XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, alt.talk.creationism
XPost: sci.skeptic
From: me@nothere.biz
On 08-December-2014 12:24 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:25:14 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
> ..
>> On 01-December-2014 1:28 AM, mur.@.not. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:55:43 +1100, felix_unger wrote:
>>> ..
>>>> On 22-November-2014 5:04 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:45:03 -0700, the following appeared
>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by Bob Casanova :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 11:35:16 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 19-November-2014 5:21 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 22:22:42 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 17-November-2014 4:56 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:41:33 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 16-November-2014 5:14 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:29:45 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-November-2014 5:23 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2014 00:28:47 +1100, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sci.skeptic, posted by felix_unger :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 14-November-2014 11:30 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My position is more along the lines that if God exists[*],
then there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is either objective evidence of that existence, or there's
not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there is objective evidence, I'd like to know what it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there's not, then, regardless of whether God actually
exists, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is why you'd believe that He does, given the absence
of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do you accept that people may have/have had real experiences
of God, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are empowered by faith to change their life?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know about Sylvia, but *I* accept that there are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who believe they have had such experiences, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faith (defined as "belief without proof") can certainly be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life-changing. Neither of these has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objective evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I didn't say ppl who 'believe they have had such
experiences' I said
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'have had'.
>>>>>>>>>>>> So they have objective evidence which shows that the
>>>>>>>>>>>> experiences were real, and not simply something they believe
>>>>>>>>>>>> happened? If not, how is such belief verified?
>>>>>>>>>>> how could ppl prove they have had some experience of/from God?
>>>>>>>>>> By having objective evidence that they did, perhaps?
>>>>>>>>> such as? this is the question that mur keeps asking. what objective
>>>>>>>>> evidence would you expect to see/have that someone has had an
experience
>>>>>>>>> of God?
>>>>>>>> Mur won't provide objective evidence because he presumably
>>>>>>>> has none, and tries to shift the burden of proof to his
>>>>>>>> opponents; don't sink to mur's level. Objective evidence is
>>>>>>>> simply evidence that any disinterested observer can observe.
>>>>>>>> It's not up to anyone but the claimant to provide the
>>>>>>>> evidence, and once the claimant has what he/she considers to
>>>>>>>> be objective evidence it's up to him/her to present it. This
>>>>>>>> is pretty basic.
>>>>>>> but you're being unrealistic for the simple reason that there would be
>>>>>>> no objective/physical evidence of a spiritual encounter. would you
>>>>>>> expect the persons face to be glowing? or them to be floating off the
>>>>>>> ground? but religious faith has changed ppls lives. that is objective
>>>>>>> evidence, is it not?
>>>>>> That faith can change peoples' lives is indeed objective
>>>>>> evidence, but only that faith can change peoples' lives.
>>>>>> It's not evidence that there is any factual basis for that
>>>>>> faith.
>>>> a changed life is objective evidence that faith can change lives, but it
>>>> is also evidence that there is a factual basis producing the result.
>>>> that could be just be some psychological mechanism, or it could be that
>>>> there is some spiritual force, or other power at work.
>>> That's one of the starting lines they can get as "far" as.
>> I think you mean ' can't get as far as'.
> Yes, my bad mistake.
I knew what it was but I thought I would get the record straight
>
>> these ppl are so clueless they
>> aren't even in the race!
> AFAIK all evidence shows that they can't even appreciate what it is.
they consider themselves to be so authoritative and knowledgeable on
these topics, but they are basically clueless. we have been discussing
evidence ad nauseaum, yet they seem unable to understand such basic
facts as evidence can be weak (in fact so weak evidence as to barely
qualify as evidence) or strong, false or true, can prove something (but
doesn't need to to still be evidence), etc., . but then what can you
expect from vain ppl who think they 'know' what they can only believe, lol!
--
rgds,
Pete
-------
It's not about Islam!.. http://ausnet.info/pics/islam.png
Islam is a religion of peace!.. http://thereligionofpeace.com
http://pamelageller.com/
http://www.barenakedislam.com/
"The right to free speech includes the right to offend"
"ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith"
-Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
