Spirituality
28 May 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThere isn't any evidence? Isn't any evidence contingent upon whether or not the atheist has actually seen or acknowledged presented evidence, or can the presumption of no evidence trump actual evidence?
I think for some people it IS a belief. They are convinced there are no gods. Others take a more cautious stance of 'there isn't any evidence" or even "there isn't enough compelling evidence."
To me, it makes no difference whether you call it 'disbelief' or 'belief in not-G'. In both cases, G has been negated in the person's worldview.
And if someone says the evidence isn't compelling enough, doesn't this really mean for them the evidence is not compelling? Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?
29 May 15
Originally posted by FMFWhen I was an atheist, or now... or both?
Do you consider or give any credence to evidence that contradicts what you believe?
Sorry, I should have realized you meant now. The answer to your question is "yes". But every time I think I've found evidence to the contrary I've found stronger evidence to back up what I believe today.
I completely gave up on evolution a mere 10 years ago. The Cambrian period, abiogenesis, and theories of information in regard to design inference... there are too many example to list here, but it was mostly science and philosophies of science, along with various studies of the kalam cosmological argument...
Wow, there really are too many to list here. I didn't realize just how much time I've spent looking into this.
Anyway, it was more than just one straw that broke my camels back when it came evolution. It wasn't easy to give up on something I believed for over 40 years... and it still feels somewhat weird, like the world really has turned upside down.
29 May 15
Originally posted by FMFThey obviously cannot ignore legitimate evidence if someone is publicly hammering away at them about it, so the best they can do is to convince themselves (along with the public) that it isn't legitimate evidence. I know you don't (or won't) believe this, but much of what is touted as legitimate science is actually publicly approved junk science.
But you think that atheists don't want to consider or give any credence to evidence that contradicts what they believe?
Originally posted by lemon limeYou said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?" Surely they could be as willing to consider evidence [in the same way/for the same reason] as you claim you are?
They obviously cannot ignore legitimate evidence if someone is publicly hammering away at them about it, so the best they can do is to convince themselves (along with the public) that it isn't legitimate evidence. I know you don't (or won't) believe this, but much of what is touted as legitimate science is actually publicly approved junk science.
FMF: Do you consider or give any credence to evidence that contradicts what you believe?Can you give any examples of the most troubling or challenging evidence [which contradicts what you believe] that you are aware of or have the most difficulty refuting?
Originally posted by lemon lime
The answer to your question is "yes". But every time I think I've found evidence to the contrary I've found stronger evidence to back up what I believe today.
29 May 15
Originally posted by FMFI could, but just out of curiosity what does evidence of our past discussions tell you? How does it inform you, or does it inform you? Are you able to make predictions based on anything that could be called evidence? I'm specifically referring to discussions between you and me (or you, me and divegeester).
Can you give any examples of the most troubling or challenging evidence [which contradicts what you believe] that you are aware of or have the most difficulty refuting?
Originally posted by lemon limePrevious discussions with you had me thinking you would not answer and I was right.
I could, but just out of curiosity what does evidence of our past discussions tell you? How does it inform you, or does it inform you? Are you able to make predictions based on anything that could be called evidence? I'm specifically referring to discussions between you and me (or you, me and divegeester).
Originally posted by lemon limeYou've admitted to being intellectually dishonest about how you labelled yourself before you became a Christian but have not explained how your intellectual approach has changed in any way now that you happen to label yourself a Christian.
[Atheists] obviously cannot ignore legitimate evidence if someone is publicly hammering away at them about it, so the best they can do is to convince themselves (along with the public) that it isn't legitimate evidence.
There also seems to be a subtext in what you are saying along the lines of: because you were not intellectually honest with others when you were an atheist, therefore atheists are not honest when they consider evidence that challenges their beliefs.
Your own self-labelling aside, the atheists in your mindscape seem to be cardboard cut outs that you ~ surprise, surprise ~ find easy to dismiss.
29 May 15
Originally posted by FMFJust out curiosity, did you believe I wouldn't (or couldn't) anticipate the purpose behind your questioning?
You've admitted to being intellectually dishonest about how you labelled yourself before you became a Christian but have not explained how your intellectual approach has changed in any way now that you happen to label yourself a Christian.
There also seems to be a subtext in what you are saying along the lines of: because you were not intellectually honest ...[text shortened]... ur mindscape seem to be cardboard cut outs that you ~ surprise, surprise ~ find easy to dismiss.
You never fail to use honest answers to your questions as ammunition for attacking the person answering. How many people, or what percentage of people do you suppose would completely ignore someone who does that?
29 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThis answer of yours seems overly evasive and deflecting to qualify as "honest".
Just out curiosity, did you believe I wouldn't (or couldn't) anticipate the purpose behind your questioning?
You never fail to use honest answers to your questions as ammunition for attacking the person answering. How many people, or what percentage of people do you suppose would completely ignore someone who does that?
Here is one of the unanswered questions once again: You said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?" Surely they could be as willing to consider evidence [in the same way/for the same reason] as you claim you are?
29 May 15
Originally posted by lemon limeThe purpose and meaning of my question is not disguised in any way.
Just out curiosity, did you believe I wouldn't (or couldn't) anticipate the purpose behind your questioning?
Do you think that, because you were admittedly not intellectually honest with others when you were an atheist, that atheists are therefore not honest when they consider evidence that challenges their beliefs?
29 May 15
Originally posted by FMFSurely they could be as willing to consider evidence [in the same way/for the same reason] as you claim you are?
This answer of yours seems overly evasive and deflecting to qualify as "honest".
Here is one of the unanswered questions once again: You said: "Why would atheists want to consider or give any credence to (legitimate) evidence that contradicts what they believe?" Surely they could be as willing to consider evidence [in the same way/for the same reason] as you claim you are?
Are you asking me, or telling me? And my name is not Shirley.