Atheist/Anti-theist/Agnostic Troper Group

Fireblood, you wrote:
Quote: In any case it's rare that evidence would be so unequivocal as to require no belief.

That case in which you’d call it “scientific evidence”, the kind I simply call “evidence.”

Then:
Quote: So no term for them [documents, testimonies] as a whole then.

A document itself being a form of testimony, sortof, methinks.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

"That case in which you’d call it “scientific evidence”, the kind I simply call “evidence.”"

Well there isn't such evidence all the time, and even then it's frequently contentious.

"A document itself being a form of testimony, sortof, methinks."

Written testimony, I suppose.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Fireblood, you wrote"

In which case we must fall back on subjective testimonies, knowing that while they may be sufficient to estimate certain claims (as in a trial), these testimonies aren’t in and of themselves, evidence.

Further: Hence not evidence, testimonies.

Then: Or painted, or sculpted, etc. That is: dependant on the credibility granted to its author, i e: belief.

Edited by AlityrosThePhilosopher on Aug 8th 2018 at 10:19:25 AM

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

"In which case we must fall back on subjective testimonies, knowing that while they may be sufficient to estimate certain claims (as in a trial), these testimonies aren’t in and of themselves, evidence."

The interpretation of what physical evidence means is also contentious, and some would say inherently subjective. Legally, testimony is evidence, whatever your definition.

"Hence not evidence, testimonies."

A false distinction to me.

"Or painted, or sculpted, etc. That is: dependent on the credibility granted to its author, i e: belief."

That is inescapable even with scientific evidence to most of us, since we lack direct knowledge of it. Experts will testify (even if informally) and we must accept or reject their word about what a particular scientific finding is and means.

Edited by Fireblood on Aug 9th 2018 at 2:09:19 AM

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Fireblood, you wrote:

Some will interpret evidence to support their pet peeves like Intelligent Design, Young Earth, Geocentrism, Flat Earth, Race Theory, what have they.
The scientific method has shown reliability in assessing and evaluating objective evidence, because it relies on said evidence and retains a healthy dose of scepticism, among other things.

Further: The law could declare that gravity is henceforth abolished and the speed of light unlimited, which wouldn’t change a thing.
For while the law is human-made, the fabric of reality is not.

Further: Perhaps to you all hinges on faith, ultimately. I which case is gets confused with ought.

Then, confirming my previous paragraph: Belief is hardly inescapable, real evidence doesn’t need it as it can stand on its own.
As stated earlier, it’s not so much the word of this or that individual expert as it is the reliability of the scientific method and that most humans are competent in their field of expertise (and often incompetent in all other fields).

Reality doesn’t require us to believe in it, as “it is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away,” since you’re fond of Old Phil (as am I, ’twas a good writer).

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

"Some will interpret evidence to support their pet peeves like Intelligent Design, Young Earth, Geocentrism, Flat Earth, Race Theory, what have they. The scientific method has shown reliability in assessing and evaluating objective evidence, because it relies on said evidence and retains a healthy dose of scepticism, among other things."

Well yes, I mean more mainstream things continue to be argued over (such as different mechanisms for evolution). Of course I agree that it's reliable.

"Perhaps to you all hinges on faith, ultimately. I which case is gets confused with ought."

I don't think that, but more that some trust is always necessary.

"Belief is hardly inescapable, real evidence doesn’t need it as it can stand on its own. As stated earlier, it’s not so much the word of this or that individual expert as it is the reliability of the scientific method and that most humans are competent in their field of expertise (and often incompetent in all other fields)."

It's more that our belief in any one scientific claim relies on the method's overall proven reliability. This is not problematic to me. I don't think "belief" is necessarily a bad thing. We all have them.

"Reality doesn’t require us to believe in it, as “it is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away,” since you’re fond of Old Phil (as am I, ’twas a good writer)."

No, but figuring out what reality consists of in many cases is difficult. Thus beliefs come in, right or wrong.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

I'm completely lost here. It seems you guys have been having a back and forth debate over the nature of evidence, but I don't think its worth sifting through several pages of text. Can you maybe move it to a PM so it doesn't dominate this thread?

Fireblood, you wrote:

No, either it is founded on evidence and thus reliable or it is not. Belief is unnecessary.

You added: Belief isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just irrelevant when it comes to evidence.

Then:
Wrong, sorry. We either have enough evidence to know in which case we know, or we haven’t in which case we don’t. So sorry, but wrong.

Nobody dominates here, perish the thought. You are more than welcome to add your piece on a facet of Atheism, Anti-Theism, and Agnosticism.

Just as my freedom ends where yours begins my tolerance of you ends where your intolerance toward me begins. As told by an old friend

Others just haven't been having their own atheism/anti-theism/agnosticism-related discussions here. I don't believe, though, that Fireblood and Alityros are dominating the thread.

Wanna discuss something else here?

I've posted my arguments here multiple times before. At this point it seems we're just repeating ourselves. Clearly neither of us will convince the other, and that's fine, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think we do largely agree, even if our specific terms differ for things anyway. Regardless, it now seems best to end this and move onto other topics for discussion.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

It started from me asking about moral nihilism.

Geez...

Hi

What?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Yeah, what is it, Coleman?

Still trying to think of a new sub-discussion to start here....

Well I'd like to talk about the discrimination of atheists due to "religious beliefs" in finding jobs and housing amongst other things . But I'm not too sure if it violates guidelines.

Hi

I don't think so, unless it's just general insults or something. Best Of I'm sure will tell us if we've crossed the line.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Well as people become less tolerant of things that are different from the normal, alongside some nationalistic, right winging, too religious people.

I've been wondering if this will make it harder for atheists and people with minor disabilities to find and hold a job due to them being "improper" or "imperfect".

Edited by Coleman on Aug 30th 2018 at 1:12:11 PM

Hi

That could be yes. Sadly though some of those right-wingers are atheists too.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Lilandra Ra speaks about this on Patheos. There was another one, maybe by Aron Ra. Haven't found it, though. At least yet.

Yes, of course there are left-wing atheistic ideologies which are also harmful (e.g. Marxism, as the religious will never fail to bring up). We get enough bigotry without adding the guilt by association from these sorts of people. I personally don't tell most people I'm an atheist because of the negative cachet it has. No wonder many nonbelievers shrink from it, like I once did.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Well technically Marxism in the hands of the right people and in a certain number of people (to deal with people's wants), cooperation with the civillians, and not controlling small businesses yet controlling larger ones would prevent some issues.

Hi

Such as?

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

Discrimination, giving people motivation to exercise more by making cities more biking friendly, encourage farmer's markets.

Hi

That doesn't really seem particular to Marxism. Of course, there are many varieties, but it doesn't seem radical enough to qualify.

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.-Philip K. Dick

@Coleman: Where are you from that people will even ask you about your religion when it comes to housing or finding a job? At least here in Western Europe, even in majority christian countries, people respect each other enough to not care about about a stranger's private beliefs.

Life is unfair...