Why ask for evidence?

[Paul of Tarsus]

Years ago I was debating a Christian who demanded that I present evidence for what I was saying to him. He agreed to concede I was right if I forked over that evidence. When I gave him the evidence he asked for, he broke his promise still refusing to concede I was right.

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them. It seems unlikely that anybody really wants evidence that will falsify what they want to believe, so why ask for that evidence? Based on my experiences with people like the Christian I mention above, the real purpose of demanding evidence in these debates is to try to trip up an ideological opponent hoping he does not have that evidence or that it will be difficult and time-consuming for him to offer it if he does have it.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Years ago I was debating a Christian who demanded that I present evidence for what I was saying to him. He agreed to concede I was right if I forked over that evidence. When I gave him the evidence he asked for, he broke his promise still refusing to concede I was right.

I imagine others have said this (though I have not read through the entire thread), perhaps the evidence was not as compelling as you thought. Or at the very least, not as compelling to him as it was to you.

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

Could be for the reason stated above.
Could be that they did not think such evidence existed, and they are not ready or willing to face it.

It seems unlikely that anybody really wants evidence that will falsify what they want to believe, so why ask for that evidence?

Some people want truth, even if it means that what they previously accepted as true is incorrect. Some people do not.

Based on my experiences with people like the Christian I mention above, the real purpose of demanding evidence in these debates is to try to trip up an ideological opponent hoping he does not have that evidence or that it will be difficult and time-consuming for him to offer it if he does have it.

I suspect it is more a challenge to produce evidence for a claim they know (or believe) to be false... and therefore, that person cannot actually have (good) evidence to support their claim. OR... they are genuinely perplexed as to someone's position, and want to see what it is they are basing their position upon. Examine it for themselves. Perhaps the person has misinterpreted; misunderstood.


Peace again to you.

[Paul of Tarsus]

Years ago I was debating a Christian who demanded that I present evidence for what I was saying to him. He agreed to concede I was right if I forked over that evidence. When I gave him the evidence he asked for, he broke his promise still refusing to concede I was right.

I imagine others have said this (though I have not read through the entire thread), perhaps the evidence was not as compelling as you thought. Or at the very least, not as compelling to him as it was to you.

The evidence I presented to him was conclusive. He simply refused to concede that evidence without explanation for his refusal.

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them.

Could be for the reason stated above.
Could be that they did not think such evidence existed, and they are not ready or willing to face it.

If the evidence is shaky for some reason, then the sensible thing to do is explain why the evidence is shaky. If the evidence is solid, then concede that the evidence is solid. If you think a cherished belief that you cannot let go of is about to be falsified by evidence, then beat a hasty retreat hoping that nobody notices.

Based on my experiences with people like the Christian I mention above, the real purpose of demanding evidence in these debates is to try to trip up an ideological opponent hoping he does not have that evidence or that it will be difficult and time-consuming for him to offer it if he does have it.

I suspect it is more a challenge to produce evidence for a claim they know (or believe) to be false... and therefore, that person cannot actually have (good) evidence to support their claim.

Yes. That's why I ask Christians who claim to commune with an all-knowing God to offer me some of that knowledge revealed to them by that God. I have yet to receive any such knowledge from them.

OR... they are genuinely perplexed as to someone's position, and want to see what it is they are basing their position upon. Examine it for themselves. Perhaps the person has misinterpreted; misunderstood.

These days information on almost any position related to Christian apologetics is readily available online. If any Christian or anybody else wants that information, then all they need to do is look it up. Most of the Christians and others I have debated don't bother to look up evidence for my position but are very active in finding what they want to believe.

[brunumb]

When I posted a link to what I think is a good YouTube video explaining why math is invented, one of my opponents said he refused to watch it.

I have encountered many posters who do not like to visit links presented to them. One reason is that they prefer arguments to be presented directly to them by the person they are engaging in discussion. It is not necessarily a matter of being closed minded.

[Paul of Tarsus]

When I posted a link to what I think is a good YouTube video explaining why math is invented, one of my opponents said he refused to watch it.

I have encountered many posters who do not like to visit links presented to them. One reason is that they prefer arguments to be presented directly to them by the person they are engaging in discussion. It is not necessarily a matter of being closed minded.

I basically did present the argument to this guy in my own words, but videos can help to clarify the argument because videos include visual information.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

A few years ago I was in what was called a "science forum." The people there were extremely rude and often cursed at and engaged in name-calling against those they disagreed with which included me, naturally. Those who did so included one of the moderators. Anyway, somebody there started a thread on whether math is invented or discovered, and I argued the view that math is invented. I soon realized I was in a forum full of math-is-discovered fundamentalists who could not tolerate the math-is-invented heresy, and I was reviled for my attempts to argue my case any evidence I posted ignored. One of them demanded that the thread be shut down, and the rather immoderate moderator was only so happy to comply with that demand for censorship.
...
...

