Continued Thread with Co-Worker

[SkepticalScience]

Sorry for the start of a new thread on this topic, but my coworker brought up a point that I thought deserved a new post.

----------------------BEGIN----------------------

Thanks again for continuing the thread!

I'd argue that the nature of the evidence for God's existence is quite different than for invisible pink unicorns. Millions of a. sane, b. honest, c. intelligent, and d. learned people offer testimony to having observed or otherwise experienced 'God'. No no such evidence can be sited for the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

On what basis does the atheist categorically exclude or disregard the evidence of testimony based on experiences of competent and honest individuals?
----------------------END----------------------

Any thoughts?? I am building a response now, and would like to add any insights any of you might have.

[Phil]

Looks like you are going to have to have an indepth discussion on the nature of evidence.

In the meantime, you might mention that a. sane + b. honest + c. intelligent + d. learned does not necessarily = e. right.

[SkepticalScience]

Ahhh. that's a good one.

I think I'll start with that! I can add there were plenty of those people who once thought the world was flat.

[RussDill]

That billions of people disagree with those millions of people. If there is a god, and masses of people follow god because he is god, then it wouldn't make sense that you have all these huge groups of people that disagree.

Edited to add: And how many millions of people believe in UFO's?

[TragicMonkey]

I hadn't realized that the fundamental nature of existence was controlled by a popular referendum.

Millions of people still think that chocolate gives you pimples, that lightning never strikes the same place twice, and that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow. You don't have to go to the past to find people believing in myths.

[Phil]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I hadn't realized that the fundamental nature of existence was controlled by a popular referendum.


TM, that's sig line material.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Phil
TM, that's sig line material.

I'm slipping--there was no monkey reference in it!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Sorry for the start of a new thread on this topic, but my coworker brought up a point that I thought deserved a new post.

----------------------BEGIN----------------------

Thanks again for continuing the thread!

I'd argue that the nature of the evidence for God's existence is quite different than for invisible pink unicorns. Millions of a. sane, b. honest, c. intelligent, and d. learned people offer testimony to having observed or otherwise experienced 'God'. No no such evidence can be sited for the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

On what basis does the atheist categorically exclude or disregard the evidence of testimony based on experiences of competent and honest individuals?
----------------------END----------------------

Any thoughts?? I am building a response now, and would like to add any insights any of you might have.

For one thing lots of competant and honest people beleive in Bigfoot, Alien Abductions, a second gunman on the Grassy knoll etc. but none of their evidence for these things adds up any better than the believers evidence for God.

For another, go back a couple thousand years and you will find thousands of sane, honest, competant people beleiving in the pantheon of Greek Gods, and millions more on another continent beleiving in the gods of the Aztecs. Were all of those people right too? By your co-workers logic, they were so both Zeus and Quetzocoatl (and all their friends) must exist. By his logic the universe must be chock full of dieties that "Competant and sane" individuals beleived in at one time.

Lastly, the vast majority of those sane and honest individuals don't even claim to have had any direct experience with God. They just beleive on faith. Their "experience" with God consists of being told by their society that God exists and is responsible for whatever good or bad things happen in their life. Their "testimony" as he puts it would boil down to "I know in my heart God exists". If anyone of them has any DIRECT evidence for the existance of God, I have yet to see it. It is not that I, as an atheist, disregard their "testimony and evidence", it is that every bit of "testimony and evidence" I have ever seen for the existance of God turns out to be meaningless fluff when scrutinized. Until that situation changes, I will remain an atheist.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

----------------------BEGIN----------------------

Thanks again for continuing the thread!

I'd argue that the nature of the evidence for God's existence is quite different than for invisible pink unicorns. Millions of a. sane, b. honest, c. intelligent, and d. learned people offer testimony to having observed or otherwise experienced 'God'. No no such evidence can be sited for the existence of invisible pink unicorns.

On what basis does the atheist categorically exclude or disregard the evidence of testimony based on experiences of competent and honest individuals?

response 1) So Jesus didn't become divine until millions of sane, honest, intelligent and learned people observed and experienced the validity of Christianity?

response 2) I see your mistake. These millions of s,h,i,l people (if only he had said thoughtful instead of learned) have really experienced and observed the Divine One, they just made the mistake of believing that this Divine Being is an old man in the sky instead the the Beautiful and Truthful Invisible Pink Unicorn (bless Her holy hooves).

response 3) Sure millions of s,h,i,l adults believe in your god, but millions of s,h,i,l teeenagers and children believe in the mystical power of unicorns. It is a universally-recoginized fact that children can see the truth more clearly than adults. These children can see the divinity of the I.P.U. Ask any child to give you a fact related to Noah's Ark and more often than not, he or she will mention that the unicorn was not on the ark but still exists despite the Old Testament's God's trying destroy the unicorn.



~ ~ ~ ~ ~

slight request: would you title your threads more clearly?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[pgwenthold]

So did how did this co-worker handle the responses to his original nonsense? Did he actually learn something from it, or did he just drop it and move on to the next topic?

Kind of like throwing ***** against the wall hoping something sticks.

[SkepticalScience]

Oh no, pgwenthold - he came back with more questions. He has a genuine (or so it appears to me) desire to understand an atheists philosophy. Here were our threads:

To his first email, I responded with this:


--------------BEGIN-------------------
Ha!

This is a fun email.

Do you know what the “Straw Man� argument is? It’s a type of logic fallacy – and I found a pretty concise explanation of it on Google, (but you can do your own search too):
“The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.�

I bring this up because I think you are using the Strawman Fallacy here. Your email, which hinges on your characterization of an atheists position, is a misrepresentation of their actual beliefs. So, for instance, an atheists would never say this:

"I've reviewed all the relevant evidence and have determined that this particular universe was not the result of a willful and purposeful intent (God), but rather, was an accident (... Not willful, purposeful, or even intended)."

