Nonbelievers to Hell!

[ChristineES]

Of course you don't have to do that for anyone -- unless you want to be taken seriously and considered a rational human being.

Not that you aren't probably rational in general, I guess that came off as mean. I'm just saying that in a debate, justification is important. It would be silly to try to understand someone's viewpoint if all they were saying is "Well I decided this belief based on a dart toss, I have no legitimate/defensible reason for having it. I consider a dart toss good enough."

All you can say at that point is "Okay" and move on to a rational discussion.

It did come as mean and unfair. People who know me personally say that I am rational. It is a debate and I am giving my point of view, and I certainly don't care if anyone agrees with me. I have a right to give my view and to have my view whether you agree with me or not. Just as you have a right to what your view is.
And I did not come by my faith by any dart toss. I don't have to defend my faith.
If you think I am irrational, you certainly have a right to believe it. But that doesn't mean that it is true.

 

[Meow Mix]

It did come as mean and unfair. People who know me personally say that I am rational. It is a debate and I am giving my point of view, and I certainly don't care if anyone agrees with me. I have a right to give my view and to have my view whether you agree with me or not. Just as you have a right to what your view is.
And I did not come by my faith by any dart toss. I don't have to defend my faith.
If you think I am irrational, you certainly have a right to believe it. But that doesn't mean that it is true.

You misunderstand, I'm not saying you're irrational or that you came to your belief by a dart toss. Those were general examples.

I was making the argument that there is a standard for evidence: someone can't just take any ol' idea and call it evidence because clearly some ideas are not evidence. I gave the examples of coin flips and dart tosses as examples that can't qualify as evidence in the context that I was giving them.

Likewise, "Because a book says so" does not qualify as evidence any more than a coin flip or a dart toss. Someone had said that a person's "evidence" was from reading the Bible. That does not qualify as evidence unless evidence is provided that justifies the validity of the Bible -- that's obvious, otherwise criminals would constantly walk free from court by producing a book proclaiming their innocence.

No one is forced to justify their beliefs; nor should they have to. However in a debate about the validity of those beliefs, it does become necessary to whip out the justifications for other people to follow the path of reasoning and see why any particular belief was deemed true.

Example:
Bob: There is invisible light.
Carl: What? I doubt it.
Bob: I read in a book that there is invisible light.
Carl: Well okay, but that doesn't justify the belief. Can you elaborate what about the book justified this belief?
Bob: Absolutely. In the book, it described an experiment by which scientists have been able to use spectrums of light outside of the visible range detectable by our eyes. They're called "radio waves" and "microwaves," and so on.
Carl: Ah, okay. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Now imagine if Bob had just stopped at "I read in a book that there is invisible light." Is it a waste of Carl's time to try to figure out Bob's belief simply based on the fact that he read something in a book without further explanation? Seems to me that it is.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

The reason many people do not respect Jesus is not because they feel rebelious or want to spit in the face of his atonement. Many do not accept him because they have doubts that he even exists in the first place. We are not trying to demean Jesus by not believing in his existence, we simply do not find evidence that him and his wonderful goodness is even there. This is not a moral issue, this is a logical one.

For me, it is not because I feel rebellious or that I need evidence of him. I don't believe in Jesus and I don't accept him because I have no reason to. I don't think people need salvation; we are all going to "sin", and that should be understandable. However, you should lead a good life and be a genuinely good person. You don't need to be saved and you don't need to be punished. And most of all, I have no attraction to a belief system that is alien to my heritage. I am European, and Christianity came from the Middle East. I have a connection, a very deep connection to my Gods, and no Son of God has any connection to me. My aunt said one day I will see the truth and come back to Jesus. I won't. Not even the day I die will I ever praise Jesus or his Father. She doesn't seem to understand that Christianity doesn't work for everyone else, even though it works for her. She thinks that Christianity is the "one true religion", and she couldn't be more wrong. When I was raised as a Christian, all I felt was enslavement and negativity. I was rarely happy. The day I left Christianity was the best day of my life. I couldn't feel more free. But not until a few years later did I find Asatru, and that's when I knew what I was going to live like, and what I was going to live for. For me, Christianity plays no part in my life. And if I somehow turn out to be wrong, and I go to this eternal torment, I will embrace it Bravely, with Strength and Honour, in the fashion of my ancient Ancestors as they went to War. And if I am right, I will spend my years with my Gods until the end of days, Feasting in the Hall of Warriors, the Twilight Tavern.