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

I point the obserserver to previous challenges I've presented within this thread, where there's the reasonable notion our claimant here is proud to cook him up a goose, he just don't wanna fix him up a ganderful of em.

2nd challenge

I find this thread a fascinating study in "How come that'n there won't do it, what I myself refuse to do?"
Humans. A very intriguing mix of intellectual haughtiness, grandiose pride, and lack of self reflection.

"I'm handsome", said the resident dolt, JoeyKnothead.
"I challenge you to show you speak truth", said that'n there, atrying to determine the truth of the matter.
"Been told I look like Brad Pitt's dog", Joey proudly boasted, unaware of the self-own. Ya know, cause he's a dolt and all.


I propose we can learn a good bit in challenging claims on a debate site, regardless of how upset it makes folks to get em them challenged on em. Often it is, we don't learn us so much about the claims, but a whole heaping bunch about that'n there making em.

What's wrong with a "Well about that"?
Ever have an old lady? I can't count on all my seven fingers and toes how many times I hafta utter me that up just in a day.

Ain't no shame to it. Just fess up as to the nature of the claim, like so...
"Well about that, I know I said I was gonna take out the trash, but I saw a bear in the cans, and..."
"Well about that, squirrels and bears look an awful lot alike and..."
"Well about that, no they don't, but do you know what your sister said about that shirt you had on the other day"?

Ya can carry the well about that's all the way to eternity.

But ignoring challenges to your claims?

Well about that...

[AgnosticBoy]

Years ago I was debating a Christian who demanded that I present evidence for what I was saying to him. He agreed to concede I was right if I forked over that evidence. When I gave him the evidence he asked for, he broke his promise still refusing to concede I was right.

This experience prompts me to ask why anybody; Christian, atheist, or anybody else; demands evidence only to ignore or explain away that evidence once it becomes available to them. It seems unlikely that anybody really wants evidence that will falsify what they want to believe, so why ask for that evidence? Based on my experiences with people like the Christian I mention above, the real purpose of demanding evidence in these debates is to try to trip up an ideological opponent hoping he does not have that evidence or that it will be difficult and time-consuming for him to offer it if he does have it.

There can be many different reasons for rejecting someone's evidence other than the reason you gave. Perhaps what you think supports your view doesn't really do so. Perhaps your evidence is weak, esp. in comparison to the counter-evidence.

Interestingly I usually find Christians complaining about skeptics not accepting the evidence for some religious or supernatural claims. I tend to side with Christians because I also find that many skeptics are dismissive. Some don't even think scientists and others should even be looking into these matters. Such skepticism hinders knowledge.

[Paul of Tarsus]

There can be many different reasons for rejecting someone's evidence other than the reason you gave. Perhaps what you think supports your view doesn't really do so. Perhaps your evidence is weak, esp. in comparison to the counter-evidence.

Well, I guess I don't know the reason evidence is not accepted if the person who doesn't accept it doesn't bother to explain why. I think it's best to explain in detail whether evidence is convincing or not. I do so.

Interestingly I usually find Christians complaining about skeptics not accepting the evidence for some religious or supernatural claims.

That is correct. Apologists tend to get frustrated with skeptics and complain about them a lot. They don't seem to understand that nobody has a burden to believe them or agree with them.

I tend to side with Christians because I also find that many skeptics are dismissive.

That's correct too. It's human nature to be biased and to reject anything that supports an opposing viewpoint. I've found that an effective way of overcoming such bias is to argue for an opposing viewpoint rather than against it. It's amazing how you can see weaknesses in your own arguments and strengths in opposing arguments.

Some don't even think scientists and others should even be looking into these matters. Such skepticism hinders knowledge.

Rejecting new ideas can hinder the advancement of knowledge.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

A few years ago I was in what was called a "science forum." The people there were extremely rude and often cursed at and engaged in name-calling against those they disagreed with which included me, naturally. Those who did so included one of the moderators. Anyway, somebody there started a thread on whether math is invented or discovered, and I argued the view that math is invented. I soon realized I was in a forum full of math-is-discovered fundamentalists who could not tolerate the math-is-invented heresy, and I was reviled for my attempts to argue my case any evidence I posted ignored. One of them demanded that the thread be shut down, and the rather immoderate moderator was only so happy to comply with that demand for censorship.
...
...

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

I point the obserserver to previous challenges I've presented within this thread, where there's the reasonable notion our claimant here is proud to cook him up a goose, he just don't wanna fix him up a ganderful of em.

