Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?

[Pudding]

Please note that the believer i mean in this post means some believer, not all believer.

Asking evidence for some religion/God's believer's claims is not practical. Why?
Because usually what you gets are:
- quoting scripture or use the scripture's prophecy as evidence. Which depends on a person's interpretation and is vague.
- the evidence is personal experience, which cannot show it to others. Then it became a sharing of personal experience and they have no intention to debate, but this is a debate forum, so it's a sharing of personal experience in a debate forum which they have no intent to debate with others. This probably is not a problem if they have say they're only sharing but not debate, but if they sharing their personal experience as fact and wish to convince others that they're right, then i'm not sure it's not a problem.
- saying you have to sincerely believe in or channeling with their God first before their God can enlighten you back (enlighten you to see the evidence), if one fail to seek enlightenment or channeling with their God then it is because one is insincere or using wrong method. Which proves nothing and it's like preaching.
- give irrelevant response.
- give straw men arguments.
- reverse the burden of proof that you have to prove why they're wrong instead of them to prove why they're right.
- faith is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Therefor they don't have to provide evidence for their claims.

I think it's meaningful to asking evidence for some religion/God's believer's claims, but after i know the evidence or response is like the example i've given in the above, then it became meaningless to further asking.

Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?
What claims do you think is meaningless to ask evidence for, what claims do not?

 

[McBell]

Asking evidence for some religion/God's believer's claims is not practical. Why?

Actually, it is not practical be cause when they get exactly what they asked for, evidence (that which convinces someone of something), they whine that it is not evidence, when the truth of the matter is that it is not the kind of evidence they MEANT to ask for in the first place.

 

[McBell]

Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?
What claims do you think is meaningless to ask evidence for, what claims do not?

Depends upon what is asked for.
If you merely ask for "evidence" when you really meant "empirical objective evidence" then yes, it is meaningless to even ask to begin with.

What is the point in asking for something that you already know does not exist? I.E. objective empirical evidence of god..

 

[rusra02]

No, I don't think so. The true religion is based on realities that provides evidence it is the truth.I do not believe the true God would fail to inform his intelligent creatures of his will and purpose. To find the true religion, I believe we must ask for such evidence.

 

[Jainarayan]

And why am I under any obligation to justify my beliefs to anyone or prove the existence of my gods? It doesn't matter to me if anyone believes my gods exist. That they exist for me is all that matters.

 

[Sunstone]

Logical reasoning and empirical evidence seem to impress fewer and fewer people each year. Most of us nowadays only pay attention to such things when they agree with our prejudices and preconceived opinions. I strongly suspect that insisting on logical reasoning and empirical evidence will soon be regarded as a faux pas in polite company, much like farting at the dinner table.

 

[Parsimony]

If we are talking about people simply holding beliefs, that's one thing. I would not expect them to have to provide evidence to me to justify their own beliefs. If their reasons are sufficient to convince them personally, that's fine. It's a different matter, however, if that person is trying to convince me that they are right. In that case, evidence is very much needed. If anyone says "you shouldn't need evidence to be convinced that religion is true", then they create contradictions because that would mean that many religions with opposing teachings are somehow simultaneously true. Or, if they are more specific and say that "you shouldn't need evidence to be convinced that my religion is true", then they must explain why that claim can't also be said of other religions.

 

[Laika]

No. There are rational arguments for the existence of a god which go back to interpreting the evidence to support the view that the universe is created. To be honest, I would be only too glad to hear someone make it once in a while. I think because we are so used to equating religion with literalism, and faith, we don't expect more rational arguments and that is a dis-service to the history of religious belief even if they are less common now.

Rational arguments would have carried weight in the time of Thomas Aquinas, or even with the Enlightenment Deism of Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson. the difference is that now we accept science as the predominant method for understanding the natural world after Darwin's theory of natural selection challanged literalist readings of Genisis. By default we rule out creationism in favour of naturalistic explanations, but I think it is more than possible that someone could set out a very intresting case for the existence of a god, and I believe that the Catholic Church has tried to do so in the tradition of Aquinas by arguing for the compatability of science and religion (e.g. on the Big Bang as compatible with creationism in 1951). It is possible to do it, but they would be arguing from a philosophically and scientifically alien viewpoint to what we are used to.

Intrestingly, the reverse argument- that a non-religious person would have to substanciate most if not all their beliefs on the basis of evidence is an impossible burden of proof for an individual to meet. We are social animals and so inherit the beliefs of people around us whether we know it or not. there is a "faith" of a sort in that based on trusting others information and experience. As a result, we do take alot of things for granted and no-one can cliam to be omniscient. it is not wholly rational to demand evidence for everything, and its best to focus on those subjects which have the most practical value or greatest consequences. The same is probably true for sincere, devout religious people.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Please note that the believer i mean in this post means some believer, not all believer.

Asking evidence for some religion/God's believer's claims is not practical. Why?
Because usually what you gets are:
- quoting scripture or use the scripture's prophecy as evidence. Which depends on a person's interpretation and is vague.
- the evidence is personal experience, which cannot show it to others. Then it became a sharing of personal experience and they have no intention to debate, but this is a debate forum, so it's a sharing of personal experience in a debate forum which they have no intent to debate with others. This probably is not a problem if they have say they're only sharing but not debate, but if they sharing their personal experience as fact and wish to convince others that they're right, then i'm not sure it's not a problem.
- saying you have to sincerely believe in or channeling with their God first before their God can enlighten you back (enlighten you to see the evidence), if one fail to seek enlightenment or channeling with their God then it is because one is insincere or using wrong method. Which proves nothing and it's like preaching.
- give irrelevant response.
- give straw men arguments.
- reverse the burden of proof that you have to prove why they're wrong instead of them to prove why they're right.
- faith is a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof; belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. Therefor they don't have to provide evidence for their claims.