There might be some close minded atheists who have that position, but I assure you they are on the fringes. Just like how most religious people aren’t fundamentalists.

An atheist is much more likely say something like this:

"I've considered most everything that has ever been suggested and I see no reason to think that this particular universe is anything but the consequence of natural physical processes. So, I don't believe it is anything but that."

Or they might even say something like this:

"After looking at as many reputable sources as I was able to, I have not found any compelling evidence to support the notion of a divine being. I am, of course, open to any new evidence that comes along."

Do you have any evidence to the contrary??

So I think the problem with the email is that it starts from a false assumption and then runs with it. It also confuses atheism - which deals with the question of God's existence - with the question of how the universe was created. It is theoretically possible that one could be an atheist and still believe some outside force created the universe (perhaps thinking the universe is a matrix-like computer simulation or some such).

Since your email starts with the false assumption of an atheists beliefs - the rest of your argument isn't really valid. (But is exceedingly relevant to those fringe atheists I referred to earlier). Again, all an atheists says is "I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me there is a God or that some other being created the universe. Therefore, until I see such evidence I have no reason to believe that one exists. When/if I do, I will reconsider my position".

I don’t believe the rest of your email holds up against that attitude. Do you?

----------------------End Email---------------------------------


To which he responded:


------------------------BEGIN EMAIL----------------------------
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Given the clarification of your position, I agree that I might need need to refine my
arguments. But I'm wondering, preliminarily, do you accept the following revision or your statement as true?

"I have yet to see any evidence that convinces me that a God or some other being did (or did not) create the universe. Therefore, until I see such evidence I have no reason to believe (or disbelieve) that one exists. When/if I do, I will reconsider my position".
------------------------END EMAIL----------------------------


To which I responded:


------------------------BEGIN EMAIL-------------------------
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you – work has been pretty eventful the past two days.

In response to your email, “No, I do not agree with the revised statement�.

The revision is a clever one, because it shows the distinction between an agnostic and an atheist.

Where as an atheist takes the position “I am not going to believe it until I see evidence� , the agnostic takes the position, “I am not going to believe or disbelieve until I see evidence.�

It’s a slight distinction – but I am more comfortable with the atheistic position. It becomes more apparent when you apply the philosophies in different areas.

So, say we are discussing gravity. Everyone knows that gravity exists, but science still hasn’t figured out the mechanisms behind it yet. Say someone claims that the reason gravity works is because there are these magic pink invisible birds that grab things by their beaks and fly them down to the ground.

An atheist would not entertain the position unless there was some evidence that they could examine. He says, 'There is no evidence for me to examine, so at this time, I do not believe in the magic birds'. An agnostic however, applying agnostic reason, would have to say “There might or might not be these magic birds. They might exist. Or they might not. We may never know the true nature of gravity – so we can’t say for certain that it’s not the magic birds doing all the work.�

I hope I wasn’t pulling a straw man myself there, but to me, that example is why I think atheism is a more sound operating philosophy. Interestingly enough, if someone else makes the claim that it really isn’t magic pink birds, but magic blue leprechauns – the agnostic would have to say that they don’t necessarily believe or disbelieve the leprechaun theory either.
------------------------END EMAIL-----------------------------------


TO which he responded:

-------------------------------BEGIN EMAIL--------------------------
Thanks again for continuing the thread!

I'd argue that the nature of the evidence for God's existence is quite different than for gravity-controlling blue birds and leprechauns.
Millions of a. sane, b. honest, c. intelligent, and d. learned people offer testimony to having observed or othewise experienced
'God'. No no such evidence can be sited for the existence of gravity birds or leprechauns.

On what basis does the atheist categorically exclude or disregard the evidence of testimony based on experiences of competent
and honest individuals?
-------------------------------BEGIN EMAIL--------------------------


To which I have responded

-------------------------------BEGIN EMAIL-------------------------
No problem Bob. I am enjoying the conversation.

My response begins with this observation:

A. sane + B. honest + C. intelligent + D. learned does not necessarily = E. right.

There were millions of sane, honest, intelligent, learned people who thought the earth was flat. Archimedes, undoubtedly one of the cleverest minds in history, argued brilliantly AGAINST the Sun centered model of the solar system – he was wrong.

Lots of competent and honest people believe in Bigfoot, Alien Abductions, a second gunman on the Grassy knoll etc. but none of their evidence for these things adds up any better than the believers evidence for God.

Going back a couple thousand years and you will find thousands of sane, honest, competent people believing in the pantheon of Greek Gods, and millions more on another continent believing in the gods of the Aztecs. Were all of those people right too? By your logic, since you can’t disregard their testimony - both Zeus and Quetzocoatl (and all their friends) might exist. By that logic the universe must be chock full of deities that "Competent and sane" individuals believed in at one time.

Another very important point to consider also is that the vast majority of those sane and honest individuals don't even claim to have had any DIRECT experience with God. They just believe on faith. Their "experience" with God consists of being told by their society that God exists and is responsible for whatever good or bad things happen in their life. Their "testimony" would boil down to "I know in my heart God exists". If anyone of them has any DIRECT evidence for the existence of God, I have yet to see it. It is not that atheists disregard their "testimony and evidence" - it is that every bit of "testimony and evidence" I have ever seen for the existence of God turns out to be meaningless fluff when scrutinized. Until that situation changes, atheists will remain atheists.

