Evidence - what will it take?

[purple_hairstreak]

I don't think any evidence will do. Those who don't believe won't believe no matter what. That's just the way it is.

 

[Adstar]

If it is so easy then, please give us some reference about trying to suppress any or all thoughts about the Messiah or alternate 'kings', especially about the so-called Jesus. Especially interesting would be any so-called evidence concerning your claim that can be referenced back to the emperor of rome at that time. I don't recall any evidence (public or political documents or statements made by Pilate) of this kind being either published, displayed or found that documents any political statement(s) referring to your statement of 'suppressing' any thought's about the Messiah Jesus? If you have them to reference, then it's 'Show Time'.

All Praise The New Chevrolet Corvette

Oh my God Do you think nations leave documentary evidence of how they went about suppressing history? You want documents from Pilate?? A governor of a region that had been levelled and ethically cleansed? Why would the Romans keep any documents like that for hundreds of years? I cannot believe the level of naivety some people have in here.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Pete]

So if this suppression was so effective, then how did you get your information, and how do you judge its validity?

 

[Godless]

So if this suppression was so effective, then how did you get your information, and how do you judge its validity?

Don't you know? Adstar got god's cell phone number!

I mean, most of us can't even identify the word "god" let alone if the damn thing exist or not, But Adstar, he got all the answers, ask him anything about his buddy god, and if he don't know, he'll just dial 1800BIGDADY and he reaches god everytime.

Godless

 

[Novacane]

Adstar,

I recommend visiting God's own personal website: www.askgod.com Maybe you can get some of your reference material from this source. God is usually in his office most of the time, if not, just leave an email message.

All Praise The New Dodge Charger

 

[Godless]

All Praise The New Dodge Charger

The hell with the Charger, give me a Magnum.. The only male stationwagon with testasrone!

 

[The Devil Inside]

it is so "cool" in here.

 

[Adstar]

So if this suppression was so effective, then how did you get your information, and how do you judge its validity?

Well they where not totally successful in their suppression where they because the Gospel survived. Everybody knows that the Christian faith was suppressed by the Roman authorities for hundreds of years. Any serious commentator would not try to deny that fact.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[lightgigantic]

This is a fallacious analogy that you continue to use.
We go to doctors because of the plethora of evidence on which we base a subconscious probability that a doctor will treat our ailments - and because we subconsciously weigh up the risk/reward factors based on EVIDENCE.

With God there is NO evidence - or if there is - please put it forward for assessment.

Epistemology is irrelevant.
Ontology is irrelevant.
Evidence is all.
Everything else is just speculation.

So your argument appears to be that evidence is self evident.

Lets examine the general principles you are applying.

You are saying that it is enough to prove whether a particular thing at a particular time is true or not if it is apparent to most people. So if most people perceive that people of a particular race or country are inferior and its okay to kill them then that is obviously true.

Interestingly enough if we apply the general principle you are advocating (that appropriate epistemology does not lead to an appropriate ontology) we have effectively cancelled out over 95% of what we have in the name of culture (and it will be 95% of the top end), because most people do not perceive the ontology of physics, chemistry and other high end cultural developments (how many people listen to mozart and how many listen to rap music) because they have not applied the relevant epistemology (studied the theoretical foundation of chemistry to determine its actual ontology).

There is no question of arriving at an ontology without an appropriate epistemology.

 

[Adstar]

Don't you know? Adstar got god's cell phone number!

I mean, most of us can't even identify the word "god" let alone if the damn thing exist or not, But Adstar, he got all the answers, ask him anything about his buddy god, and if he don't know, he'll just dial 1800BIGDADY and he reaches god everytime.

Godless

LOL i have something better than a phone. He is called the Holy Spirit. And He is connected directly into my self.

Thank God i do not have to rely on Telstra. lol


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Novacane]

LOL i have something better than a phone. He is called the Holy Spirit. And He is connected directly into my self.

Thank God i do not have to rely on Telstra. lol


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Try Yahoo Messenger instead. It's a hell of lot cheaper and you always get a reply when you need help.

