gfm7175 can smoothly transition into Salvation and all the loaves and fish I want. The point is that once we understand the context is to convince a third party, the argument can take on the elements of a sales pitch just as it can take the form of a rational argument. No "proving" is required, and this applies both to any Christian who is asserting a belief in the Christian God, and to any non-believer who is asserting a lack of belief in the Christian God. If the desire is to convince, then the burden must be assumed. If I try to convince gfm7175 that he should abandon his belief in the Christian God, then yes, I would bear the full burden to sell the idea of an eternity as worm food, and he would not somehow be required to assume the atheist position as a "default" and somehow have to justify his faith. The burden of support is ultimately borne by the one attempting to convince another rational adult of some affirmative argument.


@gfm7175, I've been meaning to talk to you about eternity, and how you can make an eternal biogeochemical contribution wherever you wish, and your estate might even get a tax credit if solar panels are involved.
Click to expand...

So you missed my point, which is that you shouldn't assume that your fairy tales are fact.
 
America said:
No. I don't have an opinion. Atheism is the default position. If you claim to believe in Superman, it's your burden to prove it. You don't demand that I disprove it.
Click to expand...


Tip. Next time somebody claims to be Superman, America,
you might try just shrugging your shoulders and walking away.

Otherwise, the ensuing conversation might not be rewarding.

That works for the "Creator" debate as well, actually.
 
America said:
Not only is there no evidence for Christianity, but there's evidence against it.

Have you ever heard of Philo of Alexandria? He was a Jewish writer and mystic who died around the year 50 AD. He wrote extensively about Judaism and the city of Jerusalem. We know about Pilate's so-called "shield controversy" thanks to Philo and his meticulous cataloguing of Jerusalem politics. Philo, being a mystic, was also immensely interested in finding the Jewish Messiah.

So why doesn't Philo ever mention the wonderworker who, according to the Gospels, spent three years becoming famous in Israel performing miracles for massive crowds? Mathew's Gospel claims that, after Jesus was crucified, the tombs of the prophets opened and the prophets wandered Jerusalem. Why doesn't Philo mention this extraordinary event? Philo spent pages detailing the most mundane things about life in Jerusalem, yet these fantastic events seem to have missed his purview. Weird, huh?

Of course, if you apply Occam's Razor to this conundrum, it becomes obvious that Philo never wrote about this traveling miracle man because such a miracle man never existed.
Click to expand...

Again, pretending evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it vanish. There is eyewitness testimony. That you and I find it unconvincing doesn't change the nature of its existence nor does any contradictory evidence, it is all evidence.

Just pretending that something isn't what it is isn't a form of argument, it's just lying. Dutiful ignorance doesn't change the nature of eyewitness reports, nor does the fact that you find the reports unconvincing, it is still evidence.

Were we holding a trial and I put up testimony from 4 eyewitnesses of a CEO doing something (healing the blind) and and employee that never met the CEO who could produce an email paper trail of that something (emails from the supposed CEO taking about his magic healing hands), as a jurist you would not be able to dismiss the eyewitness testimony as "not evidence", nor the emails.

You could determine if said evidence was convincing beyond a doubt and justify a verdict, but you cannot pretend that it isn't "evidence" because you don't find it convincing.

You can say things like, "You don't have convincing evidence." but you cannot say that there "Is no evidence given at all." when there clearly is. It's just rather thin and unconvincing to me, and clearly to you as well.
 
America said:
No. I don't have an opinion. Atheism is the default position. If you claim to believe in Superman, it's your burden to prove it. You don't demand that I disprove it.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.

Agnosticism is the default position.

The so-called "atheistic position" is nonsense.

The reason a person uses the descriptor "atheist" has MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less to do with the dictates of SOME dictionaries...but rather because that individual "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.
 
Frank Apisa said:
The so-called "atheistic position" is nonsense.

.......that individual "believes" there are no gods...

or "believes" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.
Click to expand...