Consider this. How many sane, honest, intelligent, learned (hereafter labeled shil) people believe in the Raelians? Remember the Raelians? They have over 60,000 members in over 90 countries! I’m sure many of the members there are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. (http://www.rael.org). Browse the site, and review their beliefs. I’m sure they have had experiences they ascribe to Raelian philosophy – but just because you believe in something hard enough, and sincerely enough - doesn’t make it true. There are literally millions of people who are Scientologists. (http://www.scientology.org/) This group believes through the application of their “technology� you can become an “Operating Thetan�. Once you are an Operating Thetan, you have none of the encumbrances of your physical body. You can fly – back and forth through space and time. You can go through walls – you are in essence just a spirit of sorts. There are MILLIONS of SHIL people who believe this. They have anecdotal evidence – “I met a Thetan who told me the world will end in 3020, why would he lie? Of course Thetan’s exist�. Some SHIL people believe they are Thetans right now – but simply choose not to show their abilities to others. (You can read more here:
http://www.authenticscientology.org/page04b.htm)

Millions of SHIL people still think that chocolate gives you pimples, that lightning never strikes the same place twice, and that the phases of the moon are caused by the Earth's shadow.

Those Millions of people are wrong.

So, “On what basis does the atheist categorically exclude or disregard the evidence of testimony based on experiences of competent and honest individuals?�

Simple. Regardless of the credibility of witness, their testimony is worthless without supporting evidence. Because how do you distinguish between two people of equal credibility that have personally experienced two different contradictory events.

Say a SHIL Christian and a SHIL Muslim get into a car accident. The Christian claims to have seen Christ wile he was in a Coma and the Muslim claims to have seen Mohammed. If they are both as honest and sincere as Mother Theresa, whom do you believe?

See, it doesn’t matter that the witnesses are as honest as Mother Theresa. It does not follow that what they believe is true. All we can really conclude is that they had an interesting experience that they cannot fully explain. There are an awful lot of anecdotes. Anecdotes are not evidence. Whether they are supported by other evidence is another question.

Sorry if I rambled there, but that was a good question that required a lengthy response. (also, let me know if you would like me to clarify anything I wrote, since I am kinda doing this off the top of my head without organzing too well)!

Eagerly awaiting your reply,
----------------------------------------END EMAIL-------------------------


Do I win the prize for longest post ever??

8)

[scribble]

I had a coworker who was a total woo-woo, big into new agey native american crap. I didn't get a chance to have a "debate" with him before he got canned for being an unethical bastard, but there was one exchange I enjoyed.

Him: some nonsense
Other coworker: "Well, you've got to respect people's beliefs."
Me: "No, you don't."

That's about the extent of it. Heh!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by scribble
I had a coworker who was a total woo-woo, big into new agey native american crap. I didn't get a chance to have a "debate" with him before he got canned for being an unethical bastard, but there was one exchange I enjoyed.

Him: some nonsense
Other coworker: "Well, you've got to respect people's beliefs."
Me: "No, you don't."

That's about the extent of it. Heh! In Praise of Close-Mindedness (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/close-minded.html)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
In Praise of Close-Mindedness (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~kovar/close-minded.html)

Beautiful! A new link for my bookmarks.

That reminds me, I had a link toa study that shows people have no idea whether they're competent or not, due to lack of feedback (or ability to recognize said feedback). Anyone have a link to that?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by scribble
Beautiful! A new link for my bookmarks.

That reminds me, I had a link toa study that shows people have no idea whether they're competent or not, due to lack of feedback (or ability to recognize said feedback). Anyone have a link to that?

Was it called Unskilled and unaware of it (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html) ?

[SkepticalScience]

What are your thoughts to the latest follow up email from my coworker:

------------------BEGIN EMAIL------------------

HELLO AGAIN!

Sorry time does not permit me to respond to each of your detail points right at present, but
the gist of my counter-argument is:

'Sane, honest, intelligent, and learned' doesn't mean they're 'right', only that their reports deserve to be heard
and objectively considered when forming a conclusion. By and large atheists are no more inclined to do this
than believers are inclined to give atheists a fair hearing (thus I say, 'same coin').
Recall, I accused atheists of 'categorically exclud(ing)' the testimony, which Raelians notwithstanding,
they have no (scientific) right to do. Thus, I come full circle and say that atheists are as far away from objective/scientific
inquiry as are believers ….

Also - I'm wondering if you'll agree to the following statement?

--- 'I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists'.

------------------END EMAIL------------------

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
What are your thoughts to the latest follow up email from my coworker:

------------------BEGIN EMAIL------------------

HELLO AGAIN!

Sorry time does not permit me to respond to each of your detail points right at present, but
the gist of my counter-argument is:

'Sane, honest, intelligent, and learned' doesn't mean they're 'right', only that their reports deserve to be heard
and objectively considered when forming a conclusion. By and large atheists are no more inclined to do this
than believers are inclined to give atheists a fair hearing (thus I say, 'same coin').
Recall, I accused atheists of 'categorically exclud(ing)' the testimony, which Raelians notwithstanding,
they have no (scientific) right to do. Thus, I come full circle and say that atheists are as far away from objective/scientific
inquiry as are believers ….

Also - I'm wondering if you'll agree to the following statement?

--- 'I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists'.

------------------END EMAIL------------------

First of all it sounds as if your co-worker has fixed an image of what atheists think and how they respond to evidence that he is unwilling to give up, dewspite what atheists themselves say.

Secondly his comment " Recall, I accused atheists of 'categorically exclud(ing)' the testimony, which Raelians notwithstanding,
they have no (scientific) right to do" shows a real misunderstanding of what science is and how it works. Science does not concern itself with 'testimony', it is concerened with direct and verifiable evidence, which is a different thing altogether. That really is the crux of hte atheist position, IMO.