All Praise The 60's Mopar Muscle Cars

 

[ggazoo]

this is fairly accurate. i would even put the figure somewhere around 30% if you include agnostics.

the rest, however.....there are very few religious moderates like me around anymore.

Actually, the world population of atheists is more like 1-2%.

 

[Sarkus]

this is fairly accurate. i would even put the figure somewhere around 30% if you include agnostics.

A number of agnostics are actually theists, so it is wrong to group all agnostics with atheists.

 

[Hapsburg]

A question for the atheists. Having browsed these forums for a while now, the question I pose to you is this: exactly what hard evidence would it take for you to become a believer?

Photographs, fingerprints, DNA, stool, urine, sperm, and blood samples of both "jesus" and "god", and a comparison of them to verify any possible degree of similarity or identicality.

but your heart also.

What the fuck does a circulatory organ have to do with going batshit insane?

 

[Sarkus]

So your argument appears to be that evidence is self evident.

No.

You are saying that it is enough to prove whether a particular thing at a particular time is true or not if it is apparent to most people.

I am NOT saying that - and once again you set up a strawman fallacy.

So if most people perceive that people of a particular race or country are inferior and its okay to kill them then that is obviously true.

Strawman. And thus irrelevant.

Interestingly enough if we apply the general principle you are advocating (that appropriate epistemology does not lead to an appropriate ontology)

Another strawman! Way to go!
Please state where I said this was my general principle.

...we have ...
...
SNIP (as irrelevant)
...
epistemology.

NB: Edited from the original by me
EVIDENCE is what matters.
Without evidence it is just speculation.

Everything that we know to exist is due to evidence.
If there can be no evidence - there is no determination of existence. Existence is determined through evidence.

Your forays in to epistemology and ontolgy might give you logical validation for the existence of something - but with an absolute lack of evidence that thing is logically akin to the non-existent.

 

[KennyJC]

Actually, the world population of atheists is more like 1-2%.

That doesn't say much for the human race then does it? If you are trying to state that this is proof atheism is false then that is foolish even by your standards ggazoo.

Because most of the world is poverty stricken and doesn't have the same education standards as we do, this explains why religion still has such a grip. Almost half the citizens in my country are non-believers in God. Rather higher than 1%, don't you think?

 

[Satyr]

A question for the atheists. Having browsed these forums for a while now, the question I pose to you is this: exactly what hard evidence would it take for you to become a believer?

Outside the second coming of Christ (unless that is the evidence that you require), what are you looking for? A historical document? If so, what would that be?

I ask because everything that has been discussed on here which may have a even a slight chance of being construded as a hint of proof, is refuted without question.

Let’s begin with a less hypothetical question:

How little evidence does a religious mind need to believe in what satisfies its interests and flatters its ego?

How does the conflict of interest, inherit in the belief in a loving, compassionate, interested God, escape the awareness of the believer?

Furthermore: How does one rest his entire belief system and all his hopes on the words written in a single book by unknown writers with unknown motives and in an ambiguous style that remains evasive and imprecise?

 

[SycknesS]

Awww i loved your little bear Actualy it is good to see the effort you are putting into your replies. It means my words are hitting the target. Maybe in the future they will bear fruit in you.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

Are you serious?

PS - I'm an American atheist. Too many religious people here though, I agree

 

[Adstar]

Yes i am serious.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[lightgigantic]

No.

I am NOT saying that - and once again you set up a strawman fallacy.

Strawman. And thus irrelevant.

Another strawman! Way to go!
Please state where I said this was my general principle.

NB: Edited from the original by me
EVIDENCE is what matters.
Without evidence it is just speculation.

Everything that we know to exist is due to evidence.
If there can be no evidence - there is no determination of existence. Existence is determined through evidence.

Your forays in to epistemology and ontolgy might give you logical validation for the existence of something - but with an absolute lack of evidence that thing is logically akin to the non-existent.

Nice editing
Still didn't answer on what grounds a person has the ability to perceive evidence without applying an epistemology