Science and Evidence

Skeptics constantly throw the word evidence at believers as if it has some spectacular meaning. Is that too difficult for you to understand? Does not compute?

First of all when you give a dictionary definition of the word evidence to a skeptic it is evidence for the word evidence, but a skeptic will say it doesn't mean much. [b]Definition of evidence[/b]: "The available body of facts or information indicating [b]whether a belief[/b] or proposition is true or valid." Two important points: first the evidence is used to determine if true or not, and second it includes whether or not a belief as well as proposition is true or valid. Truth is defined as a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

Either way you look at it believers have more evidence and truth than science because they believe it more and it is accepted more. It's almost completely meaningless. Saying science has the evidence is like saying you believe current science to be a valid belief. These facts may change but we are told by science to believe them. For now. We evolved. There was no flood. We are not religious because we don't believe there are any gods. We believe there are no gods. We have no way of knowing what a god is.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

DocSavage · M

[quote] We have no way of knowing what a god is.[/quote]
Yes we do. If you look at history, you will see that all of the thousands of god we have have been created by humans. We give them whatever powers and abilities they need to get the job done. We even supply the morale compass.
What you criticize as “no evidence “ is the basics of the null position.
Belief in a god requires a reasonable premise. Usually the premise is creation. We believe that we are here because something must have put us here. From there it grows. That something must have put us here for a purpose. That purpose must have some higher agenda, because it’s beyond our understanding, therefore god must be a higher level of intelligence, with greater morality, etc. etc.
Religion itself serves as uniformity. Bringing people together for a common cause, so god has other uses . But from a social, historical point of view. Gods are whatever we make them to be.

AkioTsukino · M

@DocSavage Belief in a god requires only veneration, even if the person doesn't know that and that only, is exactly what it means to be a god. Creation or destruction or anything or nothing else may or may not be involved.

[quote]From there it grows. That something must have put us here for a purpose. [/quote]

No. Most gods aren't claimed to have created or having a purpose. Out of ignorance of what it means to be a god you conflate all with one. If you're going to elaborate on the meaning be more specific. Zeus? Shiva? etc. You shouldn't lump all gods together any more than you would science.

[quote]That purpose must have some higher agenda, because it’s beyond our understanding, therefore god must be a higher level of intelligence, with greater morality, etc. etc.
Religion itself serves as uniformity. Bringing people together for a common cause, so god has other uses . But from a social, historical point of view. Gods are whatever we make them to be.[/quote]

The idea of man creating gods beyond their understanding is very unrealistic, it only fits your own agenda. The one you perceive in the intellectual/moral dilemma which was really created to support itself in the first place much like your own misinterpretation of theism. Someone once said: "You know you've created your own gods when it turns out it hates all the same things you do."