As for his last statement "I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists", all I can say is this. I am also not absolutely certain whether or not 22 Red will come up next time I spin a roulette wheel, nonetheless I am not stopping by the casino after work to bet my life savings on it. Why then would I bet my life by devoting it to a diety whose existance is even less certain than the spin of a roulette wheel?

[Phil]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
. . . . the gist of my counter-argument is:

'Sane, honest, intelligent, and learned' doesn't mean they're 'right', only that their reports deserve to be heard and objectively considered when forming a conclusion.
They have been heard, objectively considered, and categorically dismissed.

Again, I think it is very difficult to get some people to understand why anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
By and large atheists are no more inclined to do this than believers are inclined to give atheists a fair hearing (thus I say, 'same coin').
Recall, I accused atheists of 'categorically exclud(ing)' the testimony, which Raelians notwithstanding, they have no (scientific) right to do. Thus, I come full circle and say that atheists are as far away from objective/scientific inquiry as are believers ….

I don't know what a 'scientific right' is, but your friend may be correct. In many circumstances, atheists may be as far away from objective/scientific inquiry as believers. But that merely speaks to the flawed nature of humans in general. It has absolutely no bearing on whether there is evidence for god.

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Also - I'm wondering if you'll agree to the following statement?

--- 'I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists'.

In science, there are no absolutes, but I've seen nothing to make me believe god does exist.

[Anathema]

He again implies that atheists form their conclusions in a vacuum. He goes on to suggest each report of each SHIL deserves to be fully hashed-out and thoughtfully addressed, as if it is a unique and worthy gem of possibility. Ardor and sincerity of the bleever do nothing to enhance the argument, and give it no additional authority.

He apparently is unacquainted with the reams of rebuttal to Tired Arguments Presented a Zillion Times by Loving Adherents. He has a lot of homework to do before he can even attempt useful generalizations on the scientific objectivity of "atheists".

The "gist" of his counter-argument suggests he hasn't absorbed much of what you've said. In fact, it's a sloppy pile of sheeet. Hopefully, as he fleshes out his promised point-for-point" response, he'll come to realize this...

[scribble]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Was it called Unskilled and unaware of it (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html) ?

Yes, it was! You're my hero!!

[Kopji]

Ask your friend if he would still believe in God if he were the only person in the whole world who did. This is the essence of true faith.

Could Abraham have used this 'quantity' argument? Could Moses? Could Jesus? Mohammad?
It is intellectually dishonest.

And why then, with the same evidence, would that same argument not apply to the conviction of an atheist?

But maybe faith itself is evidence of things unseen.

If faith is a kind of evidence or true knowledge, what behavior does faith promote? We say that faith promotes love, kindness, peacefulness, etc. But we also see that faith promotes hatred, intolerance, distrust, and violence. This 'faith evidence' is then a fallacy of the 'True Scotsman' sort, where we only count the good fruits, and are blind to the bad. Faith only stands as evidence if we are willing to ignore results that do not fit our expectations.

[phildonnia]

It's easy to find examples of things that millions of sane, logical educated people believe that are demonstrably wrong.

For example:
1. Carl Sagan used the phrase "billions and billions".
2. "Dragnet" used the tagline "Just the facts, maam"
3. Dan White asserted the "twinkie defense".
4. US Soldiers were being attacked by insurgents in Germany after WWII.

... and so on.

To believe these things does not make one stupid or illogical. It simply makes one wrong, which is no shame. But the point is, we cannot accept a principle that "widespread belief implies truth", with so many counterexamples present.

[Anathema]

If he keeps up the shenanigans, attach this to the next email:

:D

[Eleatic Stranger]

One thing I always point out in response to points about millions of people having observed or experienced God is that those experiences qua experiences of God are always deeply questionable. It is rarely profitable to question whether or not someone has had a certain experience - however whether or not that experience is an experience of God (even leaving aside whether or not God actually exists - as after all, experiences are deeply misleading things at times) is up for questioning.

For example: my grandmother is a learned, sane, honest, and intelligent woman. Reasonably well into her life (though well before I showed up) she had a serious medical issue in the course of which she experienced a floating sensation, a sense of great peace, and the knowledge that - despite the fact that she was near death - everything was going to be all right. This (religious) experience was of great importance to her and is now part of the bedrock of her faith.

Of course, the experience that she had is also perfectly straightforwardly a case of severe shock, and given her situation was a fairly obvious sort of thing to be feeling. Nevertheless, she rejected that explanation in favor of an explanation in religious terms despite being a registered nurse at the time. (I am under strict familial obligation never to remind her of this when she brings it up.)

Despite being perfectly sane, honest, intelligent and learned, there is a deeply human urge to interpret certain things in ways that give them religious significance. This does not necessarily mean that they count as experiences of God, or even religious experiences qua anything more than a regular experience rephrased in religious words and hence given extra significance.

Even the most intelligent sane honest people among us sometimes want to interpret things in a more reassuring way, and given that they as often as not do. One of the best reasons to reject religion, in my opinion, and one of the most impressive things about human beings in general is that with great regularity we in fact do not do this, and manage to resist interpreting events in ways that are both flattering and reassuring, even in times where we are greatly in need of reassurance, in favor of truth and reasonable standards of interpretation.

[Selvedge]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

Also - I'm wondering if you'll agree to the following statement?

--- 'I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists'.

------------------END EMAIL------------------

Before you say yes or no to your correspondent on this one, it would be good to ask him what he means by "God."

For example, if "God" means "a being who created the earth in six days four thousand years ago" then you might in fact be absolutely certain that no such being exists, since all evidence shows that that's not how the earth came into existence.

