This is not a thread for bashing on religion. The forum rules on civility and complaining still apply.
This thread is meant to be a welcoming and inviting place for Atheists, Antitheists, and Agnoists to talk about their beliefs and experiences.
edited 3rd Oct '14 1:27:15 PM by Madrugada
Fireblood, you wrote"
Further:
Then:
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
Fireblood, you wrote:
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:
For while the law is human-made, the fabric of reality is not.
Further:
Then, confirming my previous paragraph:
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.
![]()
Fireblood, you wrote:
You added:
Then:
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.
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
HiLilandra 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.
@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...

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