 

[ChristineES]

Meow Mix: I do understand, somewhat. I keep saying that I don't give any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to give. I wouldn't try to persuade you to believe in God by using any evidence. All I want to make clear is that although there is no scientific evidence of God, I do see evidences of God- but I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to accept my evidence.
You seem like a nice enough person, so I think in this case we can agree to disagree.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix: I do understand, somewhat. I keep saying that I don't give any evidence. There is no scientific evidence to give. I wouldn't try to persuade you to believe in God by using any evidence. All I want to make clear is that although there is no scientific evidence of God, I do see evidences of God- but I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to accept my evidence.
You seem like a nice enough person, so I think in this case we can agree to disagree.

I'm really sorry, I didn't mean to come off mean like I probably did. None of those irrational comments were directed at you personally or anyone in particular; they were just about general states of affairs.

I'm glad you've found a belief that works well for you, though you're right -- we will likely have to agree to disagree on it, but that's fine. Cheers, life is good! :beach:

 

[McBell]

I was making the argument that there is a standard for evidence: someone can't just take any ol' idea and call it evidence because clearly some ideas are not evidence. I gave the examples of coin flips and dart tosses as examples that can't qualify as evidence in the context that I was giving them.

Actually there are literally hundreds, if not thousands or more, standards for evidence.
To expect everyone to meet YOUR standards to justify their own beliefs is a bit egotistical, isn't it?

Likewise, "Because a book says so" does not qualify as evidence any more than a coin flip or a dart toss. Someone had said that a person's "evidence" was from reading the Bible. That does not qualify as evidence unless evidence is provided that justifies the validity of the Bible -- that's obvious, otherwise criminals would constantly walk free from court by producing a book proclaiming their innocence.

Here you are merely whining that the evidence presented does not meet YOUR standard for evidence.
Thanks for you opinion.

No one is forced to justify their beliefs; nor should they have to.

I disagree.
If someone wants ME to believe as THEY do, they most certainly have to justify their beliefs.
So when you ask someone what their evidence for something is and then complain that their evidence does not meet YOUR standards, are you not trying to force their beliefs into your own little box?

Now imagine if Bob had just stopped at "I read in a book that there is invisible light." Is it a waste of Carl's time to try to figure out Bob's belief simply based on the fact that he read something in a book without further explanation? Seems to me that it is.

Now imagine if Bob said that in order to understand it you had to not only read said book, but understand it.

 

[AxisMundi]

For me, it is not because I feel rebellious or that I need evidence of him. I don't believe in Jesus and I don't accept him because I have no reason to. I don't think people need salvation; we are all going to "sin", and that should be understandable. However, you should lead a good life and be a genuinely good person. You don't need to be saved and you don't need to be punished. And most of all, I have no attraction to a belief system that is alien to my heritage. I am European, and Christianity came from the Middle East. I have a connection, a very deep connection to my Gods, and no Son of God has any connection to me. My aunt said one day I will see the truth and come back to Jesus. I won't. Not even the day I die will I ever praise Jesus or his Father. She doesn't seem to understand that Christianity doesn't work for everyone else, even though it works for her. She thinks that Christianity is the "one true religion", and she couldn't be more wrong. When I was raised as a Christian, all I felt was enslavement and negativity. I was rarely happy. The day I left Christianity was the best day of my life. I couldn't feel more free. But not until a few years later did I find Asatru, and that's when I knew what I was going to live like, and what I was going to live for. For me, Christianity plays no part in my life. And if I somehow turn out to be wrong, and I go to this eternal torment, I will embrace it Bravely, with Strength and Honour, in the fashion of my ancient Ancestors as they went to War. And if I am right, I will spend my years with my Gods until the end of days, Feasting in the Hall of Warriors, the Twilight Tavern.