If "God" means "an all-powerful, all-benevolent being" then again you might feel that the existence of pointless suffering in the world absolutely rules out the existance of such a being, etc.

If he wants you to admit to being open to the existence of something, he needs to define what that something is, especially since "God" has been defined in so many different ways. Otherwise it's a bit like he's saying "admit that you're not absolutely certain gzzzzntz doesn't exist," without explaining what he thinks "gzzzzntz" is.

[SkepticalScience]

So to my coworkers last email, I replied with the following:


-------------------------------------BEGIN EMAIL----------------------------
Thanks for the response.

I do not agree with your counter argument.

Here’s why:

Your write: “. . . . the gist of my counter-argument is: 'Sane, honest, intelligent, and learned' doesn't mean they're 'right', only that their reports deserve to be heard and objectively considered when forming a conclusion.�

I respond that most all of them HAVE been heard, objectively considered, and then categorically dismissed by atheists and most scientists.

You also write: " Recall, I accused atheists of 'categorically exclud(ing)' the testimony, which Raelians notwithstanding, they have no (scientific) right to do"

I think it’s important to note that science does not concern itself with testimony – it is concerned with direct and verifiable evidence. These are two completely separate things, and is really the heart of the atheist position.

As for your last statement "I admit that I'm not absolutely certain as to whether or not God exists", all I can say is that in science, there is no such thing as absolutes, but atheists as a whole have yet to see anything to make them think that god exists.

Also, do you agree with this statement?

- ‘I admit that I am not ABSOLUTLEY CERTAIN that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now.�
-------------------------------END EMAIL--------------------------------



To which he has responded:





------------------BEGIN EMAIL------------------------------------------
Here are my responses:

> I think it’s important to note that science does not concern itself with testimony.

In fact, science does. We see a practical application of science everyday in courts of law as judges, juries, and lawyers attempt to get at the truth. That is, of course, why they have rules for admissibility, which include whether or not a given piece of evidence has what's called 'probative value'. Testimony is evidence and is the most important evidence. No physical evidence is even admissible without testimony. 'Officer, you state that you found the murder weapon wedged under the defendant's mattresses, is that correct?' "Yes, your honor". And so on.

> I respond that most all of them HAVE been heard, objectively considered, and then categorically dismissed by atheists and most scientists.

I'd argue that most all of them have not been heard, and few have been objectively considered. Have you considered the religious experience 'Joe' had the other night while staring at the stars from his back deck? Or the experience 'Sally' described as she held her new born infant for the first time? Multiply that times ten billion and and you have an idea of the amount of evidence atheists must 'categorically dismiss' without consideration
- every day.

And again I ask: Dismissed on what basis? Your earlier answer that religious testimony cannot be distinguished from claims about invisible birds or leprechauns is not convincing precisely because no such body of testimony about invisible birds/leprechauns exists. If there were millions of reports to that effect from credible witnesses, we'd have to give it serious consideration, but there isn't.

A word about scientists: It so happens that I grew up close to the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab and used to know quite a few physicists and mathematicians, and am still close friends with a somewhat famous mathematician (PhD Princeton), anyway he is credited with having invented an important theorem (Powers of regular cardinals). My experience with this group does not bear out your claim that most scientists have rejected the religious testimony out of hand, not to mention that the argument does not hinge solely or even primarily upon the testimony of others, but moreso upon ones own assessment. If you run across any data to back up the implication that most scientists are atheists, or support atheist like conclusions, I'd like to see it. That would run contrary to my experience with this group. My experience shows them for the most part to be,
rigorously open-minded and filled with awe, wonder, and uncertainty about the 'big' issues we've been discussing. Early on they mastered a challenge that still eludes most atheists: the ability to simply utter the words ... 'I really don't know'.


>- ‘I admit that I am not ABSOLUTLEY CERTAIN that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now.�


I will happily revise my challenge to you:

Will you accept the following revised statement:

- 'I admit that I'm not certain as to whether or not God exists'.
------------------------------------------------END EMAIL-----------------

[RussDill]

> I think it’s important to note that science does not concern itself with testimony.

In fact, science does. We see a practical application of science everyday in courts of law as judges, juries, and lawyers attempt to get at the truth. That is, of course, why they have rules for admissibility, which include whether or not a given piece of evidence has what's called 'probative value'. Testimony is evidence and is the most important evidence. No physical evidence is even admissible without testimony. 'Officer, you state that you found the murder weapon wedged under the defendant's mattresses, is that correct?' "Yes, your honor". And so on.


I would tell the guy that you aren't going to exchange emails with him if he isn't going to be serious. The topic was individuals or groups advising science. He changed it to science advising laws, and then to officer bob advising law. What does officer bob advising a courtroom have to do with the topic? That is a very specific type of testimony, and not the original topic.

Anyway, the officer's statement would have been backed up by crime scence photos, forensic evidence, etc.

Please tell him to stick to the originally intended meaning of testimony, not to meander.


> I respond that most all of them HAVE been heard, objectively considered, and then categorically dismissed by atheists and most scientists.

I'd argue that most all of them have not been heard, and few have been objectively considered. Have you considered the religious experience 'Joe' had the other night while staring at the stars from his back deck? Or the experience 'Sally' described as she held her new born infant for the first time? Multiply that times ten billion and and you have an idea of the amount of evidence atheists must 'categorically dismiss' without consideration
- every day.


Yes, and guess what, from around the world, religious experiences conflict. Some will say they saw muhammad, some will say they felt jesus's precense, some will say they were able to levitate, etc, etc, etc. The religious experience always becomes, or be interpreted as whatever the person believes.

So on one hand, we have an explaination that isn't proven, that conflicts. On the other hand, we have a neouroligcal explanation that fits the situation perfectly, with no conflict.