I think it's meaningful to asking evidence for some religion/God's believer's claims, but after i know the evidence or response is like the example i've given in the above, then it became meaningless to further asking.

Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?
What claims do you think is meaningless to ask evidence for, what claims do not?

Outside of curiousity, learning a new view, have discussion, or wanting to convert, I see no use in asking.

A claim does not make anything exist. It is an empty claim (taking out peoples beliefs at the moment): " God exists". It sounds like "Nothing exists". To ask the nature of this nothing beyond the reasons above is illogical (another reason). Maybe if I were a scientist and thought nothing is defined by something; then, I can test it. I dont know.

Belief in God is an experience. No person I know anywhere says they believe in an anamorphic god. Most say its "something inside". All say its personal.

I ask about their experiences and worldview, that means a lot. To ask about the phrase, "[Does] God exist", to say honestly, means nothing to me.

 

[George-ananda]

Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?

I ask and I am always interested to hear. You can ask the reasons why they believe what they believe. You will get answers but don't expect that they can be tested by another person in a laboratory experiment or something; but that doesn't make them worthless either.

 

[YmirGF]

Do you think it's meaningless to asking evidence for religion/God's believer's claims?
What claims do you think is meaningless to ask evidence for, what claims do not?

I don't generally dwell on questions like this because beyond subjective assertions I already know that your basic garden gnome cannot provide much in the way of evidence for the existence of their claims. It really depends how strident someone is being with me... that might twig the nit-picker in me to demand the basis of their assertions, but again, I don't go there often.

 

[Quintessence]

Actually, it is not practical be cause when they get exactly what they asked for, evidence (that which convinces someone of something), they whine that it is not evidence, when the truth of the matter is that it is not the kind of evidence they MEANT to ask for in the first place.

That, and in many cases, if one is asking for "evidence" one is missing the bloody point. I never even know how to respond to "what evidence is there for your religion?" What... do they want me to tape record one of my rituals and put it on YouTube or something? Yes, my religion is an actual thing. What more do you people want? I don't get it.

Oh wait, sorry. That was probably an "irrelevant response."

 

[Terese]

God is an experience. Something you can't test.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That, and in many cases, if one is asking for "evidence" one is missing the bloody point. I never even know how to respond to "what evidence is there for your religion?" What... do they want me to tape record one of my rituals and put it on YouTube or something? Yes, my religion is an actual thing. What more do you people want? I don't get it.

Oh wait, sorry. That was probably an "irrelevant response."

Lol. So true. Carry on.

 

[Pudding]

Actually, it is not practical be cause when they get exactly what they asked for, evidence (that which convinces someone of something), they whine that it is not evidence, when the truth of the matter is that it is not the kind of evidence they MEANT to ask for in the first place.

I'm not the "they" you've mention, i can accept the concept that the provided evidence, no matter how unconvincing, it still is evidence.
Why it's not pratical? I've already gives the reason.

 

[Pudding]

Depends upon what is asked for.
If you merely ask for "evidence" when you really meant "empirical objective evidence" then yes, it is meaningless to even ask to begin with.

What is the point in asking for something that you already know does not exist? I.E. objective empirical evidence of god..

But still when there're people make claims about religion or god and wish to convince others which the claims affect others, others still ask for where is the evidence which support the claims.

It's a natural reaction, some people make claims which affect others and wants others to agree with them, then others ask for evidence.

I agree objective empirical evidence of god does not exist, otherwise there probably will not be so many people believes in so many different gods.
And in a strange interpretation, it can still argue that objective empirical evidence of a god does exist, just that some people cannot see it, it needs the enlightenment in order one can see it.
Though not that i agree with such interpretation.

When one ask for evidence, they mean the evidence which can convince them that such claims is correct, is it not?

There indeed can be other option to react to such claims when one disagree, like politely reject the claims without the need to asking for evidence, or just don't involve in such discussion.

 

[Pudding]

No, I don't think so. The true religion is based on realities that provides evidence it is the truth.I do not believe the true God would fail to inform his intelligent creatures of his will and purpose. To find the true religion, I believe we must ask for such evidence.

There are so many true religions and true Gods in our world, and probably a lot of different people who insists only their religion and God is the true one.
I suppose those different religion is all based on realities that provides evidence it is the truth.
Oddly those religions and Gods are not all the same, their moral and doctrine differ greatly and have contradiction between each other.

 

[Pudding]

And why am I under any obligation to justify my beliefs to anyone or prove the existence of my gods? It doesn't matter to me if anyone believes my gods exist. That they exist for me is all that matters.

The obligation only exists when one wish to convince others that one's beliefs is correct, or when one wants others to live their life according to one's beliefs.
If the beliefs greatly related to others' life, then the obligation is even more obligated.

It seems like you're not the person i've describe in the above.

 

[Pudding]

Logical reasoning and empirical evidence seem to impress fewer and fewer people each year. Most of us nowadays only pay attention to such things when they agree with our prejudices and preconceived opinions. I strongly suspect that insisting on logical reasoning and empirical evidence will soon be regarded as a faux pas in polite company, much like farting at the dinner table.

Do you think regards logical reasoning and empirical evidence as a faux pas, is a remarkable and good practice which should be follow by everyone?
Does insisting on logical reasoning and empirical evidence, means one must force others to follow that rule? Can it be someone just insisting on logical reasoning and empirical evidence to him/herself but not others?

 

[Pudding]

I ask and I am always interested to hear. You can ask the reasons why they believe what they believe. You will get answers but don't expect that they can be tested by another person in a laboratory experiment or something; but that doesn't make them worthless either.

I surely don't expect that they can be tested by another person in a laboratory experiment, never say that.