Quite agreed, my religious neighbor.

In my half century of life I have noticed a definite trend of those who push their Christ at us, whether lovingly as caring relatives, or desperate people on street corners looking for celestial brownie points, they all forget some basic facts.

Christianity, indeed Jehovah himself, are newcomers to the 100,000 year plus human experience. This means that human beings went for some 97,000 plus years before Jehovah hit the scene.

Christianity has never held even half of the global population in thrall.

 

[Meow Mix]

Actually there are literally hundreds, if not thousands or more, standards for evidence.
To expect everyone to meet YOUR standards to justify their own beliefs is a bit egotistical, isn't it?

The only subjective aspect of standards of evidence is how MUCH evidence it takes to believe something.

I was arguing that what qualifies as evidence is not subjective, which is true. So, no -- I'm not forcing anyone to meet "my" standards, I'm just requesting that any evidence provided actually fulfill the definition of "evidence." That is, it must justify in the epistemic sense.

Here you are merely whining that the evidence presented does not meet YOUR standard for evidence.
Thanks for you opinion.

It's not an opinion that coin flips, dart tosses, and unsupported book-listing don't qualify as evidence.

I disagree.
If someone wants ME to believe as THEY do, they most certainly have to justify their beliefs.
So when you ask someone what their evidence for something is and then complain that their evidence does not meet YOUR standards, are you not trying to force their beliefs into your own little box?

If I ask for evidence and receive something that is not evidence by definition I have a right to "complain." Wouldn't you? What if you asked for a candy bar and I gave you a sandwich?

Not that sandwiches aren't delicious, mind you

Now imagine if Bob said that in order to understand it you had to not only read said book, but understand it.

Any belief or position can be broken down into its basic premises to be examined and digested by another person; it's a little excessive to demand someone read volumes of material that can be broken down to their basic epistemic essentials.

Nevertheless, Carl could certainly read the book to check out the justifications for himself if Bob were too lazy to support his own assertion with informed argument.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Quite agreed, my religious neighbor.

In my half century of life I have noticed a definite trend of those who push their Christ at us, whether lovingly as caring relatives, or desperate people on street corners looking for celestial brownie points, they all forget some basic facts.

Christianity, indeed Jehovah himself, are newcomers to the 100,000 year plus human experience. This means that human beings went for some 97,000 plus years before Jehovah hit the scene.

Christianity has never held even half of the global population in thrall.

And yet for some reason, modern humans left all their ancestor's beliefs behind for a new one, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[McBell]

The only subjective aspect of standards of evidence is how MUCH evidence it takes to believe something.

I was arguing that what qualifies as evidence is not subjective, which is true. So, no -- I'm not forcing anyone to meet "my" standards, I'm just requesting that any evidence provided actually fulfill the definition of "evidence." That is, it must justify in the epistemic sense.




It's not an opinion that coin flips, dart tosses, and unsupported book-listing don't qualify as evidence.



If I ask for evidence and receive something that is not evidence by definition I have a right to "complain." Wouldn't you? What if you asked for a candy bar and I gave you a sandwich?

Not that sandwiches aren't delicious, mind you




Any belief or position can be broken down into its basic premises to be examined and digested by another person; it's a little excessive to demand someone read volumes of material that can be broken down to their basic epistemic essentials.

Nevertheless, Carl could certainly read the book to check out the justifications for himself if Bob were too lazy to support his own assertion with informed argument.