And again I ask: Dismissed on what basis? Your earlier answer that religious testimony cannot be distinguished from claims about invisible birds or leprechauns is not convincing precisely because no such body of testimony about invisible birds/leprechauns exists. If there were millions of reports to that effect from credible witnesses, we'd have to give it serious consideration, but there isn't.


if millions of people believed in little green men, then there would be millions of reports to that effect from credible witnesses, and we'd have to give it serious consideration. Oh, wait, there are millions of people who believe they have been contacted by aliens, and describe their encounter the same way someone describes a religious experience. I would say, wow, what a coincidence, but I know its just the devil trying to blind them.


A word about scientists: It so happens that I grew up close to the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Lab and used to know quite a few physicists and mathematicians, and am still close friends with a somewhat famous mathematician (PhD Princeton), anyway he is credited with having invented an important theorem (Powers of regular cardinals). My experience with this group does not bear out your claim that most scientists have rejected the religious testimony out of hand, not to mention that the argument does not hinge solely or even primarily upon the testimony of others, but moreso upon ones own assessment. If you run across any data to back up the implication that most scientists are atheists, or support atheist like conclusions, I'd like to see it. That would run contrary to my experience with this group. My experience shows them for the most part to be,
rigorously open-minded and filled with awe, wonder, and uncertainty about the 'big' issues we've been discussing. Early on they mastered a challenge that still eludes most atheists: the ability to simply utter the words ... 'I really don't know'.


A good number of people who are athiests don't really talk about it, and christians assume that they are christians, since they don't behave all *evil*. Survey people and ask them if they think certain people are christians, or athiests, like, say, douglas adams. They already get enough "we're praying for you to return to the flock" crap from their family, they don't need it at work. Especially when people make negative comments about athiests, and visibly think less about people when they know they are an athiest.


>- ‘I admit that I am not ABSOLUTLEY CERTAIN that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now.�


I will happily revise my challenge to you:

Will you accept the following revised statement:

- 'I admit that I'm not certain as to whether or not God exists'.

grasping for straws. The next stage is pascal's wager.

BTW, you might want to point him to http://ebonmusings.com/athiesm It might be usefull to pick out a few articles for him, like ghost in the machine.

[Phil]

Originally posted by RussDill


Anyway, the officer's statement would have been backed up by crime scence photos, forensic evidence, etc.

Yes. And no one has ever been convicted because the cop took the stand and said, "Well no, I can't verify it in any way, but lots of really SHIL cops think he did it."

Originally posted by RussDill
Yes, and guess what, from around the world, religious experiences conflict. Some will say they saw muhammad, some will say they felt jesus's precense, some will say they were able to levitate, etc, etc, etc. The religious experience always becomes, or be interpreted as whatever the person believes.

So on one hand, we have an explaination that isn't proven, that conflicts. On the other hand, we have a neouroligcal explanation that fits the situation perfectly, with no conflict.

Not to mention that the handful of "religious experiences" that are universal in general terms (NDE, spiritual well-being, possessions, etc.) have been shown over and over to have natural explanations. But believers will always find something that makes them stand up and shout, "Explain that, science!". And as we've established there are billions of believers in the world. There simply comes a point where science has to just say, "Your story has grown tiresome. I can't waste any more time or resources playing with you."

Originally posted by RussDill
A good number of people who are athiests don't really talk about it, and christians assume that they are christians, since they don't behave all *evil*. Survey people and ask them if they think certain people are christians, or athiests, like, say, douglas adams. They already get enough "we're praying for you to return to the flock" crap from their family, they don't need it at work. Especially when people make negative comments about athiests, and visibly think less about people when they know they are an athiest.
True. And also once again, the fact that there are some scientists who are believers has no bearing whatsoever on whether there's a god. That's the beauty of science. When done properly, the biases of the purveyors are rendered moot. Every scientist in the world could be a fundamentalist Christian, and if they're doing good science, their conclusions won't vary from what we see now.

[SkepticalScience]

Excellent points everyone.

Here is my response:

-----------------------------------------BEGIN EMAIL------------------------
Hey Hey -

Thanks for continuing to civilly explore this topic with me - without resorting to calling me a “heathen�, “infidel� or “too close minded to discuss this topic�.

I appreciate that.

Here are my point by point rebuttals.

For starters, here is a comprehensive study done on religiosity and scientists. The conclusion of the study is that the overwhelming majority of scientists express “personal disbelief� in god. Here is the article: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html .

You can click the PDF article at the bottom, to see the exact way it appeared in print – in case you think that this site might be a hoax. I have read at least 10 or so other studies just like this one - this is just the one I remember off the top of my head. The conclusions of these independent studies tend to show pretty much the same results – that of the scientists polled, the overwhelming majority have atheistic positions.

On testimony. I argue that testimony, BY ITSELF, is not evidence. Testimony needs corroborating evidence. So the officers statements would have had to have been backed up by crime scene photos, forensic evidence, etc. The courts aren’t just going to take the officers word! What kind of system would we have then?? Imagine if a police officer could just say, “I saw Bob Browning dispose of Laci Perterson’s body� – and because the police officer has not a single blemish on his record, and because you have had a few speeding tickets – the court finds you guilty. Anecdotes BY THEMSELVES are unreliable.

I respond to your argument about Sally’s and Joe’s experience by saying that religious experiences conflict. Some say they felt Jesus’ presence , some say they saw Muhammad, some say they levitate, etc.

