Evidence. Why does it matter?

[Unveiled Artist]

If it were a life and death thing, and evidence insured my safety, yes, Id demand it.

If I were up for trial, Id fine it quite necessary.

If I were formally debating, evidence would be great combat.

Religion isnt like that. Its not fatal (even though "people" make it seem that way). Its not a case where we need evidence for a verdict.(Cant get evidence for "beliefs") Its personal to where you will always be debating subjectively no matter how much we want objective evidence.

Religion isnt like that.

If people can live off of belief, have their lives saved by it, changed by it, etc why ask them for proof when the proof is in them, their life, their being.

It doesnt matter to many religious to have evidence because it (in my opinion) its just another way to seek acceptence for validity in an experience that youd like other people to share.

Its not a life and death situation.

Its not a trial.

Its not a formal debate.

Religion is not like that.

Why does evidence matter?

 

[Stevicus]

Its not a life and death situation.

Its not a trial.

Its not a formal debate.

Religion is not like that.

Why does evidence matter?

I suppose it's mostly circumstantial. If someone wants to believe something, it doesn't have anything to do with me, so I wouldn't ask for evidence to support their beliefs. However, if they want ME to believe it, then I might ask for evidence. Or if they propose a public policy based on that belief, that's another occasion where evidence might be needed.

 

[psychoslice]

Evidence does matter when people try to convert others to their beliefs, if they want to believe in whatever and there is no evidence, then it would be best to keep it to yourself, and let everyone else have their beliefs without proof. Now, if you have proof, then you could share that with others, and nothing will be said against you, and again, if you don't have proof, then don't go arguing over it being right or true, you only make yourself look silly.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I suppose it's mostly circumstantial. If someone wants to believe something, it doesn't have anything to do with me, so I wouldn't ask for evidence to support their beliefs. However, if they want ME to believe it, then I might ask for evidence. Or if they propose a public policy based on that belief, that's another occasion where evidence might be needed.

True. Evidence wouldnt be needed if the person asking knows religion doesnt work that way. They have the right to ask for it; but, it isnt what people base their "beliefs" on just facts.

 

[LuisDantas]

Religion is not like that.

Why does evidence matter?

Frankly, the nearly complete answer is: because many otherwise succesful religions lost their ways so completely that they now make a point of attempting to convince others for no good reason, often falling so low as to attempt to challenge scientific knowledge out of misguided pride.

Therefore, twisting the meaning of evidence, presenting forgeries and garbage as if it were evidence, and learning to disregard evidence have become important skills to people who are regarded, probably unwisely, as religious.

It is of course very much a harmful degeneration - one that has ran so deep that the very word religion is losing its purpose.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Evidence does matter when people try to convert others to their beliefs, if they want to believe in whatever and there is no evidence, then it would be best to keep it to yourself, and let everyone else have their beliefs without proof. Now, if you have proof, then you could share that with others, and nothing will be said against you, and again, if you don't have proof, then don't go arguing over it being right or true, you only make yourself look silly.

Taking out "people" who make it a life and death situation, aside from that, religion (not people) does not work that way. Religions based on experience are evidenced by experience. If people are asking for evidence for experience, the closest way they can do that is know the person, personally.

Just because people want to convert others, doesnt mean its evidence is ore important unless these people are holding a weapon to ones head.

Then, were talkin

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is of course very much a harmful degeneration - one that has ran so deep that the very word religion is losing its purpose.

True. I see that.

I wonder if no one will ask for evidence if no one tries to convert anyone? Unless that is the only reason to ask, because of other peoples behavior toward them.

If so, it doesnt seem like getting evidence for productive reasons but distructive.

 

[Desert Snake]

If it were a life and death thing, and evidence insured my safety, yes, Id demand it.

If I were up for trial, Id fine it quite necessary.

If I were formally debating, evidence would be great combat.

Religion isnt like that. Its not fatal (even though "people" make it seem that way). Its not a case where we need evidence for a verdict.(Cant get evidence for "beliefs") Its personal to where you will always be debating subjectively no matter how much we want objective evidence.

Religion isnt like that.

If people can live off of belief, have their lives saved by it, changed by it, etc why ask them for proof when the proof is in them, their life, their being.

It doesnt matter to many religious to have evidence because it (in my opinion) its just another way to seek acceptence for validity in an experience that youd like other people to share.

Its not a life and death situation.

Its not a trial.

Its not a formal debate.

Religion is not like that.

Why does evidence matter?

It doesn't. I don't care what/who people worship

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It doesn't. I don't care what/who people worship

In general.

 

[Desert Snake]

In general.

not sure what you mean.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

not sure what you mean.

In general, since religion (not peoples actions) isnt a life and death thing, not a trial, and not a formal debate why does one need evidence for a belief (and how can they, since it is a belief)?

EDIT

I mean, in general, it matters to have evidence on both sides for a trial to be succesful regardless the opinions of the accussed and victim.

Religion isnt like a trial.

Why do we (as a whole) need evidence for it?

 

[Stevicus]

True. Evidence wouldnt be needed if the person asking knows religion doesnt work that way. They have the right to ask for it; but, it isnt what people base their "beliefs" on just facts.

I can understand what you mean. In the absence of any kind of hard evidence, if someone wants to express the reasons why they believe in something, that's cool too. Even if it's just speculation, a guess, a hunch, a gut feeling - as long as it's qualified that way, then I wouldn't see it as a huge issue for anyone. It's really only when someone asserts that they know something to be true yet can't really prove it, that's the point when the rules of evidence might start to apply.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can understand what you mean. In the absence of any kind of hard evidence, if someone wants to express the reasons why they believe in something, that's cool too. Even if it's just speculation, a guess, a hunch, a gut feeling - as long as it's qualified that way, then I wouldn't see it as a huge issue for anyone. It's really only when someone asserts that they know something to be true yet can't really prove it, that's the point when the rules of evidence might start to apply.

