a common atheist fallacy

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

i do mmake it complicated sometimes.  but, i did say inadequate for a reason.  a written account exists and is evidence.  it may be falsified or fraudulent evidence, but it is evidence the same as if joe down the street files a false statement with the police against his neighbor bill.  i agree we hanothing objective.  the authors were anonymous superstitious middle eastern men whose accounts don't match an might be falsified for an agenda and have been mistranslated and...well, more than i care to put, really the point, being more succinct if i can, is its not my job to disprove anything, but theirs to prove.

 

I don't normally think of evidence -- which has been exposed as fraud -- as evidence.  Think of the incentives that the religious world has to find evidence that the Exodus happened.  Nothing.  If said evidence existed, the pious would be rubbing our faces in it.

 

Alright.  What is the motive to accept the Bible as evidence -- aside from the desire to see the Bible as inerrant?  Christians don't accept the Koran as inerrant.  Or the Book of Mormon.  Or the writings of Sun Myung Moon.  Or Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy.  All additional revelations from God which build on the Bible -- if we believe.  What is belief?  A strongly held opinion.  We all have opinions.  This is not evidence.  

[cuchulain]

evidence:  the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true.

fact:  a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report.

 

unfortunately the bible does fit these criteria and so should be called evidence.  note i certainly agree that its not objective, but that isn't required for evidence.  i require something more substantial, but that also doesn't negate it as evidence.  hence why i say inadequate evidence.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

evidence:  the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true.

fact:  a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report.

 

unfortunately the bible does fit these criteria and so should be called evidence.  note i certainly agree that its not objective, but that isn't required for evidence.  i require something more substantial, but that also doesn't negate it as evidence.  hence why i say inadequate evidence.

 

 

I mean this as a real question.  In order for the Bible -- or anything else -- to be considered evidence -- does it or does it not; require more than the assertion that it is evidence?

 

Behold the stars.  Is this not evidence of God?  Behold the mountains.  Is this not evidence of God?  Look.  Trees.  Is this not evidence of God?  We can keep that up for ever.  The gleam in a newborn's eye.  Whiskers on kittens.  Behold, the Bible.  No.  It's not evidence.  Claiming it as evidence is an assertion.  Nothing more.  Unless you want to open Pandora's box and accept all the assertions as evidence.  Look at that cloud formation.  That's evidence of God.  Look.  A cat with extra toes....

 

No.  Calling something evidence does not make it evidence.

 

 

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

Your inability to accept a definition does not lay a responsibility on me to provide a better definition, friend.  The bible is a book(an available body of facts and information indicating whether a belief is true).  A tree, a kittens whiskers, whatever else you name...these are not bodies of facts and information, so they are indeed straw men.  You change my argument to one that does not exist, that is...some absurd claim that trees are proof of god.  This is a claim that I did not make.  I merely pointed out a definition and stated that I think the bible meets that definition.  I also stated that I believe it to be poor evidence, inadequate at best, but you do not differentiate.  An assertion is also evidence.  If you don't believe that, look up court cases.  Specifically of sex offenders.  Many have been convicted based solely on testimony as evidence.  Testimony is......drum roll.....an assertion.  Sure, it might be poor evidence, but it is evidence.  Denial gets us nowhere.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

29 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Your inability to accept a definition does not lay a responsibility on me to provide a better definition, friend.  The bible is a book(an available body of facts and information indicating whether a belief is true).  A tree, a kittens whiskers, whatever else you name...these are not bodies of facts and information, so they are indeed straw men.  You change my argument to one that does not exist, that is...some absurd claim that trees are proof of god.  This is a claim that I did not make.  I merely pointed out a definition and stated that I think the bible meets that definition.  I also stated that I believe it to be poor evidence, inadequate at best, but you do not differentiate.  An assertion is also evidence.  If you don't believe that, look up court cases.  Specifically of sex offenders.  Many have been convicted based solely on testimony as evidence.  Testimony is......drum roll.....an assertion.  Sure, it might be poor evidence, but it is evidence.  Denial gets us nowhere.

 

 

I think we are going to disagree on this one.   

 

 

[cuchulain]

acceptable enough🙂

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

45 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

acceptable enough🙂

 

  Yes.  I think we can leave things there.

[mererdog]

On 6/25/2018 at 4:23 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

-- does it or does it not; require more than the assertion that it is evidence?

It does not. Because evidence is subjective. Outside the particulars of specific scenarios like court cases or scientific papers, there is no objective standard you can cite to determine whether something qualifies as evidence.

What makes something evidence is the fact that it leads someone towards a conclusion. It is both that simple and that complicated.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

It does not. Because evidence is subjective. Outside the particulars of specific scenarios like court cases or scientific papers, there is no objective standard you can cite to determine whether something qualifies as evidence.

What makes something evidence is the fact that it leads someone towards a conclusion. It is both that simple and that complicated.