Where is the definition of "evidence" does it mention anything at all about specific set of standards:

evidence
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung
cancer is very compelling" [syn: grounds]
2: an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling
was evidence of his fear"
3: (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact
whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is
established or disproved
​

Perhaps if you presented your preferred definition of the word "evidence", since it most certainly has to be different than the one I presented above, it would be helpful?

 

[ChristineES]

I always like to say that God would be more merciful than people are. I also like to say (a lot) that God is the one who judges people, not people. If I believed in a literal hell (which I don't)I would not presume to know who/whom is condemned to go there. God would make such decisions. If you believe in God, then you know that only God would be qualified to make these decisions.
And a final note: I am not sure what to make of those who don't believe in God: You have to actually believe in God to reject Him. If a person does not believe in God, then that person can't reject Him.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

I always like to say that God would be more merciful than people are. I also like to say (a lot) that God is the one who judges people, not people. If I believed in a literal hell (which I don't)I would not presume to know who/whom is condemned to go there. God would make such decisions. If you believe in God, then you know that only God would be qualified to make these decisions.
And a final note: I am not sure what to make of those who don't believe in God: You have to actually believe in God to reject Him. If a person does not believe in God, then that person can't reject Him.

I reject the belief in him. And I reject Christianity.

 

[ChristineES]

I reject the belief in him. And I reject Christianity.

Do you reject all Gods? I believe there is a good chance that all or almost all Gods could be the same God. We have no way of knowing.
And it is not the same thing to reject Christianity and to reject God.

If you don't believe in any God, then you are rejecting the idea of a God, that is what I believe.

 

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

Do you reject all Gods? I believe there is a good chance that all or almost all Gods could be the same God. We have no way of knowing.
And it is not the same thing to reject Christianity and to reject God.

If you don't believe in any God, then you are rejecting the idea of a God, that is what I believe.

No I don't reject all Gods, and I wouldn't have a problem believing that all Gods are somewhat the same, except for the fact the The Christian God and my Gods bear no resemblance at all.

 

[Meow Mix]

Where is the definition of "evidence" does it mention anything at all about specific set of standards:

evidence
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung
cancer is very compelling" [syn: grounds]
2: an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling
was evidence of his fear"
3: (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact
whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is
established or disproved
​

Perhaps if you presented your preferred definition of the word "evidence", since it most certainly has to be different than the one I presented above, it would be helpful?

Looks like yours is sufficient. Let's look at them!

(1)
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung
cancer is very compelling" [syn: grounds]

What is a "basis?" I randomly found "
1. something that underlies, supports, or is essential to something else, esp an abstract idea"

Okay, so evidence is something which supports belief; it's knowledge on which to base belief. What is knowledge? We say things like "I know it's going to rain tomorrow," but do we really know them? No -- in this circumstance it's clear that "knowledge" is referring to something other than an enhanced hunch.

Knowledge is justified true belief. To know something, you must have justification for it, you must believe it, and it must be true. That "justification" bit is the evidence. One doesn't need to include in the definition of "justification" or "evidence" that coin flipping doesn't constitute justification for a concept in most contexts -- that is simply obvious.

(2) an indication that makes something evident; "his tremblingwas evidence of his fear"

This one's fairly tautologous, noting that they used the word "evident" in the definition for "evidence," which is a little silly... but again, it's obvious that a coin flip or a dart toss with different state capitols on them HAPPENING to arrive at a correct answer by sheer chance does not constitute "an indication that makes something evident." Nor does someone spouting "I read it in a book" qualify as "an indication that makes something evident."

(3) (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact
whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is
established or disproved

What is to establish? "To prove the validity or truth of..." is the best definition for this context. Again, we're back to proving -- justifying.

-----------------------

Sure, there are difficulties with equivocation and semantics in a language that borrows so many words for so many different purposes. However, in a debate about evidence for the existence of something it's pretty clear that the context is philosophical evidence (which includes scientific evidence and analytical evidence), which is something specific. Talking about layman's definitions of "evidence" and "knowledge" in a philosophical discussion is like talkinga bout layman's definitions of "theory" in a scientific discussion -- it's like bringing a knife to a gunfight.

