Atheism

@edgarblythe,

I knew of a deaf guy that rigged up a portable speaker and microphone so he could 'listen' with his finger tips.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I guess the moon IS made of orange juice. That you guess differently is beyond me.

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
Like I said, "Why anyone would think that a guess of "there are no gods involved in REALITY" is "superior" to a guess that there are gods...is beyond me."

That can only be because you are extremely stupid.

I am not extremely stupid, Spendius. I am not stupid at all.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

I guess the moon IS made of orange juice. That you guess differently is beyond me.

Okay.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

I asked you what the danger was.

I agree with Set that a single item of anecdotal evidence and $1.50 will get you a cup of coffee. (So long as you are not at Starbucks) And the danger of credulity is, of course, the terminal Kool Aid.

So is there a danger in ignoring the anecdotal evidence properly vetted? You will have to judge for yourselves. The Hebrew scriptures paint a picture of mankind living eternally on an earth free from war and crime and sickness and death. Worth looking into, if true. I said before that I am not qualified to demonstrate these things to the point of epistemological certainty. I will say, however, the next thing that caught my attention was the information vacuum I found in traditional churches. All the things I hated about religion, I found to be directly focused on priests from antiquity.

I believe I have gathered more than enough anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to fortify my faith. But don't expect a blackboard syllogism.

2 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I believe I have gathered more than enough anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to fortify my faith.

Of course. That shouldn't be surprising to you. If a person seeks and selects subjective stories that fortify their faith then they will find them.

Bertrand Russel wrote:

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

I would underline "very selective." Emotion is a difficult handicap to overcome when one has spent most of their life praying and tithing 10% of their income to their god/church. I see the same phenomenon with politics. Many people can't see all the negatives of their own party, but will jump on lies and innuendos to bastardize the other side.

Me? I'm wishy-washy, because I don't believe in either party. They're too extremist in too many ways. As an Independent, I'm sitting out national elections from now on. My vote isn't going to make any difference to our broken government; not during my lifetime.

The latest poll that shows that 60% of Americans want to replace all the incumbents belongs on the laffer curve. Ain't gonna happen in my lifetime.

We have found the enemy, and ......

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

neologist wrote:

I believe I have gathered more than enough anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to fortify my faith.

rosborne979 wrote:

Of course. That shouldn't be surprising to you. If a person seeks and selects subjective stories that fortify their faith then they will find them.

Bertrand Russel wrote:

"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Russell also opined that of all the competing religions in the world with their conflicting dogmas, only one can be right. (Sorry I could not find his exact words) He, of course, chose none. I chose the possible 'one'.

I've already stated the danger of credulity. I suggest that many non believers suffer from similar delusion.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

. Correspondingly, the existence of God can not be understood or expressed empirically. This does not invalidate the concept.

"Correspondingly" to what? Nobody doubts the existence of music; there's plenty of evidence for it. If there wasn't, that would invalidate the concept of music. Where is the correspondence here?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why anyone would think that a guess of "there are no gods involved in REALITY" is "superior" to a guess that there are gods...is beyond me.

It certainly is.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I certainly do not think it is.

After twelve year of discussing the issue with you online, this comes hardly as a shock to me.

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Explain that to a deaf person. . .

Actually, deaf people tend to understand music quite well. You appear quite uninformed about their actual cognitive abilities. Perhaps you want to read up on them in Oliver Sacks's and Harlan Lane's books.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Sorry my analogy fell short.

I stand by the relevance of anecdotal evidence when dispassionately evaluated.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Actually, deaf people tend to understand music quite well.

In what way?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

I stand by the relevance of anecdotal evidence when dispassionately evaluated.

I think it's reasonable to consider anecdotal evidence, but only when it doesn't fly in the face of better (such as empirical) evidence.

3 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

neologist wrote:
I stand by the relevance of anecdotal evidence when dispassionately evaluated.

I think it's reasonable to consider anecdotal evidence, but only when it doesn't fly in the face of better (such as empirical) evidence.

Best answer.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

neologist wrote:

I stand by the relevance of anecdotal evidence when dispassionately evaluated.

rosborne979 wrote:

I think it's reasonable to consider anecdotal evidence, but only when it doesn't fly in the face of better (such as empirical) evidence.

I did say dispassionately evaluated, right? Untested Kool Aid could be dangerous.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

Code:

I think it's reasonable to consider anecdotal evidence, but only when it doesn't fly in the face of better (such as empirical) evidence.

Logic 101. Excellent!

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

So is there a danger in ignoring the anecdotal evidence properly vetted? You will have to judge for yourselves.

So then, any danger is subjective. That's not a very compelling argument.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

It's not only subjective, but not provable. There's not one objective evidence to prove their "anecdotal evidence."

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

neologist wrote:

So is there a danger in ignoring the anecdotal evidence properly vetted? You will have to judge for yourselves.

InfraBlue wrote:

So then, any danger is subjective. That's not a very compelling argument.

So, that's your judgment?
OK.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know