 

No standards for evidence...……….

 

Never mind.

 

[RevBogovac]

11 hours ago, mererdog said:

[...]What makes something evidence is the fact that it leads someone towards a conclusion. It is both that simple and that complicated.

 

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

No standards for evidence...……….[...]

 

Sorry mererdog, but you're running around in circles here. As Jonathan allready clearly said, and asked:

 

On 6/24/2018 at 7:15 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I don't normally think of evidence -- which has been exposed as fraud -- as evidence.  [...]

 

What is the motive to accept the Bible as evidence [...]? 

 

[...] This is not evidence.  

 

You did not go into this. Yes, we all know by now you see it as evidence. But it has been proven not to be. So the question stands....

 

PS here's a nice link to a more common explanation of "Evidentiary Standards and Burdens of Proof"... 

Edited June 29, 2018 by RevBogovac
link added

[mererdog]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

But it has been proven not to be.

It has been asserted, but not proven. Your proof srandards may be lower than mine, of course. As such, it may take less evidence to convince you of a thing .

 

As for your link, note that I already noted that those scenarios are an exception. Note also that arbitrary rules developed by people to impose a guiding standard really only create a veneer of objectivity while remaining patently subjective. If I impose a "no math" rule of evidence, that would not prevent math from being evidence. At most, it would prevent people from calling it evidence around me.

 

As for evidence that has been exposed as fraud, this would be akin to testimony that has been stricken from the record. We may not want the jury to be swayed by it. We may specifically tell the jury to not be swayed by it. But once the jury hears it, they have heard it. It is a part of the evidence they will use to make their findings, for good or for ill. The only way to prevent it from being used as evidence is to prevent the jury from ever seeing it. A lawyer who does not understand this, on an instictive level, should stay away from jury trials.

 

Keep in mind that the Bible is often used as evidence that the Bible should not be believed. A lie is often the best evidence of the truth.

Edited June 29, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

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

No standards for evidence...……….

Do you know of an objective standard for what qualifies as evidence in normal daily life? I know many objective standards for what qualifies as faulty evidence, but they all sort of work on the unspoken assumption that everything is evidence, or at least potentially so.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

Do you know of an objective standard for what qualifies as evidence in normal daily life? I know many objective standards for what qualifies as faulty evidence, but they all sort of work on the unspoken assumption that everything is evidence, or at least potentially so.

 

The topic is drifting.  We were speaking of the evidence for God's existence.  I stated that there were no objective facts about God.  That turned into this exchange about evidence.

 

What you are now asking is vague.  The topic will drift further.  

[RevBogovac]

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

 

The topic is drifting.  We were speaking of the evidence for God's existence.  I stated that there were no objective facts about God.  That turned into this exchange about evidence.

 

What you are now asking is vague.  The topic will drift further.  

 

Yep. And the bible disproves (contradicts) itself, so therefore - IMHO - disqualifies itself as proof or credible evidence thereof.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

53 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yep. And the bible disproves (contradicts) itself, so therefore - IMHO - disqualifies itself as proof or credible evidence thereof.

 

I'm the wrong person to attack the Bible's flaws.  I can't take it seriously, long enough, to mount a proper attack.  There was a time when I cared enough.  Not any more.  Life is short.  I can't be bothered.  

 

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yep. And the bible disproves (contradicts) itself

 

How so? I've studied it for years and have found no contradictions.. But I reckon if your looking for some, and take things out of context, you'll generally find whatever your looking for?

 

[RevBogovac]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

How so? I've studied it for years and have found no contradictions.. But I reckon if your looking for some, and take things out of context, you'll generally find whatever your looking for?

 

 

 

OK, I'll start "chronologically"... you just rectify or acknowledge... Mkay?

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. 
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

13 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

 

OK, I'll start "chronologically"... you just rectify or acknowledge... Mkay?

 

GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. 
GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.

 

 

 

Welcome to the quagmire.  I think that you will come to regret this.  You have entered a world where facts don't matter and faith trumps reality.  You will be told that you don't understand.  That you're out of context.  That you need the Holy Spirit.  It's a long way down the rabbit hole.  When you do make a solid point, the topic will shift.  In the end, nothing good comes of it.

 

You'll find out.  

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 1, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

scribal error, lol.  it isn't really funny, but i laugh or cry.  an error proof book(so claimed by christians) has specific errors called scribal errors(also claimed by usually the same christians who insist its error proof).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

scribal error, lol.  it isn't really funny, but i laugh or cry.  an error proof book(so claimed by christians) has specific errors called scribal errors(also claimed by usually the same christians who insist its error proof).

 

 

Why does God need scribes?  God created everything from nothing -- time, space, energy, matter -- everything.  The entire Universe.  God can't created a book without scribes?    What's a book, compared to the Universe and everything in it?