No one is saying that Sally and Joe didn’t have amazing wonderful experiences, or that these people who felt Jesus or Muhammad’s presence aren’t feeling something amazing. But those experiences BY THEMSELVES aren’t proof of a God. All we can say for sure is that these people have had amazing experiences. We can also say that they BELIEVE these experiences were the result of the supernatural – but their beliefs aren’t evidence. Their experiences could have been the result of higher hormonal levels in the brain caused by the excitement of birth – which they have never experienced before. So on one hand, we have an explanation that isn't proven, that conflicts. On the other hand, we have a neurological explanation that fits the situation perfectly, with no conflict. What is more reasonable to believe??

The handful of "religious experiences" that are universal in general terms (Near Death Experiences, spiritual well-being, possessions, etc.) have been shown over and over to have natural explanations. But believers will always find something that makes them stand up and shout, "Explain that, science!". And as we've established there are billions of believers in the world. There simply comes a point where science has to just say, " Based on your complete lack of evidence except your testimony – and due to the fact that your experience sounds very similar to these other accounts, we simply do not have the time and money resources to spend on you too."

On your ‘dismissed on what basis’ point, I ask you – do you give serious consideration to the Flat Earth theory? There are millions of people who believe that the world is flat. Check out “The Flat Earth Society� (http://www.flat-earth.org/)

The reason science “dismisses� flat Earthers is because they have no evidence to back up their claims – and science has gathered up a lot of evidence counter to their claims. Check out their FAQ. They claim that the photos of earth are faked. If the Flat Earthers brought some tangible evidence, I am sure science would give them a fair shake. But all they have is testimony.

So in your opinion, what are scientists to do?? Do they now throw up their hands and say, ‘we need to evaluate each and every Flat Earther’s experience before we can rule out that the Flat Earth theory is invalid’ or do they continue on with the spherical earth model UNTIL and UNLESS the flat earthers provide some tangible evidence that corroborates their testimonies?

Sure, I can agree with your new revised statement. I am not absolutely certain whether or not God exists just like I am not absolutely certain that the world is Flat.

But please answer my question Bob. You can explain your positions after – but I need to hear your answers to the questions:

1. Will you accept the following statement: ‘I admit that I am not certain that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now with help from an alien being named ZoomBar’.
2. Would you like to have a court system where testimony is all that is needed to convict individuals?
3. Do scientists continue on with the spherical model of the earth UNTIL and UNLESS the flat earthers provide some tangible evidence that corroborates their testimonies or do they now say, ‘It’s possible that the world is flat, so we aren’t going to say the world is round anymore’.?
4. Do scientists say, ‘Because there are millions of scientologists that believe in Operating Theatans, we can’t be sure that people can’t move backwards and forwards through time and space without a body’.

Thanks!

---------------------------------END EMAIL---------------------------------

[RussDill]

I'm pretty sure that flat-earth.org is a joke, like dhmo.org. I would pick stuff that people really believe, despite continued evidedence to the contrary. Homeopathy is a great example, faked moon landing is another one.

[Anathema]

Also, be prepared for his Argumentum ad Numerum on your Elvis example. He gives credence to beliefs that large numbers of SHILs believe -- few people (fewer SHILs) believe Elvis theories.

The shoe on the other foot example given earlier might work: Moses/Abraham/other notables were outnumbered by non-believers --- did that make their "faith" any less worthy?

[SkepticalScience]

Good point RussDill - however, the flat earth society - amazingly - is very real.

I've met a flat earther before who fwd me to their page, and gave me some materials.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

[SkepticalScience]

Co-Workers Response:

Here are my answers!
1. Will you accept the following statement: ‘I admit that I am not certain that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now with help from an alien being named ZoomBar’.

No. The evidence that Elvis is dead is conclusive, meaning 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

2. Would you like to have a court system where testimony is all that is needed to convict individuals?

No. My point is that physical evidence notwithstanding, it would be impossible to convict or acquit anyone without testimony.

3. Do scientists continue on with the spherical model of the earth UNTIL and UNLESS the flat earthers provide some tangible evidence that corroborates their testimonies or do they now say, ‘It’s possible that the world is flat, so we aren’t going to say the world is round anymore’.?

No. The evidence that the earth is round is conclusive; again, beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Do scientists say, ‘Because there are millions of scientologists that believe in Operating Theatans, we can’t be sure that people can’t move backwards and forwards through time and space without a body’.

No, because there is an important qualitative difference between the claims being made.
The Operating Thetans are claiming to do something that the weight of the physical evidence indicates is impossible;
for instance walking through a wall. When 'Joe' returns from his starry perch and says "I really felt God spoke to me
tonight' there is nothing in the claim that contradicts the laws of physics or science. God may exist and he may
have spoken to Joe; there is nothing inherently impossible about that.

You and I are certain that Elvis is dead because the evidence is conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence regarding God's existence is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'd submit that not recognizing that is what makes atheism really just another form of religion.
Why? Because they claim certainty when there is none. And certainty, even false certainty,
brings peace of mind.

I suppose we've come full circle and will have to 'agree to disagree', but it certainly has been an enjoyable discussion!

[Anathema]

He's dense.

[Phil]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Co-Workers Response:

Here are my answers!
1. Will you accept the following statement: ‘I admit that I am not certain that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now with help from an alien being named ZoomBar’.

No. The evidence that Elvis is dead is conclusive, meaning 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

Don't believe your buddy understood your analogy. Seems he fails to see the parallel.

Originally posted by SkepticalScience


3. Do scientists continue on with the spherical model of the earth UNTIL and UNLESS the flat earthers provide some tangible evidence that corroborates their testimonies or do they now say, ‘It’s possible that the world is flat, so we aren’t going to say the world is round anymore’.?

No. The evidence that the earth is round is conclusive; again, beyond a reasonable doubt.

He's still not getting it.

