Supreme source vs. Verifiable evidence

[Zzyzx]

.
Thanks to RW for suggesting this thread

It is obvious that you require evidence to support your beliefs.

Partially correct. I require verifiable evidence to support my conclusions and positions. I leave ‘beliefs’ to others and do not apply the term to myself.

Verifiable means that anyone interested and capable can consult and evaluate sources of supporting information.

What your evidence sources and reliability thereof are Is unknown to me.

I gladly supply sources to support positions that I state. If ever in doubt of the accuracy of my stated position, quote verbatim my statement with URL and ask for supporting evidence.

It is not uncommon, however, for debate opponents to attempt to credit me with positions that I have NOT taken / stated. I do not take kindly to such straw-man ‘arguments’. For instance, “Verifiable evidence has not been presented to support claims of knowledge of an afterlife� is sometimes interpreted as, “You said that the afterlife doesn’t exist� (which is a very different statement).

Or, “Miracle claims have not been shown, with verifiable evidence, to be anything other than imagination� is sometimes interpreted as “You said that miracles are imagination�. My response is “Learn to read more carefully.�

Or, “You say that god doesn’t exist�. I call attention to my signature which clearly states my position – that is NOT god denial.

What or who is your supreme source of indisputable evidence?

Perhaps it is difficult for a Theist to understand, but I have NO ‘supreme source�. I would consider myself very naive and gullible if I relied upon a ‘supreme source’.

Instead, regarding matters of importance, I consult multiple, disconnected sources. Consulting multiple sources minimizes relying on single or narrow sources. Disconnected means that the sources are separate from one another, represent different viewpoints, and are less likely to share biases.

Relying on single, narrow, connected sources risks accepting strongly biased information that represents vested interests and that is not balanced by different viewpoints. For instance, if considering the purchase of a new automobile it is unwise to consult only information provided by company salesmen and company literature. Instead, one can consult multiple testing organizations to verify or refute what is claimed by company representatives.

The same applies to ideas presented by promoters of any organization – including religion. When ‘support’ for claims and stories of flying carpets, winged horses, resurrecting bodies is nothing more than the tales themselves (company literature) and testimonials / sermons (salesmen), the position is demonstrated to be very weak (at best).

Is this source infallible?

I do not regard any source as infallible. Thus the importance of consulting multiple sources.

What does your source prove about life after death?

I take no position regarding the claimed ‘life after death’ – and see no reason to speculate on such matters in the absence of verifiable evidence. I say the same about origin of the universe and beginning of life – I leave the speculation to others; and often challenge those who claim knowledge of such things in debate.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Excellent reply to someone who has clearly jumped to numerous fallacious conclusions about positions you never even took.

I often wonder who these theists are debating with? They apparently make up fictitious debate opponents in their own minds and then act like the person they are debating with on the forums had taken those imagined positions.

Many theists wrongly conclude that just because they continually claim to know things that they cannot know that this automatically must apply to everyone.

[Zzyzx]

.

Many theists wrongly conclude that just because they continually claim to know things that they cannot know that this automatically must apply to everyone.

Projection seems common among those who BELIEVE what they have been told -- as though others must be inclined to behave like sheep.

[Tcg]

.

Many theists wrongly conclude that just because they continually claim to know things that they cannot know that this automatically must apply to everyone.

Projection seems common among those who BELIEVE what they have been told -- as though others must be inclined to behave like sheep.

This behavior also functions as a diversion. Rather than facing the deficiencies in one's argument, an attempt is made to deflect attention to the one pointing out the flaws.

Given that the attempted diversion is obvious to everyone, except the one attempting it, I suspect it is used not to divert the attention of the one pointing out the deficiencies, but of the one whose argument contains them. Diversion used not to distract others, but oneself from the exposed weakness in what supports one's foundational beliefs.


Tcg