If Atheism is a psychological position we don't need to seriously consider it

[PureX]

That is patently delusional. Praying to god gives 2 possible outcomes, success or failure. Funnily enough, precisely the same odds as not praying.

You have a very low threshold of evidence

You are blindly confusing the concept of what logically stands out as evidence with one's personal assessment of validity. If these were integral, as you seem to imply, then the concept of evidentiality would be useless, as every perception we experience would either stand as it's own proof, or as unrelated nonsense. Evidence is a perception of effective relatedness. That perception can be valid or invalid, but either way, it is by definition still "evidence".

 

[Valjean]

This is patently false. I recently prayed to God for a special circumstance to be resolved in my favor, and my request was granted. This is clear evidence that the God I prayed to responded.

It is not conclusive evidence because it's both circumstantial and logically questionable. But it is, nevertheless, evidence. And literally billions of human beings have experienced trillions of similar results in response to similar requests. And they all can likewise be offered as evidence. The fact that YOU are not convinced by it is not relevant to it's being actual evidence.

Apophenic coincidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

It just seems that there are so many interesting books written by psychologists or others involved in related areas - can't resist them.

It was more a deliberate decision not to get cable or anything else - too many channels to select some morsel from.

I do resist the psychology books nowadays because I just do not have time to read much at all... I do not have time to watch TV either, although I sometimes catch a true crime drama for an hour or two before I go to sleep on weekends. For some reason, I like crime dramas and seeing justice done.

 

[PureX]

Apophenic coincidence.

Again, this is your assessment OF THE evidence. It is not a definition of evidence, itself. Your criteria for validity is not the definition of evidence. (Nor is anyone else's.)

 

[Valjean]

Again, this is your assessment OF THE evidence. It is not a definition of evidence, itself. Your criteria for validity is not the definition of evidence. (Nor is anyone else's.)

This is my assessment of the believers. They,re seeing patterns in random events.

 

[PureX]

This is my assessment of the believers. They,re seeing patterns in random events.

But this has nothing to do with what evidence is.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I'm still waiting for actual evidence of this God.

 

[PureX]

Yes, I'm still waiting for actual evidence of this God.

Since you presume that to be evidence, it must overcome your biased presumption that it doesn't exist; it's very unlikely that you will ever see any. You've effectively defined it out of existence for yourself.

 

[Valjean]

Since you presume that to be evidence, it must overcome your biased presumption that it doesn't exist; it's very unlikely that you will ever see any. You've effectively defined it out of existence for yourself.

OK. I'm obviously missing something here. What am I presuming to be evidence -- and of what?