Atheism

I have compassion for drone victims rl and there are a lot more of them than there are the victims you have in your organ grinder and their symptoms are a good deal more traumatic.

Quote:

That is a cool response, Do you think that non-theist would be a good That is a cool response, Do you think that non-theist would be a good position to adhere to being that you do not believe?



I do not understand the question?

If I were to ask you if non-fairyest would be a good response, Do you think that non-fairyest would be a good position to adhere to being that you do not believe in fairies?

If you are going to talk fairies again...find a child your mental age or another atheist.

FBM wrote:

What, besides assertions, could be used as evidence that a person is an atheist?

I don't think that something like beliefs can be proven empirically. A psychological evaluation might be more revealing, though.

No one has access to another's mental experience.

Personal testimony is accepted in both courts and religions, and therefore should be sufficient.

They say they're atheists. If they weren't, what on earth would motivate them to make an anti-religion image starring themselves?

As for psych eval, I can imagine the questions:
"Do you believe that there is an invisible spirit controlling everything?"

"If yes, does this invisible spirit talk to you? Does it give you instructions?"

Quote:

Personal testimony is accepted in both courts and religions, and therefore should be sufficient.

They're sufficient for their purposes. They're not sufficient as empirical evidence.

Quote:

Some people are just too sophisticated and intelligent to be convinced.

And for someone who opines, every silly post, that to acknowledge what you do not know – is a display of strength and to pretend you know what you truly don’'t – is a display of weakness it is rather odd to find you coming to any conclusions about the picture unless you know whether or not those blokes have ever been in a foxhole (shitting oneself is the obvious implication) or are even soldiers.

If you have evidence that they are soldiers and have experience of shitting themselves in a fox-hole perhaps you might present it for our consideration.

("You should never let other people get your thrills for you".)

Failure to do so logically and objectively shows your own signature to be a self-accusation of weakness. And a deplorable example too bearing in mind your own avoidance of fox-holes.

I can imagine you over a 5ft putt to win $10 off your friend asking the Lord to guide your effort into the cup. If only because He might exist and you have no evidence to rule Him in or out.

The picture of American marines raising the flag on a mound on a island out in the ocean somewhere was faked.

Which is not to say that the marines hadn't won the island back. Only that the photo was faked.

It is quite rare to see a picture that hasn't been tricked up.

Quote:

If you are going to talk fairies again...find a child your mental age or another atheist.

Come on Frank you know very well that a child is not as capable of giving the same logical response as you are.

And Your bible that paints pictures of absolute horror in the old testament, isn't your big turn on is it Spendy.

You are not looking for logical responses, RL...you are looking for a child to play with. I am not a child...and I wish you would stop treating me like one.

You are not looking for logical responses, RL...you are looking for a child to play with. I am not a child...and I wish you would stop treating me like one.

InfraBlue wrote:

Quote:

Personal testimony is accepted in both courts and religions, and therefore should be sufficient.

They're sufficient for their purposes. They're not sufficient as empirical evidence.

So surveys, polls, psych exams and so forth don't count as empirical evidence?

If that were true, a patient's answers to his doctor's questions should not be considered when the doctor is deciding up on a treatment.

What a witness says in court would have no bearing on the judge/jury's ruling, in that case. If there's one place that's strict about evidence, it's the courtroom.

Sounds like the goalposts are being shifted a bit here. Remember, the testimonials we're talking about are about personal beliefs and no one has access to another's beliefs, so testimonials are the only possible evidence.

Otherwise, your vote for candidate X would not imply that you really wanted that candidate to win the election, and the whole system collapses.

Testimonials are empirical evidence that Person A gave Answer B to Question Y.

http://www.nfstc.org/pdi/Subject01/pdi_s01_m01_01.htm

I said personal testimony isn't sufficient as empirical evidence.