Evidence...

[Nakosis]

Here is a version that seems to float around:

I can use evidence in a positive sense for all of the everyday world.

Well, I can't. Now I have been asking how that is explained and it so far always end in an opinion:
I am of that opinion that what everybody else actually do for the everyday world is irrelevant.
That is all fair and well, but as fas as I can tell, that it is irrelevant is an opinion and without evidence.

That is it. We can nitpick the words, but as I understand the usage it always ends here:
Not everything in the everyday world can be done with evidence of all human behavior.

Evidence is something I can use to make everyone else wrong. Something I can beat the rest of the world into submission.
That tends to be what I do on a daily basis.

Is there opinion behind it? Well maybe but no one can prove my opinion is not the bestest.
You have to prove it to the satisfaction of the people who have the power to make decisions which affect the rest of us.

So evidence is whatever you can use to convince the folks in authority that you are right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know what I absolutely LOVE? When someone is so incensed by something I have written that they reply TWICE to the same post before I even have a chance to respond to their first attempt. So thanks for this. It is just so invigorating. That you were thinking about this, likely fuming, for 21 minutes after your first reply. So much so, that you had to come back and say more. You made my day.[/QUOTE]

How human of you, though not objective or with standard empirical evidence.
So here is take #3:
If we remove religion, it is all over in the sense that now we have a better world?
That is the key question you have to answer if you want in effect to remove or even diminish the effect of religion. What do you want to replace it with?

So I live in a part of the world with very little actual religion and the problem of the subjective declared objective is still there. It is not subjective religion, but other subjective value systems declared objective as explained above by you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence is something I can use to make everyone else wrong. Something I can beat the rest of the world into submission.
That tends to be what I do on a daily basis.

Is there opinion behind it? Well maybe but no one can prove my opinion is not the bestest.
You have to prove it to the satisfaction of the people who have the power to make decisions which affect the rest of us.

So evidence is whatever you can use to convince the folks in authority that you are right.

I have no evidence for your right or wrong. I have different subjective norms, rules and customs.

 

[Nakosis]

I have no evidence for your right or wrong. I have different subjective norms, rules and customs.

The evidence is whether you can affect the world.
Where I can get a law passed for example stating some behavior is right and other behavior is wrong.
Right and wrong can be localized depending on how far reaching the authority you are invested in has.

By appealing to the greater authority your right and wrong can have a greater impact on the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The evidence is whether you can affect the world.
Where I can get a law passed for example stating some behavior is right and other behavior is wrong.
Right and wrong can be localized depending on how far reaching the authority you are invested in has.

By appealing to the greater authority your right and wrong can have a greater impact on the world.

Okay, that is in part true, but not all of it.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yeah, I have general faith in the world being fair in epistemological terms and for personal faith I believe in humanity. And, yes, that is in a sense no different than believing in a loving God.

You believe in humanity? How can anyone who looks at history believe in humanity?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You believe in humanity? How can anyone who looks at history believe in humanity?

Or in religion?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How human of you, though not objective or with standard empirical evidence.

I think this was supposed to somehow "get my goat" or something... but the fact is, I am human. Did you think I was trying to be something more? What might that have been in your estimation, Mikkel? And OF COURSE my glee at you having been riled up is not "objective" in any sense. Have I been stating otherwise? I am, however, sharing my subjective experience with you... so there is that.

So here is take #3:

You mean, you were actually trying for answers to the below items 2 other times? Why don't I remember this?

If we remove religion, it is all over in the sense that now we have a better world?

Just simply "remove religion" and no... I don't think so. However, remove the impetus for claiming religion is "true", such that everyone is instead saavy enough to understand the subjectivity, non-falsifiability and general tomfoolery that is taking up a position without evidential warrant, and yes, indeed, I think we would have a "better" place on our hands. And that's "better" according to nearly everyone, subjectively.

What do you want to replace it with?

What an odd question. As if there must be a "replacement." I want people to think for themselves, rather than rely on what they are told for items without evidence backing them, if I must provide an answer. And when I say "evidence" (because we all know what a problem that word is for you), I mean using the same critical nature one would expect a person to use when I make an unevidenced claim like "your mother is an alien." "Evidence" would be whatever I needed to provide to that person to compel them to believe me on that claim. If you don't have that level of backing for claims to which people would attach importance of a perspective-altering nature, then you don't have anything, and should probably just promptly close your mouth.

So I live in a part of the world with very little actual religion and the problem of the subjective declared objective is still there. It is not subjective religion, but other subjective value systems declared objective as explained above by you.

There are plenty of claims made of a subjective nature that all sorts of people are trying to get you to accept. For example, my sister and brother are constantly feuding. They will each call me and give wildly varying accounts of what went on that has them both in their current tizzies. To the point that I cannot, in good conscience, accept anything either of them tell me at face value. I am left in the precarious position of trying to "make up" my own account of the goings on that led them to their current displeasure with one another. Usually vague, always judgmental, and extremely unflattering to either of them. It is subjectivity all over the place. However, even I understand that there is still an objective account of "what actually happened." None of us may either know it (in my case) or be willing to admit to it (in my sister's and brother's cases), but it is something nonetheless. The real truth of what went on. It is (or was, as the case may be), and that cannot be denied.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Or in religion?

