Do you agree with this statement..?

E

enlightenment

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Extraordinary claims demand extraodinary evidence?

Seems fair.

The burden of proof and evidence should indeed lie with the person making the claim.

Therefore, if it is a quite spectaclar claim, then quite spectacular proof and evidence is a must, surely?

I would be surprised to hear a Christian or some other theist concur with that opening statement, since the v premise of their life is believing in an extraordianry series of claims, without any proof or evidence (and I mean real and measurable proof), of those claims.

For such a person to agree with the statement, would surely be a contradiction in terms, one would think?



*Shrugs*
 
enlightenment said:
Extraordinary claims demand extraodinary evidence?
Click to expand...

How do we determin what is extraordinary? :/ OH! You mean like a god or afterlife? I don't see what is extraordinary aboot it... I think it is a personal base thing, from what I've come to understand... I don't have to prove a thing to anyone :) So yeah, I don't agree with the statement :)

Evidence is a must? Doubt it... lol. Some one states something about their faith....Then the other will not even attempt to look at it or accept but instantly work at a way to destroy it and not even consider it.. :) Perhaps they ask the "wrong person" the questions.... heh.

Accordingly I say to YOU, Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. (Lk 11:9)

May sound selfish or something but that really isn't what I mean by my next statement: I am not going to try and prove a thing any more :) It don't work like that... You(I mean anyone lol) want evidence SO bad... Then look for yourself with eyes that have no preconception... Keep, you keep knocking.... No one else can knock for you.
 
I have personal proof, but its just for me.

Revelation 3:20 (New American Standard Bible)

Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.
Click to expand...
read the Bible and open the door :)
 
enlightenment said:
Personal proof?

Translation = you have no proof that would stand any examination, what you have is a beleif.

;)
Click to expand...

Well, it's belief sorted by subjective evidence. Not the sort of thing that constitutes proof for anyone but the experiencer.

Even with someone with a similiar experience, it isn't proof, but a testamonial, which may or may not reinforce belief.
 
Dondi said:
Well, it's belief sorted by subjective evidence. Not the sort of thing that constitutes proof for anyone but the experiencer.

Even with someone with a similiar experience, it isn't proof, but a testamonial, which may or may not reinforce belief.
Click to expand...

Uh huh.

But you and I both know that 'subjective evidence' is really not worth much, if anything.

I could make the extraorinary claim that I could see fairies at the bottom of my garden.

That would be an example of subjective evidence, because, as far as am I concerned they are there, not matter than they cannot be seen or measured under controlled conditions.

It would be quite a claim for me to make, that I could see and speak with fairies, and you would be within your rights to think I might be on drugs, or a whack, or both, unless I could show you tangible evidence.

Were I unable to, then you would best be advised to go with that original feeling!

It is the same with the idea of gods.

You cannot DISprove them, not in an absolute sense.

But it is all about plausibility, and the idea of there being an all seeing, all knowing, invisible being, someplace in the ether, is so implausible as to be near impossible, yet if anyone is ever to provide any real evidence, and I mean real, then I for one shall be very interested to see it.
 
enlightenment said:
what you have is a beleif.
Click to expand...

Well you have placed your OP in the Belief & Spirituality sub-forum.

Perhaps it would have been better placed in the Science and the Universe or the Politics and Society sub-forum if your interest is in legalistic and materialistic stuff like claims, proof and evidence.

s.
 
Snoopy said:
Well you have placed your OP in the Belief & Spirituality sub-forum.

Perhaps it would have been better placed in the Science and the Universe or the Politics and Society sub-forum if your interest is in legalistic and materialistic stuff like claims, proof and evidence.

s.
Click to expand...

Not really.

I am interested to know the mindset of someone who, in the absence of any tangible proof or evidence at all, can fully accept a series of sometimes absurd claims as the 'truth'..?

If people take that position, then I think it is reasonable to ask them why they take that position.


