Official Religious Debate Thread

[Smegma]

Jimmy won't be wrongfully accused. For this Fogelin stays, but Ms. Lansbury shall replace Aleph.

[excruciator]

So if my prints are on a murder victim, I must have killed him. You hardly explained how having someone TOUCH a vase means that they broke it. If the basis for the evidence requires belief then it does. You say so right here, how can it not?

Obviously there will be more to it if it was real.
That was just an example to show that material evidence does not require you believe that someone has done it or not, and nothing else.

Believing in something does not necessarily make the belief wrong.

[Smegma]

That was just an example to show that material evidence does not require you believe that someone has done it or not, and nothing else.

Except that example falls short in many instances, as already shown. Fingerprints, even if on there, are not "direct" evidence. As whether or not Jimmy's prints were on the vase, he could have still broken it.

Believing in something does not necessarily make the belief wrong.

Of course, it just mean you are missing parts for knowledge.

[excruciator]

Except that example falls short in many instances, as already shown. Fingerprints, even if on there, are not "direct" evidence. As whether or not Jimmy's prints were on the vase, he could have still broken it.

Sure, but not what my example was designed to show.
Physical evidence is quite direct.

You arguing possibilities, which are endless, and very unlikely. I'm not sure I care about those.

[Smegma]

Sure, but not what my example was designed to show.
Physical evidence is quite direct.

You arguing possibilities, which are endless, and can be very unlikely, I'm not sure I care about those.

Yes, it was designed to show something but did not. Especially in this case, the possibilities given are extremely likely!

I'm not sure Christians care about their lack of justification either.

[excruciator]

Yes, it was designed to show something but did not.

I thought I made this clear but I clearly didn't.
You have to explain again.

Especially in this case, the possibilities given are extremely likely!

Yes, you touch your vase randomly and hours later it breaks for unknown reason. Very likely. In fact, it has happened!

[Smegma]

I thought I made this clear but I clearly didn't.
You have to explain again.

It didn't show that there was direct evidence because I've given many many reason (all in your frame) and not even begun to exhaust other reasons which all your cases almost will always fall on.

Yes, you touch your vase randomly and hours later it breaks for unknown reason. Very likely. In fact, it has happened!

I bet the mother dusted it too, maybe someone bumped into it by accident, maybe the house was broken into, or maybe the dog bumped the table, or maybe an earthquake in the area did it. Possibly a friend could have come over and done it. Lots of things can happen, and if anything, basing an accusation simply on the fingerprints is not just belief, its biased.

[excruciator]

It didn't show that there was direct evidence because I've given many many reason (all in your frame) and not even begun to exhaust other reasons which all your cases almost will always fall on.

You missed the point. You don't have to believe in how incriminated the suspect is for material evidence to become evidence. That's all there is to it.
Wasn't arguing about direct evidence or whatever you were looking at.

Just agree or disagree. And why.

I bet the mother dusted it too, maybe someone bumped into it by accident, maybe the house was broken into, or maybe the dog bumped the table, or maybe an earthquake in the area did it. Possibly a friend could have come over and done it. Lots of things can happen, and if anything, basing an accusation simply on the fingerprints is not just belief, its biased.

Obviously there will be more to it if it was real.

[Smegma]

You missed the point. You don't have to believe in how incriminated the suspect is for material evidence to become evidence.

But we've already said its QUITE possible that the perp didn't have to touch the vase to break it! The finger prints mean nothing but its possible that he broke it, in which case if he didn't touch it he still could have broken it.

Just agree or disagree. And why.

I have, you just keep saying that prints = perp, when its quite obviously not true! Get some better justification and I might play a bit harder.

Obviously there will be more to it if it was real.

It must be nice to set up a case for the apparent world were you can exclude commonplace occurrences to increase certainty and therefore approach the eradication belief.

[excruciator]

But we've already said its QUITE possible that the perp didn't have to touch the vase to break it! The finger prints mean nothing but its possible that he broke it, in which case if he didn't touch it he still could have broken it.

At this point, you are not believing in how incriminating the perp is, but how fingerprint is firm enough of an evidence or not.

Again, we might not be on the same page, but the example was showing the first, not latter. And if I'm correct, you are talking about the latter.

[Smegma]

You are talking about how the perp is incriminated by the evidence? So am I! And because he is incriminated by the evidence, which is nowhere near as solid as you'd like it to be, he is barely a criminal. I am talking about the evidence because the whole point was to show direct evidence, and this did not.

[excruciator]

You are placing belief in how evidence is good enough or not. Which is different than whatever we were on earlier, how I can sense God only if I believe in that I can sense God first. Which is having faith in the matter itself.

See the difference?

