a common atheist fallacy

[Dan56]

On 5/21/2018 at 3:02 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

What a shame that you have nothing to back that up.  A choice requires evidence.  

 

I disagree, I won't waste time with a 100 examples, but we make choices everyday in the absence of evidence.. Even so, evidence is subjective, what I consider evidence, you don't, and vice-versa. The bible is evidence to me,  it has been archaeologically proven correct, prophetically realized, etc. That kind of evidence is sufficient for me. And despite being written 2000 to 3500 years ago, no one has proven it to be incorrect or inaccurate. 

 

On 5/21/2018 at 10:47 AM, mererdog said:

That is not true.

 

I disagree.. Give an example of something an atheist chooses to believe in despite having no explanation or understanding of how it could be true? Faith requires believing without seeing, what do atheist accept by faith?

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

I disagree.. 

Which means, in this case, that you are wrong.  I am an atheist. I believe in things I do not understand and cannot explain. I will give you no examples. You must either call me a liar, tell me you know my thoughts better than I do, or admit you aren't really qualified to judge what is in the hearts of atheists. I'm a bit curious to see which happens.

Edited May 23, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

Even so, evidence is subjective, what I consider evidence, you don't, and vice-versa.

Also, we (people, generally) tend to disagree on what something is evidence of. What you see as evidence that there is a God, someone else will see as evidence that there is no God. When you add a new ingredient to a soup, what you end up with is usually determined more by what was already in the soup than by what you added....

Edited May 23, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I disagree, I won't waste time with a 100 examples, but we make choices everyday in the absence of evidence.. 1.  Even so, evidence is subjective, what I consider evidence, you don't, and vice-versa. 2.  The bible is evidence to me,  it has been archaeologically proven correct, prophetically realized, etc. That kind of evidence is sufficient for me. And despite being written 2000 to 3500 years ago, no one has proven it to be incorrect or inaccurate. 

 

 

I disagree.. Give an example of something an atheist chooses to believe in despite having no explanation or understanding of how it could be true? Faith requires believing without seeing, what do atheist accept by faith?

 

Are we talking about something trivial -- like what you had for lunch?  Something like that requires no evidence.  God's existence is a different sort of claim.  Something of such significance requires a different level of evidence.  Objective, verifiable evidence.

 

1.  Are we having a problem with communication at the most basic level?  I was explicit.  Go back over this thread.  Objective, verifiable evidence.  Not "subjective".  "Objective, verifiable evidence."  You have nothing.

 

2.  Again, I did not ask what is evidence to you.  I said, "Objective, verifiable evidence."  Again, you have nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

1.  Are we having a problem with communication at the most basic level?  I was explicit.  Go back over this thread.  Objective, verifiable evidence.  Not "subjective".  "Objective, verifiable evidence."  You have nothing.

You have actually been moving the goalposts during the thread. You started with "1.  because there is no reason for such a belief.  None at all"

 

For the record, there is no such thing as objective evidence. Facts are objective, but those facts must be filtered through an interpretive process for us to form opinions regarding which of those objective facts are evidence of what. Interpretations and opinions about objective facts are not, themselves, objective.

Edited May 23, 2018 by mererdog

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, mererdog said:

Which means, in this case, that you are wrong.  I am an atheist. I believe in things I do not understand and cannot explain. I will give you no examples. You must either call me a liar, tell me you know my thoughts better than I do, or admit you aren't really qualified to judge what is in the hearts of atheists. I'm a bit curious to see which happens.

 

I'll take you at your word of course.. I just asked for an example because I assumed it would be something in the physical realm, e.g; evolution, big bang, science, etc... But in regards to the unseen spiritual realm, I assume being an atheist that you have no belief or faith in anything beyond what can be explained and comprehended using your own cognitive reasoning? This would seem to leave anything divine off-limits. I reckon that's the difference between belief and faith? 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, mererdog said:

You have actually been moving the goalposts during the thread. You started with "1.  because there is no reason for such a belief.  None at all"

 

For the record, there is no such thing as objective evidence. Facts are objective, but those facts must be filtered through an interpretive process for us to form opinions regarding which of those objective facts are evidence of what. Interpretations and opinions about objective facts are not, themselves, objective.

 

My "goalposts" as you put it, have not moved at all.  There are no reasons to believe in God.  None at all.  Because we have no objective, verifiable facts about God.  None at all.  Only arguments, baseless assertions, faith and Scripture -- and twisted reasoning.