*Shrugs*

:)
 
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

Of course. By definition. But one might interject that events occurring within the rarefied realm of the extraordinary might not be easily connected to chains of cause and effect whose domain lies outside that sphere in the realm of the ordinary. So there is the question of degrees of inter penetration of logic between spheres of action.

Chris
 
Snoopy said:
Well you have placed your OP in the Belief & Spirituality sub-forum.

Perhaps it would have been better placed in the Science and the Universe or the Politics and Society sub-forum if your interest is in legalistic and materialistic stuff like claims, proof and evidence.

s.
Click to expand...

Would of given you a thumbs up rep :D! But "done you" recentley... I'll try and remember to come back and rep yah.
 
China Cat Sunflower said:
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

Of course. By definition. But one might interject that events occurring within the rarefied realm of the extraordinary might not be easily connected to chains of cause and effect whose domain lies outside that sphere in the realm of the ordinary. So there is the question of degrees of inter penetration of logic between spheres of action.

Chris
Click to expand...

It is an idea, I guess.:)

However, it is like so many other ideas that come around.

The human psyche likes answers to things.

When we do not have an answer, when there is a void, we often fill it with what we believe to be the 'truth'.

That is what religion once relied on. People do not, for whatever reason, understand something, therefore, in their desperation to do so, they declare that said event must be a 'miracle', and an 'act of god', etc.

I could understand that 2000 years ago, when science and technology are not what they are now, and people were more prone to being suspersitous and believing in all manner of weird and wonderful stories.

It is less easy to understand now.

Esp people to CHOOSE to believe without evidence, in a modern and supposedly developed world.
 
Namaste all,

well... to a certain extent i could see that being the case however i think that is rather obfuscating the issue by requiring an additional definition of "extraordinary".

by and large it seems that intersubjective evidence is required for most anything which a being intends to evidence in a pursuasive manner to another being. subjective evidence is usually only relevant to those that share the view being advanced already.

given a lack of intersubjective evidence the rational being is well justified to withold their assent to the proposition being advanced.

metta,

~v
 
Here is a statement that I would concur with, absolutely so.

There probably is no 'god'.

Notice the use of the word 'probably'.

This is a typical religionist strawman (below)

Me - There is NO evidence of a god

Religionist - Ah ha, but you cannot prove that there isn't a god.

Very true - You cannot 'prove' a negative in that sense.

The burden of proof always lies with the person making the claim (whatsoever that may be).

If you assert that there is a magic mate in the sky, then show me the evidence!


http://www.liveleak .com/view? i=590_1224883454
 
enlightenment said:
Here is a statement that I would concur with, absolutely so.

There probably is no 'god'.

Notice the use of the word 'probably'.

This is a typical religionist strawman (below)

Me - There is NO evidence of a god
Click to expand...


How about:

There is probably only one fundamental reason for an atheist to contribute to a faith-based forum and that is to undermine the non-atheists.

or

There is no other reason for an atheist to contribute to a faith-based forum other than to undermine the non-atheists.

:confused:


s.
 
Snoopy said:
How about:

There is probably only one fundamental reason for an atheist to contribute to a faith-based forum and that is to undermine the non-atheists.

or

There is no other reason for an atheist to contribute to a faith-based forum other than to undermine the non-atheists.

:confused:


s.
Click to expand...


Or....you might be wrong on both counts.

Just a thought.

Thanks
 
Okay. I am going to assume that you are asking me this in an attempt to bridge a dialogue between us, right?

Okay.

People can believe whatever they wish. It does not mean that I have to approve of it, or give it automatic respect.

I place my trust in reason and rationale.

Are people who believe in a 'god' thick? Of course not. On the contrary, many are highly intelligent individuals who, in all other areas of their lives apply logic and reason - EXCEPT to this one area. This is classic decomparmentalisation at work. That is to say that one is able to apply logic and reason to all other areas of their life, save for one area, where they leave reason and rationale at the door.