[Smegma]

You are placing belief in how evidence is good enough or not. Which is different than whatever we were on earlier, how I can sense God only if I believe in that I can sense God first. Which is having faith in the matter itself.

See the difference?

How  can I know jimmy broke the vase without believing he broke the vase in the first place? You can't, ever, because knowledge requires belief.

Its the same thing, whether you place belief in the incrimination of jimmy, or the evidence, but belief is being based it both. Whether you like it or not.

EDIT: This sensing of God can be attributed to many beliefs, even atheist. So clearly,  this is analog. One can still sense God, but not believe in God, so they will not attribute such an experience to God. Now, this is like the fingerprint. I can sense it, but its not adequate justification to prove a God, yet it falls in the same type of "knowledge" as the fingerprint.

[excruciator]

Same thing? How so.

Someone with neutral point of view in the matter(as in, he have no idea who did it, but believing in science which is the foundation of the justice nowdays) would see one of the things above as evidence, and the other one to be nothing.
And correct me if am wrong, but usually a fair judge is one that is not inclined to either point of view.

[Smegma]

EDIT: This sensing of God can be attributed to many beliefs, even atheist. So clearly,  this is analog. One can still sense God, but not believe in God, so they will not attribute such an experience to God. Now, this is like the fingerprint. I can sense it, but its not adequate justification to prove a God, yet it falls in the same type of "knowledge" as the fingerprint.

would see one of the things above as evidence,

Well clearly it is evidence, it just isn't DIRECT. However, the evidence still does require belief to call it such, as much as the criminal needs believe in the incrimination to incriminate him.

[excruciator]

This sensing of God can be attributed to many beliefs, even atheist. So clearly,  this is analog. One can still sense God, but not believe in God, so they will not attribute such an experience to God. Now, this is like the fingerprint. I can sense it, but its not adequate justification to prove a God, yet it falls in the same type of "knowledge" as the fingerprint.

You have a point there, however I think a bias directly towards the matter at hand is different than bias toward what do you consider to be a fair indicator.

as much as the criminal needs believe in the incrimination to incriminate him.

I have no idea what do you mean by this.

[Smegma]

I have no idea what do you mean by this.

You 1) Require belief in the evidence of a fingerprint for it to be known and 2) Require belief that Jimmy did it for him to be incriminate. Just like the God analog (accept one is way more mundane).

You have a point there, however I think a bias directly towards the matter at hand is different than bias toward what do you consider to be a fair indicator.

Sure, when you deal in the apparent world, going with percentages is fine. However, in this realm we can't just exclude all possibilities, otherwise you are using the same faith which you chastise religious people for.

[excruciator]

2) Require belief that Jimmy did it for him to be incriminate.

I fail to see how this is required.
If I believed that Jimmy did it, I would not need the evidence to incriminate him.

Same with other point, if I believed that fingerprints are good enough to incriminate, I would not need to believe that Jimmy did it beforehand to incriminate him.

Sure, when you deal in the apparent world, going with percentages is fine. However, in this realm we can't just exclude all possibilities, otherwise you are using the same faith which you chastise religious people for.

We live in different worlds then.

Sure everything is possible, but by many atheists standards, the fact that God does not exist is well beyond the shadow of doubt. Some people just cast a longer shadow.

I just don't believe that some of the possibilities are worth mentioning.

[Smegma]

If I believed that Jimmy did it, I would not need the evidence to incriminate him.

I was assuming incrimination required knowledge, and therefore justification. Of course, its humanly possible to incriminate with only belief, but I sure hope we dont succumb to such lax requirements here.

Same with other point, if I believed that fingerprints are good enough to incriminate, I would not need to believe that Jimmy did it beforehand to incriminate him.

Even after you justify your evidence, you would still need to believe jimmy did it to "incriminate" him. Just as in you need to believe in God to be religious. Surely, we aren't arguing with human errors to try and define our truth.

We live in different worlds then.

Sure everything is possible, but by many atheists standards, the fact that God does not exist is well beyond the shadow of doubt. Some people just cast a longer shadow.

I just don't believe that some of the possibilities are worth mentioning.

When you want to define apparent truths, neglecting odd claims are perfectly fine! Science is wonderful and certainly has given great insight to this reality and can achieve much more. However, the moment you step foot in these threads, these realities, is the moment you have no more bearing on truth, lest you be on the same level for the same reason you criticize the religious. You require just as much faith as most religious people.

Sure everything is possible, but by many atheists standards, the fact that God does not exist is well beyond the shadow of doubt.

By many theists standards, God does exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. This means shit to me. Your standards are just another word for beliefs.

[Veritas]

Man, this analogy has been stretched way too far.