I don't know about anyone else. I don't believe in " religion"...I believe in Jesus.

 

[firedragon]

Here is a version that seems to float around:

I can use evidence in a positive sense for all of the everyday world.

Well, I can't. Now I have been asking how that is explained and it so far always end in an opinion:
I am of that opinion that what everybody else actually do for the everyday world is irrelevant.
That is all fair and well, but as fas as I can tell, that it is irrelevant is an opinion and without evidence.

That is it. We can nitpick the words, but as I understand the usage it always ends here:
Not everything in the everyday world can be done with evidence of all human behavior.

Evidence is an epistemological issue. Thats why when one person asks for evidence, the other person must ask "what do you mean by evidence".

Also one must realise that when people dont define their terms when asked prior to a response, if they don't confirm with specific epistemic terms, they are most probably intentionally leaving it in the dark because they intend to dismiss what ever you are going to provide.

This happens with bad cops, racist courts, nationalistic governments, fascism, and of course some of the polemicists around us. There are a few people who dont understand any of this but ask for "evidence" because "Evidence" is a repeatedly used term by their prophet like figures who they look up to. So they just repeat the word or the thought of evidence like parrots.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

I don't know about anyone else. I don't believe in " religion"...I believe in Jesus.

That is religion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think this was supposed to somehow "get my goat" or something... but the fact is, I am human. Did you think I was trying to be something more? What might that have been in your estimation, Mikkel? And OF COURSE my glee at you having been riled up is not "objective" in any sense. Have I been stating otherwise? I am, however, sharing my subjective experience with you... so there is that.

You mean, you were actually trying for answers to the below items 2 other times? Why don't I remember this?

Just simply "remove religion" and no... I don't think so. However, remove the impetus for claiming religion is "true", such that everyone is instead saavy enough to understand the subjectivity, non-falsifiability and general tomfoolery that is taking up a position without evidential warrant, and yes, indeed, I think we would have a "better" place on our hands. And that's "better" according to nearly everyone, subjectively.

What an odd question. As if there must be a "replacement." I want people to think for themselves, rather than rely on what they are told for items without evidence backing them, if I must provide an answer. And when I say "evidence" (because we all know what a problem that word is for you), I mean using the same critical nature one would expect a person to use when I make an unevidenced claim like "your mother is an alien." "Evidence" would be whatever I needed to provide to that person to compel them to believe me on that claim. If you don't have that level of backing for claims to which people would attach importance of a perspective-altering nature, then you don't have anything, and should probably just promptly close your mouth.

There are plenty of claims made of a subjective nature that all sorts of people are trying to get you to accept. For example, my sister and brother are constantly feuding. They will each call me and give wildly varying accounts of what went on that has them both in their current tizzies. To the point that I cannot, in good conscience, accept anything either of them tell me at face value. I am left in the precarious position of trying to "make up" my own account of the goings on that led them to their current displeasure with one another. Usually vague, always judgmental, and extremely unflattering to either of them. It is subjectivity all over the place. However, even I understand that there is still an objective account of "what actually happened." None of us may either know it (in my case) or be willing to admit to it (in my sister and brother's cases), but it is something nonetheless. The real truth of what went on. It is, and cannot be denied.

Good post.
Though thinking for themselves has some problems if you look closer at how we learn. That is a whole lot of "mess" within the fields related to that. I know, because my wife works in a line of work, where that is required and I have been under the authority of people, who should be able to do it. So yes, good idea, hard to do in real life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Evidence is an epistemological issue. Thats why when one person asks for evidence, the other person must ask "what do you mean by evidence".

Also one must realise that when people dont define their terms when asked prior to a response, if they don't confirm with specific epistemic terms, they are most probably intentionally leaving it in the dark because they intend to dismiss what ever you are going to provide.

This happens with bad cops, racist courts, nationalistic governments, fascism, and of course some of the polemicists around us. There are a few people who dont understand any of this but ask for "evidence" because "Evidence" is a repeatedly used term by their prophet like figures who they look up to. So they just repeat the word or the thought of evidence like parrots.

Peace.

Not only that. Some people who ought to understand evidence doesn't, because they in some cases take their own subjectivity as objective. Or if you like, not all prophets are religious in the standard sense. If that is what you mean, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know about anyone else. I don't believe in " religion"...I believe in Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_eos._Novit_enim_Dominus_qui_sunt_eius.

 

[firedragon]

Not only that. Some people who ought to understand evidence doesn't, because they in some cases take their own subjectivity as objective.

Holy sh----. Thats absolutely true.

 

[Wildswanderer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_eos._Novit_enim_Dominus_qui_sunt_eius.

People distorting God doesn't effect who he is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is religion.

No that's relationship.

 

[epronovost]

I don't know about anyone else. I don't believe in " religion"...I believe in Jesus.

Well that would mean you believe in the ''religion espoused by Jesus Christ'' unless by that you mean you really have great confidence and trust in some dude name Jesus.

 

[epronovost]

No that's relationship.

Not exactly since it's also a set of beliefs, values, practices, ritual and narrative. It's also a parasocial relationship not a relationship.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People distorting God doesn't effect who he is.

No, of course not. You are right and everybody else is wrong if relevant. I get how that works.