2nd challenge

I find this thread a fascinating study in "How come that'n there won't do it, what I myself refuse to do?"
Humans. A very intriguing mix of intellectual haughtiness, grandiose pride, and lack of self reflection.

"I'm handsome", said the resident dolt, JoeyKnothead.
"I challenge you to show you speak truth", said that'n there, atrying to determine the truth of the matter.
"Been told I look like Brad Pitt's dog", Joey proudly boasted, unaware of the self-own. Ya know, cause he's a dolt and all.


I propose we can learn a good bit in challenging claims on a debate site, regardless of how upset it makes folks to get em them challenged on em. Often it is, we don't learn us so much about the claims, but a whole heaping bunch about that'n there making em.

What's wrong with a "Well about that"?
Ever have an old lady? I can't count on all my seven fingers and toes how many times I hafta utter me that up just in a day.

Ain't no shame to it. Just fess up as to the nature of the claim, like so...
"Well about that, I know I said I was gonna take out the trash, but I saw a bear in the cans, and..."
"Well about that, squirrels and bears look an awful lot alike and..."
"Well about that, no they don't, but do you know what your sister said about that shirt you had on the other day"?

Ya can carry the well about that's all the way to eternity.

But ignoring challenges to your claims?

Well about that...

3rd challenge

It's just a crying shame our challenged claimant has just up and turned blind.

Y'all that pray, please do you a good bunch of it.

Y'all that challenge folks to show they speak truth,

Well about that!

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 10:

A few years ago I was in what was called a "science forum." The people there were extremely rude and often cursed at and engaged in name-calling against those they disagreed with which included me, naturally. Those who did so included one of the moderators. Anyway, somebody there started a thread on whether math is invented or discovered, and I argued the view that math is invented. I soon realized I was in a forum full of math-is-discovered fundamentalists who could not tolerate the math-is-invented heresy, and I was reviled for my attempts to argue my case any evidence I posted ignored. One of them demanded that the thread be shut down, and the rather immoderate moderator was only so happy to comply with that demand for censorship.
...
...

I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

1st challenge.

I point the obserserver to previous challenges I've presented within this thread, where there's the reasonable notion our claimant here is proud to cook him up a goose, he just don't wanna fix him up a ganderful of em.

2nd challenge

I find this thread a fascinating study in "How come that'n there won't do it, what I myself refuse to do?"
Humans. A very intriguing mix of intellectual haughtiness, grandiose pride, and lack of self reflection.

"I'm handsome", said the resident dolt, JoeyKnothead.
"I challenge you to show you speak truth", said that'n there, atrying to determine the truth of the matter.
"Been told I look like Brad Pitt's dog", Joey proudly boasted, unaware of the self-own. Ya know, cause he's a dolt and all.


I propose we can learn a good bit in challenging claims on a debate site, regardless of how upset it makes folks to get em them challenged on em. Often it is, we don't learn us so much about the claims, but a whole heaping bunch about that'n there making em.

What's wrong with a "Well about that"?
Ever have an old lady? I can't count on all my seven fingers and toes how many times I hafta utter me that up just in a day.

Ain't no shame to it. Just fess up as to the nature of the claim, like so...
"Well about that, I know I said I was gonna take out the trash, but I saw a bear in the cans, and..."
"Well about that, squirrels and bears look an awful lot alike and..."
"Well about that, no they don't, but do you know what your sister said about that shirt you had on the other day"?

Ya can carry the well about that's all the way to eternity.

But ignoring challenges to your claims?

Well about that...

3rd challenge

It's just a crying shame our challenged claimant has just up and turned blind.

Y'all that pray, please do you a good bunch of it.

Y'all that challenge folks to show they speak truth,

Well about that!

4th challenge.

I might need some of y'all to help me count. I'm pretty good up to 8 comes after 7, but after that it gets all fuzzy and I run out of fingers and toes.

Maybe I could get me a bucket, and put me a rock in it for each time I challenge these claims. Naw, that won't work if I hafta challenge these claims moren 8 times.

Ain't 8 a fascinating number. Ya might not know it, but it comes after 7 in the list. I swear to god. 6, then 7, then 8. 8's cool too, cause it kinda looks like infinity.

Y'all know infinity, it's how long we're apt to hafta wait for this claimant to take responsibility for their claims.

[Tcg]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #30]

In what I believe was Paul's first thread, I asked for verification of an alleged troublesome event as well:

[Replying to Paul of Tarsus in post #1]

Given that you still seem to be having trouble putting this incident behind you, it may be helpful if you provide a link to where this troublesome encounter took place. That way we can read what took place and provide specific advice on how to put it behind you.


Tcg

No link or any other verifiable evidence was ever provided.


Tcg