I am not here to whack you with an ad hom attack (I haven't).

I am not here to 'undermine' anything, as such. That said, despite this being an 'interfaith' forum, I see no harm in me, as an atheist, challenging the assertions that there is a god.

Do you see a harm in that? Surely it is better that, in a free world, we have a mix of opinions, and can exchange those? The alternative to that would be to simply have a forum were everyone agreed with each other on evey tiny thing. As it happens, no such forum exists. You can have a look on sites that APPEAR to have members all pulling in the same direction, and what you will find is that they end up sending each other really nasty messages, and real bad ad hom attacks.

Does that sound reasonable to you?


In the meantime...(please comment)





YouTube - Why god won't heal amputees?


YouTube - Dawkins in Lynchburg VA (part 1) The God Delusion
 
enlightenment said:
Okay. I am going to assume that you are asking me this in an attempt to bridge a dialogue between us, right?
Click to expand...

Right. :)

People can believe whatever they wish. It does not mean that I have to approve of it, or give it automatic respect.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I place my trust in reason and rationale.

Are people who believe in a 'god' thick? Of course not. On the contrary, many are highly intelligent individuals who, in all other areas of their lives apply logic and reason - EXCEPT to this one area. This is classic decomparmentalisation at work. That is to say that one is able to apply logic and reason to all other areas of their life, save for one area, where they leave reason and rationale at the door.
Click to expand...
First of all, to be clear, I would neither describe myself as a theist nor an atheist; I see that as rather limiting. Leaving aside whether or not I’m an intelligent individual, what you say here I think is the crux of the matter. I apply “logic and reason” where I see it as appropriate. This therefore means that it does not appertain to all areas of life however. For instance (choosing a neutral topic) in listening to music, my choice and enjoyment does not depend on “logic and reason”. I know all about the physics of acoustics (well, I say “all about”, but you know what I mean), the nature of the ear, the workings of the brain and the psychology of music…but…all that objective, materialistic stuff does not (IMO) add up to a hill of beans in regard to me enjoying music. So it is with matters of faith, as far as I can see. I’m not asserting a magic mate in the sky and thus placing the onus of the asserter to provide evidence. I’m someone who thinks of “faith” as being a little more (for want of a better word) sophisticated than the high school notion of a “magic mate in the sky”. If I have a concept of God, it is not one that I reify. Faith, I believe, is part of a different paradigm than science, in the same way that me enjoying music is different than me working out how to put a piece of furniture together (by using appropriate logic and reason; or if that fails looking at the instructions). :p



I am not here to 'undermine' anything, as such. That said, despite this being an 'interfaith' forum, I see no harm in me, as an atheist, challenging the assertions that there is a god.

Do you see a harm in that?
Click to expand...
Anyone is free to post here of course. Harm may be a bit strong a term. I think it depends on the particular sub-forum of this site. I think the ones dedicated to particular religions should be mostly for asking questions, and for sharing information, experiences and ideas.


But as you can see from the above, to challenge the assertion because you cannot see proof is (to me) barking up the wrong tree. I do not believe in a creator deity. But if I did, could you not say that (logically and rationally perhaps?) the proof, the evidence, is all around, it is the universe itself?


Surely it is better that, in a free world, we have a mix of opinions, and can exchange those? The alternative to that would be to simply have a forum were everyone agreed with each other on evey tiny thing. As it happens, no such forum exists. You can have a look on sites that APPEAR to have members all pulling in the same direction, and what you will find is that they end up sending each other really nasty messages, and real bad ad hom attacks.

Does that sound reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
It does. :)


In the meantime...(please comment)
Click to expand...
Well, if you mean me... In light of what I’ve said about not being a theist, I checked ‘em out but didn’t feel the need to watch them…eg I wouldn’t expect God to “heal amputees” and Dawkins notion of “God” is one that doesn’t resonate with me. He seems to be refuting the “magic mate in the sky” that I don’t believe exists either.

s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top