Given that humans perceive what they know with their physical senses
and must merely believe everything else that they think is true,
I'm not sure that I understand why the "atheist position" is nonsense, Frank.

I'm forced to "believe" that the atom exists and can actually be split
because I can't observe that with my senses;

but there is at least some measure of scholarly explanation to help me believe.

What comparable evidence do we have to suggest the likelihood of a god?

If we go further and define that god as being, at the same time, all-powerful and all loving
as the Christian deity is purported to be, then,

our actual senses--the ones that allow us to know things without having to believe them--
make it quite clear to us that that isn't true.

Thus, nonsense or not in the eyes of skeptics,
I feel quite comfortable and confident that my atheism is demonstrably logical.

Still, if agnosticism is the more defensible default position,
I'd be interested to hear more of that theory.

Maybe I've missed something.
 
America said:
You're missing the point. As Christopher Hitchens taught us, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Click to expand...

You mean claims like MAGA cultists, Russia Collusion and insurrections? :palm:
 
America said:
Let's apply Occam's Razor to your god! There are many philosophical debates around the existence of god(s). My solution to these debates is the simplest, which is that god(s) doesn't exist.

Why doesn't prayer work?
Click to expand...

How do you know prayer doesn't work? Have you performed a study of all the people who have prayed and determined the majority didn't get answered. Of course you didn't. You're an opinionated halfwit.

America said:
Because God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

How do you know he doesn't exist? Ironic that a majority of humans believe there is some form of a deity. Of course you didn't. You're an opinionated halfwit.

America said:
Why can't I see God?
Click to expand...

Why must you see him?

America said:
Because God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Because you say so. :palm:

America said:
Why does it seem like bad happens to good people? Why is life unfair?
Click to expand...

Life's not fair. But I would argue that bad things happen far more to "bad people" than to good people. Without religion, how would we know who is acting bad?

Do leftist morons like you stupidly think that we are BORN with it?

America said:
Because God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

:palm:

America said:
See? Occam's Razor.
Click to expand...

No, I see a clueless uneducated moron who doesn't know what he is bloviating about.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Given that humans perceive what they know with their physical senses
and must merely believe everything else that they think is true,
I'm not sure that I understand why the "atheist position" is nonsense, Frank.

I'm forced to "believe" that the atom exists and can actually be split
because I can't observe that with my senses;

but there is at least some measure of scholarly explanation to help me believe.

What comparable evidence do we have to suggest the likelihood of a god?

If we go further and define that god as being, at the same time, all-powerful and all loving
as the Christian deity is purported to be, then,

our actual senses--the ones that allow us to know things without having to believe them--
make it quite clear to us that that isn't true.

Thus, nonsense or not in the eyes of skeptics,
I feel quite comfortable and confident that my atheism is demonstrably logical.

Still, if agnosticism is the more defensible default position,
I'd be interested to hear more of that theory.

Maybe I've missed something.
Click to expand...

Tough issue to cover, so allow me a bit of leeway. We can discuss this for as long as you (or anyone else) wants.

Rather than using the descriptor (which I seldom do anymore), I give my position or take on the issue. Here is mine:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Almost anyone reading it would consider it to be an "agnostic" position. But instead of describing myself as an agnostic, I actually give a (what I consider) complete explanation of what I mean if I were to use "agnostic."

On the issue of whether no gods exist or if at least one god does, America claims the default position should be the atheists' position.

Well...what does that mean?

What is the atheists' position? And why is the descriptor used rather than a recitation of what America means by it?

What do you mean?

I have given a thorough explanation of my position on the issue.

Tell me yours.
 
America said:
If you understood Occam's Razor, you'd be an atheist.

Let's apply it to Superman:

Why hasn't anyone ever seen Superman save anyone?

Because Superman doesn't exist.

Why doesn't Superman fight terrorists?

Because Superman doesn't exist.

Why won't Superman save your cat from a tree?

Because Superman doesn't exist.

I wrote countless letters to Superman. Why won't he respond?