 

[AxisMundi]

And yet for some reason, modern humans left all their ancestor's beliefs behind for a new one, which makes absolutely no sense to me.

The way I see it, in a nutshell...

Whether merely to remain viable religions, or due to an active agenda to grow the theopolitical power base that only a large following can bring to build upon material wealth and political power, both of the younger Abrahamics exhibit a much greater message of proselytization and conversion (forced if necessary) than their parent religion, Judaism.

This is accomplished using the powerful imagery inherent in their parent religion, including the Creation Myth which seeks to instill an ultimate authority in Jehovah/Allah as a demiurge, and through him, an ultimate authority in the clergy and religion of the two younger Abrahamics. This imagery was "tweaked" to appeal to the people and situations of the time.

First with the Roman occupied areas of the Middle East with a "savior figure" to free the oppressed, and then with the Mohamed figure to appeal to the population living in the turmoil as Rome and Parthians battled for the area.

It is this powerful imagery, effective even today, especially to the youth, that resulted in the near meteoric rise of the two religions in Europe, the Mediterranean, and Middle East. Combined with, for example, the boost from Constantine, the power vacuum left by the fall of the Roman Empire, and the colonial efforts of Christian France, Spain, and Britain, the near demise of the older gods around the world was all but inevitable thanks to the greed of wealth and power of those who follow the younger Abrahamics, and the superior war machine they brought with them.

 

[AxisMundi]

Do you reject all Gods? I believe there is a good chance that all or almost all Gods could be the same God. We have no way of knowing.
And it is not the same thing to reject Christianity and to reject God.

If you don't believe in any God, then you are rejecting the idea of a God, that is what I believe.

Just for a third reference, we Gaels believe that all gods, goddesseess, heavens, hells, demons, demigods, etc exist, and that all are created by the conentrated will of many people over time, created from subtle energies and substances inherent in the universe.

This includes your god as well.

For all that we place them above us, our Deities are our children.

 

[Herr Heinrich]

Just for a third reference, we Gaels believe that all gods, goddesseess, heavens, hells, demons, demigods, etc exist, and that all are created by the conentrated will of many people over time, created from subtle energies and substances inherent in the universe.

This includes your god as well.

For all that we place them above us, our Deities are our children.

Agreed. I also think that they are only a manifestation of a larger force that is not understandable by humans so we shape this vast unknown into these individual gods and goddesses. The Welsh were of this understanding.

 

[Father Heathen]

How about.....

God doesn't let everyone into heaven because Man is a creature that soils the nest?

Therefore some picking and choosing is required.

And why choose non-believers?

So God's standards aren't based on quality of character, but rather gag reflex?

 

[McBell]

The only subjective aspect of standards of evidence is how MUCH evidence it takes to believe something.

I disagree.
Given the definition of evidence as being that which provides basis for belief, then if the Bible is basis for someones belief in god, then the Bible is in fact evidence for god no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

I was arguing that what qualifies as evidence is not subjective, which is true. So, no -- I'm not forcing anyone to meet "my" standards, I'm just requesting that any evidence provided actually fulfill the definition of "evidence." That is, it must justify in the epistemic sense.

Again, I disagree and I disagree based upon the definition of the word "evidence".

It's not an opinion that coin flips, dart tosses, and unsupported book-listing don't qualify as evidence.

It is when one or more of those things is the basis for someones beliefs.

If I ask for evidence and receive something that is not evidence by definition I have a right to "complain."

You ask for evidence and then am presented the Bible by someone for whom the Bible is the basis of their beliefs and no, you have no right to complain, because according the definition of the word evidence, they have provided you with evidence.

This is the part you seem unable to understand.

Wouldn't you? What if you asked for a candy bar and I gave you a sandwich?

Except that you are asking for a candy bar, I give you a snickers, and you complain that a snickers is not a candy and that you want a candy bar.