Sounds like, how do they put it, someone hanging the bait over ones head. I was reading a daily reflection that said "if someone throws the ball at you, you dont have to catch it"

Its nice to know why (for me, its how) people know what they believe is true. Its not a necessity and definitely not crucial to the believer. Kinda find a balance between curiousity and asking for proof.

 

[psychoslice]

Taking out "people" who make it a life and death situation, aside from that, religion (not people) does not work that way. Religions based on experience are evidenced by experience. If people are asking for evidence for experience, the closest way they can do that is know the person, personally.

Just because people want to convert others, doesnt mean its evidence is ore important unless these people are holding a weapon to ones head.

Then, were talkin

It may not be a weapon, but they are predators that try to pick on the vulnerable people who may have some crises or whatever in their life, and in their condition they may believe in anything that makes them feel better, true or not, I've seen it in my own church that I once belonged to. .

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If it were a life and death thing, and evidence insured my safety, yes, Id demand it.

If I were up for trial, Id fine it quite necessary.

If I were formally debating, evidence would be great combat.

Religion isnt like that. Its not fatal (even though "people" make it seem that way). Its not a case where we need evidence for a verdict.(Cant get evidence for "beliefs") Its personal to where you will always be debating subjectively no matter how much we want objective evidence.

Religion isnt like that.

If people can live off of belief, have their lives saved by it, changed by it, etc why ask them for proof when the proof is in them, their life, their being.

It doesnt matter to many religious to have evidence because it (in my opinion) its just another way to seek acceptence for validity in an experience that youd like other people to share.

Its not a life and death situation.

Its not a trial.

Its not a formal debate.

Religion is not like that.

Why does evidence matter?

Evidence ONLY matters if you want to effect the world outside yourself.
If you want to convince me I should follow your God, one means of doing that is to convince me the God actually exists.
Even MORE importantly, if you want laws to account for a particular version of God or religion, then again...evidence matters.

But for the believer who is living their life, and not trying to directly influence others, I don't see any need for them to require evidence.

Don't kid yourself that religion isn't a life and death thing though. I might be lucky enough to live somewhere where it's not, but that isn't a universal truth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

If it were a life and death thing, and evidence insured my safety, yes, Id demand it.

How about morality, statements about the problems with your plumbing or your car, newspaper article claims, research claims, claims about whether X should be legal or not (and under what circumstances)? What constitutes evidence anyway? This isn't a trivial question. Most people believe certain things to be true because they accept the consensus of experts (be it global warming or whether a pill is a safe and effective treatment for Y condition), and everybody's beliefs rest upon a socio-cultural (cognitive) construct which forms the basis for evaluating evidence and the need for it.

Religion isnt like that.

Religion involves claims about the nature of reality. Many people would like to believe things about the nature of reality that are based upon evidence.

If people can live off of belief, have their lives saved by it, changed by it, etc why ask them for proof when the proof is in them, their life, their being.

Because beliefs, whether secular ideological or religious, can result in millions of deaths, wars, saved lives, widespread discrimination, the breakdown of prejudice, etc.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How about morality, statements about the problems with your plumbing or your car, newspaper article claims, research claims, claims about whether X should be legal or not (and under what circumstances)? What constitutes evidence anyway? This isn't a trivial question. Most people believe certain things to be true because they accept the consensus of experts (be it global warming or whether a pill is a safe and effective treatment for Y condition), and everybody's beliefs rest upon a socio-cultural (cognitive) construct which forms the basis for evaluating evidence and the need for it.


Religion involves claims about the nature of reality. Many people would like to believe things about the nature of reality that are based upon evidence.




Because beliefs, whether secular ideological or religious, can result in millions of deaths, wars, saved lives, widespread discrimination, the breakdown of prejudice, etc.

Evidence of proof of God will not solve the worlds problems. It is not an illness where you address the cause first. People (not religion) cause these wars etc. Questioning them about their own faith-about them--makes things worse.

Another tactic, maybe?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Evidence ONLY matters if you want to effect the world outside yourself.
If you want to convince me I should follow your God, one means of doing that is to convince me the God actually exists.
Even MORE importantly, if you want laws to account for a particular version of God or religion, then again...evidence matters.

But for the believer who is living their life, and not trying to directly influence others, I don't see any need for them to require evidence.

Don't kid yourself that religion isn't a life and death thing though. I might be lucky enough to live somewhere where it's not, but that isn't a universal truth.

People make things a life and death situation, not religion.

Religion does not work that way. If people adhere to theie faith, there would be less wars. They dont.

The problem you and @psychoslice are talking about is the people.

I am talking about religion. Religion does not work the way facts do when it comes to evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

Evidence. Why does it matter?

Without evidence I could equally believe any logically possible explanation for my place in existence. The belief I take is from the best rational assessment of all the evidence and argumentation. So, evidence matters extremely.

 

[Bunyip]

Evidence. Why does it matter?

Without evidence I could equally believe any logically possible explanation for my place in existence. The belief I take is from the best rational assessment of all the evidence and argumentation. So, evidence matters extremely.

But that can not be the case, you believe that consciousness is primary - which can not be evidenced. That is not a belief that can be drawn from evidence.