Because Superman doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Occam's razor is not a proof, it is a statement of what is "usually" true. Using Occam's razor as some kind of evidentiary tool only means you have no understanding of what Occam posited.

Let's say you were walking along and found an awesome knife on the ground and picked it up, then turned the next corner to find a body of someone recently deceased and in the next instant the police show up and see you standing over the body with a knife in your hand. Occam's razor would mean they would arrest you, because usually the guy standing over a body with a knife in his hand is the culprit, but reality says they would question you and look for more evidence because what is "usually" true is not the same thing as "always" true.

The police may find the recent decedent died of natural causes, for instance, or that the knife you had in your hand was not a match, or... they can see in a video from the shop across the street that you were not the culprit... or any number of reasons that the shortest path was not the right one.

If we used your version of Occam's razor, we'd just put you in prison, no need for a trial because "Occam's Razor"... Booom.....

One should not use something that talks about what is usually true as proof that something is always true.
 
Damocles said:
Again, pretending evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it vanish. There is eyewitness testimony. That you and I find it unconvincing doesn't change the nature of its existence nor does any contradictory evidence, it is all evidence.

Just pretending that something isn't what it is isn't a form of argument, it's just lying. Dutiful ignorance doesn't change the nature of eyewitness reports, nor does the fact that you find the reports unconvincing, it is still evidence.

Were we holding a trial and I put up testimony from 4 eyewitnesses of a CEO doing something (healing the blind) and and employee that never met the CEO who could produce an email paper trail of that something (emails from the supposed CEO taking about his magic healing hands), as a jurist you would not be able to dismiss the eyewitness testimony as "not evidence", nor the emails.

You could determine if said evidence was convincing beyond a doubt and justify a verdict, but you cannot pretend that it isn't "evidence" because you don't find it convincing.

You can say things like, "You don't have convincing evidence." but you cannot say that there "Is no evidence given at all." when there clearly is. It's just rather thin and unconvincing to me, and clearly to you as well.
Click to expand...

There is also "testimony" that Mohammed flew to heaven on Pegasus and that Columbus encountered mermaids. Don't be so naive or try to compare it to modern courtroom proceedings.

Still waiting for evidence, btw. "He said, she said" isn't good enough.
 
Damocles said:
Occam's razor is not a proof, it is a statement of what is "usually" true. Using Occam's razor as some kind of evidentiary tool only means you have no understanding of what Occam posited.

Let's say you were walking along and found an awesome knife on the ground and picked it up, then turned the next corner to find a body of someone recently deceased and in the next instant the police show up and see you standing over the body with a knife in your hand. Occam's razor would mean they would arrest you, because usually the guy standing over a body with a knife in his hand is the culprit, but reality says they would question you and look for more evidence because what is "usually" true is not the same thing as "always" true.

The police may find the recent decedent died of natural causes, for instance, or that the knife you had in your hand was not a match, or... they can see in a video from the shop across the street that you were not the culprit... or any number of reasons that the shortest path was not the right one.

If we used your version of Occam's razor, we'd just put you in prison, no need for a trial because "Occam's Razor"... Booom.....

One should not use something that talks about what is usually true as proof that something is always true.
Click to expand...

Occams razor is principle of not multiplying entities. Today we would say, the most economical explanation is the best one.
 
America said:
So one should be agnostic to every absurd claim?
Click to expand...

I gave my position on the issue of whether there are no gods...or at least one god.

At no point did I make a suggest that anyone should be "agnostic" about every absurd claim.

If you consider the guess, "There is at least one god" to be absurd, why not just say that?

If you are saying that, are you then saying, "There are no gods" is the only claim that is not absurd?

This is a great point to discuss. Let's do that.
 
4.1 Ockham’s Razor
Still, Ockham’s “nominalism,” in both the first and the second of the above senses, is often viewed as derived from a common source: an underlying concern for ontological parsimony. This is summed up in the famous slogan known as “Ockham’s Razor,” often expressed as “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#OckhRazo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top