• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theism: providing evidence

outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
1137 said:
I love when dogmatists try and eliminate a form of evidence in one area when they wouldn't in another. Imagine if we treated chronic pain the same way as mystical experience! "Sorry, you have no obvious problems and physiological tests only confirm that it's a in your brain, better luck next time!"
Click to expand...


You are free to say mythological concepts are real outside of imagination, but when you make claims of certainty, do not expect us to swallow it.
 
1137

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
outhouse said:
You are free to say mythological concepts are real outside of imagination, but when you make claims of certainty, do not expect us to swallow it.
Click to expand...

Excellent avoidance of the point, two new atheism stars for you.
 
V

von bek

Well-Known Member
outhouse said:
Nope. Context is key and I know Mr curiousgeorge wants us to accept personal perception as evidence for his own personal conclusions.


Some anecdotal evidence does not qualify as scientific evidence because its nature prevents it from being investigated using the scientific method. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who..."; "I know of a case where..." etc. Compare with hasty generalization). Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a "typical" experience; in fact, human cognitive biases such as confirmation bias mean that exceptional or confirmatory anecdotes are much more likely to be remembered. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence
Click to expand...

Thank you for making that clear to me. As I said earlier, you may have already mentioned it and I missed it. The main reason I ask is because I was thinking of the situation of serving on a jury, which is something I have done.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
von bek said:
Thank you for making that clear to me. As I said earlier, you may have already mentioned it and I missed it. The main reason I ask is because I was thinking of the situation of serving on a jury, which is something I have done.
Click to expand...

No problem bud.

I have been trying to get George for years on similar themes, to supply more then a supernatural explanations in which "personal experience" is his strongest evidence.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
If you did? yes.

If someone with credibility did a study then yes, but of course it would be limited to certain studies. It could be science and pseudoscience depending on what was being proposed.

Personal perception is not used to provide support for the supernatural.



Branches of science are not pseudoscience.




It only places your supernatural concepts in a grave :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hmm, perhaps you have a poor memory, I have no supernatural concept. Though I have explained this before this post, to you specifically, you seem to assert I do.

Nevertheless, many sciences rely on people's statements. To argue otherwise is to demonstrate argue that much of science is pseudoscience. You have painted yourself in a corner. People's testimony is evidence, it is really that simple. This has nothing to do with supernatural concepts, or theist agenda.

I am a strong atheist, telling you, you are unequivocally wrong to assert otherwise.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
outhouse said:
No problem bud.

I have been trying to get George for years on similar themes, to supply more then a supernatural explanations in which "personal experience" is his strongest evidence.
Click to expand...
Lol, what??

How exactly have I argued personal experience of any supernatural experience are you by chance confusing me with @George-ananda ?

Sorry to bring you into this @George-ananda , but I do believe you have advocated for supernatural explanations based on anecdotal evidence. So, I hope this is not putting you on the spot.
 
George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Curious George said:
How exactly have I argued personal experience of any supernatural experience are you by chance confusing me with @George-ananda ?

Sorry to bring you into this @George-ananda , but I do believe you have advocated for supernatural explanations based on anecdotal evidence. So, I hope this is not putting you on the spot.
Click to expand...
No problem. Tell @outhouse too that George-ananda continues to maintain the importance of intelligent analysis of all evidence. Without that we are just speculating in our own brains.

Plus it is not just personal experience, but a body of evidence carefully considered.
 
outhouse

outhouse

Atheistically
George-ananda said:
Who gets to determine what body of evidence is credible?? Only atheist-materialists?
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed work by groups of scientist that consist of theist and atheist together.

NOT the fanaticism and fundamentalism of theist clinging to faith based supernatural claims
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
I am not against science, I support it in its realm of the physical and the material. Those who believe in science/history (etc) blindly are just like those who believe in religion blindly or even worse.
I was just pointing out the 100% fraud of the so called pseudo-science/history people, more specific their eulogizers, in the specific domain of religion where science has nothing to say. Science cannot say anything scientific and or valid to the purpose of life, only revealed religion can tell it.
Please don't make science the donkey of the Anti-Christ which runs with fire in its belly.
Regards
 
Last edited:
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
1137 said:
Here's how this goes for me: get asked for evidence/reasons for my belief, write an essay, get told I'm a moron because my interpretation and logic doesn't fit with materialism. Does this happen to anyone else? It feels to me like theists provide evidence and valid logic for gods ALL THE TIME, to what avail? Honestly I find it exhausting to the point where I don't even care to share anymore. If a materialist put aside their preconceived belief that pure materialism is the proven answer they would see evidence and arguments that can be used to support gods all around them. Is it the theist's fault that we can't break through dogmatic faith?
Click to expand...

That does not have anything to do with materialism.
It is due to the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of any God. No arguments, nor reasons that do not have at least a fallacy deeply embedded in them.

And that is why it is called faith. No evidence required.

Ciao

- viole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top