Originally posted by SkepticalScience


4. Do scientists say, ‘Because there are millions of scientologists that believe in Operating Theatans, we can’t be sure that people can’t move backwards and forwards through time and space without a body’.

No, because there is an important qualitative difference between the claims being made.
The Operating Thetans are claiming to do something that the weight of the physical evidence indicates is impossible;

So he thinks the weight of physical evidence indicates that god exists, even though it's equally as scarce as that for the Thetans? How is he measuring the weight of physical evidence exactly? Apparently on a very biased scale.

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

When 'Joe' returns from his starry perch and says "I really felt God spoke to me tonight' there is nothing in the claim that contradicts the laws of physics or science. God may exist and he may have spoken to Joe; there is nothing inherently impossible about that.
So an invisible man with no voice box speaking doesn't contradict the laws of physics?

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
You and I are certain that Elvis is dead because the evidence is conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence regarding God's existence is not conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then why does he believe in god?

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

I'd submit that not recognizing that is what makes atheism really just another form of religion.
Why? Because they claim certainty when there is none. And certainty, even false certainty,brings peace of mind.


And I'd submit that your friend has no idea what atheism really is, and that he has real trouble understanding that science and religion are not direct opposites; that they are not even apples and oranges; that they are more like apples and Thursday.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Co-Workers Response:

Here are my answers!
1. Will you accept the following statement: ‘I admit that I am not certain that Elvis Presley isn’t alive and well advising the Bush administration right now with help from an alien being named ZoomBar’.

No. The evidence that Elvis is dead is conclusive, meaning 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.



Really, has your co-worker given short shrift to the testimony of the sane, intellignet, honest people who claim that he is flipping burgers at a Wendy's in Wisconsin? Can he really claim to have reviewed ALL the evidence that Elvis faked his death?

It seems that a 'reasonable doubt' is only reasonable when it fits his argument.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Good point RussDill - however, the flat earth society - amazingly - is very real.

I've met a flat earther before who fwd me to their page, and gave me some materials.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html

ok, then I don't think flat-earth.org is their real website:

"Yes. Beneath the Earth, or hanging off the edges, is a land populated by either green-skinned women or Nazis"

"There is a school of thought which states, however, that the Earth does not move through space, but rather that it rests on the back of a giant turtle, and that what we call gravity is, in fact, the turtle's animal magnetism."

"The Springfield Effect is the name given to the phenomenon by which every place named Springfield is hard-linked in hyperspace to every other place of this name. In other words, there is only one place named Springfield, but it is "linked" to various locations in the world."

"20. Does Idaho exist
No. The existence of Idaho is a lie, fabricated by a conspiracy of cartographers, as is England (see question 10).
21. What about North Dakota?
That doesn't exist either.
22. Any other places which are believed to exist but really don't?
Yes, Australia. And then there are the cryptogeographica, places such as Kadath, Carcosa, Hobbiton, Narnia, Hy-Brasil, Hell and such whose existence has not been satisfactorily proven."

"This FAQ was compiled by Lee Harvey Oswald Smith..."

If that isn't enough to show that the site, flat-earth.org is a joke, just check the registrar information on the domain. It is registered to a certain "Andrew Bulhak" in Melbourne Australia. You can google Andrew Bulhak if you like. If you are looking for an "official" flat earth page, this isn't it.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience

I suppose we've come full circle and will have to 'agree to disagree', but it certainly has been an enjoyable discussion!

like I said before, send him off to ebon musings, especially pages like http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html and http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html

[Matabiri]

Why are you so on the defensive in these posts? Ask him why he doesn't believe in Allah, or the Greek gods. Make him justify that position. Then hit him with the old, "I contend that we're both atheists, and when you understand why you reject all the other gods, you'll understand why I reject yours."

In other words, get him to analyse his own beliefs.

If he insists he's talking about a generalised "god", get him to specify (as suggested earlier) exactly what he means by that, without using the word "god".

[KingMerv00]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Really, has your co-worker given short shrift to the testimony of the sane, intellignet, honest people who claim that he is flipping burgers at a Wendy's in Wisconsin? Can he really claim to have reviewed ALL the evidence that Elvis faked his death?

It seems that a 'reasonable doubt' is only reasonable when it fits his argument.

I sense sarcasm about elvis in this thread.

Everyone knows elvis is alive and I am he. Hence "KING"Merv00.

Thnankyouverymuch.

[Stitch]

Very good but for a small point...

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
---snip---
Say a SHIL Christian and a SHIL Muslim get into a car accident. The Christian claims to have seen Christ wile he was in a Coma and the Muslim claims to have seen Mohammed. If they are both as honest and sincere as Mother Theresa, whom do you believe?

---snip---

According to the believers at least, both these prophets lived, breathed and walked this earth, as such they are not mutally exclusive.

However, I think to see the "Christian god" and "A hindu god" would cause more of an issue as for most christians at least there is only one god. Mind you if so why does god go on about being the 1 true god and that other gods must not be worshipped before him??

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Stitch
However, I think to see the "Christian god" and "A hindu god" would cause more of an issue as for most christians at least there is only one god. Mind you if so why does god go on about being the 1 true god and that other gods must not be worshipped before him??

The hindu "gods" are daemons, and thus perfectly consistent with Christian mythology...

Why is God referred to in the plural (in Hebrew) in the opening chapters of Genesis? Ah... the Trinity... So why is God singular elsewhere in the bible?

[Flo]

Originally posted by Matabiri Why is God referred to in the plural (in Hebrew) in the opening chapters of Genesis? Ah... the Trinity... So why is God singular elsewhere in the bible? [/B]

Nature conservation. Do you realise how many more pages would have been printed, and trees felled, had not all those s been suppressed ? ;)