Atheists, why don't you realize that the notion of evidence is not black and white?

Question

Basically it is like that. I ask "Why do you totally reject X?". I am asking for some nuance. The atheist replies "There is no evidence at all." For example X = "awareness is at the basis of matter".

Practically speaking, all the evidence that each scientist personally has is only in books, authority of other scientists, etc. It is all based on trust. The logic is within your mind, but the basic evidence is not. I would be entitled to reject this evidence using the same argument that atheists use to reject evidence presented about life after death, etc.

I do trust more science than I trust other tradition of knowledge. The above was just an extreme position to explain that evidence always depends on trust, and it is always subjective. I cannot understand that someone would totally reject all accounts of the reality, etc. that we find elsewhere. There should be some nuance here. Things aren't back and white. "No evidence" is a very absolute answer, typical of a believer.

BLUETICK: Sure empirical evidence suits perfectly other traditions of knowledge than science. The issue is not empirical or not, it is the trust in the source of the evidence. That's it.

I can believe the answers I got. You are really believers. Here is a new dogma "No evidence outside the science institution." There is plenty of evidence in other traditions of knowledge. You are only saying that you don't trust it.

In fact, it is so bad that, even if some evidence presented by an other tradition of knowledge is verifiable through the scientific method, you still reject it because it looks like a cult, etc. Even if there are scientific papers supporting it, you think that they have been biased by "believers" in this other tradition. It is really an implicit dogma "If it comes from another tradition than the modern science institution, it is not valid."

Answer 1

I don't answer "There is no evidence".

I answer: "There can exist no evidence for that which is logically imposssible."

P.S. Look up "peer review"

Are you saying you don't trust ANYTHING unless you see it happen before your eyes? Or are you playing the "devil's advocate"?

Answer 2

First, my expertise of the Bible as a Christian Believer is diverse now than whilst i replaced into atheist, because of the fact the Holy Spirit supplies life to the notice you're interpreting, and you comprehend greater valuable. So whether an atheist might comprehend greater information (which interior the 1st place isn't a valid theory), the believer knows the notice eith tips from the Holy Spirit, mentioned as the instructor (seem it up,while you're an atheist you will possibly desire to comprehend the place the verse is, right?) 2d, atheists dont base their atheism on psychological potential or know-how, they base it on precisely the different, loss of openmindedness, loss of religion, loss of humility,..

Answer 3

I realize that techniquely no one can prove that other worldly beings do not exist. I do however have all of the evidence that I need or will ever need to prove that a loving god exist.

God is supposed to be omnipresent, omniscient. omnipotent and merciful. So if ''god'' is everywhere at the same time and has knowledge before hand that (for instance) some innocent child is about to be raped and has theunlimited power to stop it and does nothing that god is not just, kind,loving or merciful. If I believed in a omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent god I would hate him or her. So yes in my logical mind I know that the god of the bible does not exist. Any other kind of other worldly being would not be worthy of worship and I don't waste my time worrying about it.

If I were a omnipresent, omniscient. omnipotent god being I would also not have created a world full of disease, bacteria and natural disasters that would harm or kill that which I had created.

Answer 4

I cannot trust the source of evidence that is questionable from the very start. The scientists don't say, "Trust us, evolution is real." They provide proof... yes, empirical proof.

Believers say, "Just trust us, the bible and our faith is proof of god." Sorry, but L. Ron Hubbard said the same thing... his writings and his faith (questionable though it was) were proof of Xenon... and we all know that was a load.

And scientists don't just take each others word for it when they present material. It must be verified by other scientists, eyewitnesses and such. If you don't know that, there's nothing we can do to help you.

Answer 5

OK. I see nature everywhere. When I see something beautiful, I see some force of nature involved. When I see something 'miraculous', I see nature involved. We reject dictatorship and monotheism.
Christianity is unnatural (single males do not create life...unless a parallel universe exists) and a single ruler doesn't work out very well.
Therefore, I find the hypothesis of that religion very illogical and unrealistic. If you want/need more details, that would constitute all the gray areas. Keep reading. It should be no problem finding any.

Answer 6

I do realise.
The remainder of your question is confusing, though, and does ignore the fact that some evidence IS black and white. Quite a lot, in fact. Plus, much of your supposition is faulty, in that scientific evidence is NOT just in books or trusted work of other scientists. No. Any claims made by scientists must be proven before becoming acceptable as fact. Theories, such as evolution and BigBang are acceptable through their likelihood as a distinct possibility when compared to alternative suggestions, such as an invisible, silent wizard suddenly deciding to magic it all up.
Perhaps you need to rephrase your question?

Answer 7

Scientists are lying to each other...is that what you're saying?
You know science needs to be corroborated over and over again. It's a meticulous process guided by the scientific method.

And guess what? There is no evidence for any kind of supernatural supreme being.

Just because you don't know what the definition of evidence is or how science works doesn't make what you're saying true.

Answer 8

I really have a tough time understanding how it even matters if there is a god if he has no measurable effect on the Universe. That is what evidence is. If you know of some, please share.

And the rest of that you could use to believe in The Cat in the Hat if you wanted. I can't prove he isn't real, but that is a piss poor reason to believe it.

Answer 9

Try empirical evidence and see if that suits the situation better for you.

Answer 10

Really. Would you want to be convicted of murder based on "nuance" if you were innocent?

Let's put it this way....I have seen no evidence of an existance of a god.