 

When I'm told that the "evidence" requires faith -- I understand this to mean that there is no evidence.  Subjective evidence may bring comfort and joy to the believer.  It does nothing to persuade the non-believer.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Are we talking about something trivial -- like what you had for lunch?  Something like that requires no evidence.  God's existence is a different sort of claim.  Something of such significance requires a different level of evidence.  Objective, verifiable evidence.

 

1.  Are we having a problem with communication at the most basic level?  I was explicit.  Go back over this thread.  Objective, verifiable evidence.  Not "subjective".  "Objective, verifiable evidence."  You have nothing.

 

2.  Again, I did not ask what is evidence to you.  I said, "Objective, verifiable evidence."  Again, you have nothing.

 

Unless you personally witnessed what I had for lunch, it certainly requires evidence to substantiate such a trivial thing. Many people witnessed Christ, and most all the apostles were killed for their testimony. If you were on a jury and several witnesses identified the defendant as the bank robber, you'd find him guilty. Would your verdict be based on subjective or verifiable evidence?

 

To me, a fulfilled prophecy is objective evidence because its verifiable.. Someone telling me that something specific will happen hundreds of years before it does,  and then it occurs exactly as they stated it would, that signs, seals, and delivers evidence, nothing subjective about it.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Unless you personally witnessed what I had for lunch, it certainly requires evidence to substantiate such a trivial thing. Many people witnessed Christ, and most all the apostles were killed for their testimony. If you were on a jury and several witnesses identified the defendant as the bank robber, you'd find him guilty. Would your verdict be based on subjective or verifiable evidence?

 

To me, a fulfilled prophecy is objective evidence because its verifiable.. Someone telling me that something specific will happen hundreds of years before it does,  and then it occurs exactly as they stated it would, that signs, seals, and delivers evidence, nothing subjective about it.  

 

I do not share your beliefs about the Bible as a trustworthy document.  Since I have no desire to be mean or uncivil, I suggest we leave it at that.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

A few brief words about my Atheist "faith".

 

Based on my personal observations and recorded history -- I think there is a high order of probability that tomorrow morning, there will be a sunrise.  This is not absolute.  Something could happen to destroy the Sun.  Something could happen to change the Earth's rotation.  These things are not likely, but they are possible.  The greater probability is that sunrise will proceed as usual.

 

I don't have "faith."  I have expectations based on experience, observation and probability, but not "faith."  

 

Sometimes -- frequently -- I am mistaken.  When I am presented with persuasive evidence of my error, I yield.  Sometimes, with poor grace, but I yield.

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I do not share your beliefs about the Bible as a trustworthy document.  Since I have no desire to be mean or uncivil, I suggest we leave it at that.

 

Understood... Its important to keep your  temper in tact. The end of most atheist debate is that; "The bible isn't true", because they have no other real answers that discredit or prove that a book written thousands of years ago is wrong. The inability to prove its false is as telling as proving its true. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because its an observable repetitive pattern, but I also have faith that time stops at His second coming, bye bye sunrise 🛑 

 

There's no argument to a fulfilled prophecy, it is what it is and it always brings an opposing view to a quick conclusion, there's just no defense to it. Roman soldiers gambled for the cloths of Jesus, prophesied 1000 years before the fact (Psalm 22:18 & Mark 15:24). It doesn't matter to me what book its in, something that remarkable has credibility.

[cuchulain]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Understood... Its important to keep your  temper in tact. The end of most atheist debate is that; "The bible isn't true", because they have no other real answers that discredit or prove that a book written thousands of years ago is wrong. The inability to prove its false is as telling as proving its true. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because its an observable repetitive pattern, but I also have faith that time stops at His second coming, bye bye sunrise 🛑 

 

There's no argument to a fulfilled prophecy, it is what it is and it always brings an opposing view to a quick conclusion, there's just no defense to it. Roman soldiers gambled for the cloths of Jesus, prophesied 1000 years before the fact (Psalm 22:18 & Mark 15:24). It doesn't matter to me what book its in, something that remarkable has credibility.

prove without the bible that any of that happened or accept the lack of evidence as my counter.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Understood... Its important to keep your  temper in tact. The end of most atheist debate is that; "The bible isn't true", because they have no other real answers that discredit or prove that a book written thousands of years ago is wrong. The inability to prove its false is as telling as proving its true. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow, because its an observable repetitive pattern, but I also have faith that time stops at His second coming, bye bye sunrise 🛑 

 

There's no argument to a fulfilled prophecy, it is what it is and it always brings an opposing view to a quick conclusion, there's just no defense to it. Roman soldiers gambled for the cloths of Jesus, prophesied 1000 years before the fact (Psalm 22:18 & Mark 15:24). It doesn't matter to me what book its in, something that remarkable has credibility.

 

 

What?  Seriously, what?  You think I'm displaying temper?  Because I don't believe?  I tried being nice.  What a shame.  That doesn't seem to be working with you.

 

I do not find the Bible a credible source of history, wisdom, or much of anything else positive.  You want to believe?  Believe.  I'm not here to change you.  You are not my problem.  I don't care.  Understand this.  I do not take the Bible, or any part of it seriously.  I don't need to attack it.  At this point, there is nothing about it that I take seriously, on any level.  Much like your beliefs about God -- the Bible is also not my problem.  You want to believe?  Believe.  There is nothing there that I would want the burden of defending.  I find it -- silly.

 

Yes.  On reflection, this is why I don't believe in your God.  The whole structure of belief is just so -- silly.  I'm not even attacking.  I can't take any of this serious long enough.

 

Go ahead.  Point to your pious frauds with the retroactive insertions.  I don't care.  None of this is my problem.  It's your issues.

 

    

[mererdog]

10 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

I'm not even attacking.

You are. Perhaps not intentionally, but you are. When you tell people there is no reason to believe as they do- when you insist that their beliefs are silly- these are attacks. Over and over again, you are calling all Christians stupid, or worse.

Edited May 25, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 5/23/2018 at 7:01 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

There are no reasons to believe in God.  None at all. 

Not even any bad ones?

All evidence is subjective. A fact is objective. A fact becomes evidence when someone infers something about the fact saying "This thing I can see suggests something I can't see." 

The Bible is a source of information. It is as real as a reciept, and just as objective. If someone produces a receipt, they have evidence. That evidence isn't conclusive but it also isn't nothing. And while you may not find it persuasive, persuasion is a deeply personal process.

Edited May 25, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, Dan56 said:

The inability to prove its false is as telling as proving its true.

How so? Normally, when I have no way to prove a thing false or true, the only thing it tells me is that I don't know the truth about it. I dont see how my ignorance suggests anything about the rest of the world?

[mererdog]

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

prove without the bible that any of that happened or accept the lack of evidence as my counter.

On the subject of lack of evidence....

Two people share a cake.

One says "There is not enough cinnamon."

The other says "There is enough cinnamon." 

Can either prove he is right? Objectively speaking, we know there is cinnamon. But what, objectively speaking, is enough cinnamon? Or is our common mode of expression simply hiding the truth that the real issue is how we experience the cinnamon as an individual, rather than the amount (or quality) of cinnamon.

Edited May 25, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

On the subject of lack of evidence....

Two people share a cake.

One says "There is not enough cinnamon."

The other says "There is enough cinnamon." 

Can either prove he is right? Objectively speaking, we know there is cinnamon. But what, objectively speaking, is enough cinnamon? Or is our common mode of expression simply hiding the truth that the real issue is how we experience the cinnamon as an individual, rather than the amount (or quality) of cinnamon.

what you are speaking to is the subjectivity in evidence, and they are both right...and wrong, on that basis. since dan is trying to convince me he's right its my subjective opinion that the evidence is lacking.

can you see why i think you just like word games?

 

[Geordon]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

On the subject of lack of evidence....

Two people share a cake.

One says "There is not enough cinnamon."

 The other says "There is enough cinnamon." 

Can either prove he is right? Objectively speaking, we know there is cinnamon. But what, objectively speaking, is enough cinnamon? Or is our common mode of expression simply hiding the truth that the real issue is how we experience the cinnamon as an individual, rather than the amount (or quality) of cinnamon.

 

 

You are conflating fact (provable i.e. "This cake has cinnamon.") with an opinion (subjective, i.e. "This cake has too much/too little cinnamon.")

 

To bring it back to the disagreement at hand, (the existence of Deity) there are a four basic camps:  Deity exists (every member of any religion.  Theist), Deity does not/cannot exist (anti-theist), there is no repeatable evidence that Deity exists (Atheist) and "I don't know/care whether deity exists or not" (agnostic).

 

For this discussion, we are looking at the first and third elements:  Theists and Atheists.  One says that Deity exists.  One says that there is no evidence that Deity exists.

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Geordon
Expanded on the concept.

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, Geordon said:

You are conflating fact (provable i.e. "This cake has cinnamon.") with an opinion (subjective, i.e. "This cake has too much/too little cinnamon.")

No. I am comparing the concept of "enough evidence" with the concept of "enough cinnamon." Neither is objective.