I think what is hanging you up Enlightenmentliberal is that you are confusing circular logic with accepting evidence that “works”, for lack of a better term.

If you follow any piece of evidence (or set of evidences) down to its most basic form, you have to either accept that it is what it is, or reject the obvious. The difference between using the bible in this way or ACTUAL evidence is that when you follow the bible down to the most basic support for it…you find there IS no support for it. When you follow the evidence for demonstrable things down to its most basic forms, you simply find that lots of things that appear to exist also appear to support each other in verifiable, reproducible, falsifiable, and predictive ways that are all useful and have explanatory power as time goes on. The bible doesn’t have anything like that.

Exactly!

If my neighbor is murdered with a gun, the police don’t come to my house and ask me if I have a trigger finger, and when I say, “Sure,” arrest me for murder. The only evidence that the murder weapon gives is how my neighbor was murdered–not who did it.

But if we only consider this as data USED to support a position, the police could decide that a ghost with a trigger finger killed my neighbor. Or aliens with a trigger tentacle. Or maybe the devil appeared and shot my neighbor. Or maybe the gun just decided it didn’t like my neighbor very much and killed him. I can USE that evidence to support ANY of those claims…but they don’t ACTUALLY support any of those claims because we have no examples of ghosts killing people with guns, or aliens with trigger tentacles, or devils who appear randomly and shoot people.

If the police find my fingerprints on the gun, THEN they have verifiable, reproducible, predictive, and falsifiable evidence that I touched the gun. Does that in itself mean I’m the killer? It makes it very probable, but more evidence must be gathered that ACTUALLY supports that conclusion.

If we are to think of “evidence” as simply something USED to support a conclusion…we might as well throw out all evidence we’ve ever used as useless because it would be just as valid to say the devil put my fingerprints on that gun, and tracked my shoe prints in blood across the crime scene, and made my image appear on a security camera leaving the house at the time of the murder. Or maybe aliens did those things. Certainly that is a more reasonable conclusion than me being a murderer, and anyone who claims this isn’t a reasonable conclusion must be biased or uncivil or just plain (unfairly) hate me.

“Disbelief” does not mean you think the claim is false. It means you think the claim has not been demonstrated true, so you give it no truth value.

When someone asks you if you believe it, and you say “no”, it DOES NOT MEAN you believe it is FALSE…and not believing it is false does not mean you believe it is true, either. You are not required to have a belief about things that have not been demonstrated, and “lacking a belief” is NOT A BELIEF. Atheism’s only requirement is that one lacks a belief in gods.

Lacking a belief is not a belief, by definition.

If you don’t understand that, then try driving a “lack of a car” down the street, eating a “lack of food”, or buying things with a “lack of money”. The analogy is a one to one correspondence.

Lacking a belief = not a belief.

I’ve been thinking about this for hours. Thank you for making me think about this. I’ll spare you the details (unless asked), but I think the clutch problem is as follows.

1- Definition: You define a “useful guide” along the lines of “a simple, computable method which produces expectations of future sensory experience, and whose results are (weakly) verifiable by the methods of science”.
2- Claim: You argue that we should use “useful guides” to help shape our actions, to determine which methods are effective (under the above definition) at achieving our desired goals.

I agree fully. I think anyone who honestly and knowingly disagrees ought to be called clinically insane.

What would you say to someone who disagrees? Let’s assume just a modicum of coherency and say that they accept the choice of terms as you defined them, namely “useful guide” (and “effective”). However, they do not accept the claim that they should use “useful guides” to shape their actions, to determine private and public policy. Instead, they argue that one should use the bible. Or as more common perhaps, they argue that the bible should be paramount, and “useful guides” should be at best a supplement. What then?

I don’t think there’s a possible “logical” reply. The hypothetical theist and myself lack sufficient common ground for me to make any possible “logical” argument to the contrary. The best I could do is point out probable hypocrisy – that the theist actually probably does consider “useful guides” to be paramount, even over the bible (assuming the evidence behind the “useful guide” was of a sufficiently compelling amount and nature).

I cannot do the other side justice in this devil’s advocate argument. Their position is just so insane that I don’t understand it at all. You and I have both watched the show (probably), and we’ve both seen callers that say that they will behave according to guides which include elements which make them feel good (in the short term), and others will use guides which make them feel self-important, and others will use guides because the they assume desired outcomes. Of course you and I both say these guides will demonstrably lead to conclusions that we all agree will be worse off – where “worse off” is a standard that is agreed to by both theists and us. The problem is “demonstrable”. The very definition of “demonstrable” is your definition of “useful guide”. I don’t understand how they can reject that, how they can knowingly choose a plan which is demonstrably bad.

But that is the basic problem you haven’t answered to me – why should I use “useful guides”? I agree that we should, but I take it as axiomatic, and I see no possible justification that is not circular, and I’ve spent a lot of time on this, lots even previous to today. But please, you’ve already made me think for hours when I thought I had this settled, so maybe you’ve seen something I haven’t. So please, go ahead.

PS: Good job changing the discussion from an annoying epistemological argument over the definition of “truth” into a simple discussion about what methods we should use to shape our actions. I would have done the same thing. (Or maybe I’m projecting. Either way, please take the compliment.)

if i were to hold these definitions as our common ground, then there is evidence for either of our arguments, as evidence has been defined as data used to support a belief or disbelief.

Let me make a slight adjustment, here. Evidence is not simply data used to support a position, but data that actually does support that position. You can’t just claim something as evidence for your claim. You have to show how the data you cite is logically connected to the claim you’re making. E.g. you can use data to establish a premise, which you then use as part of a deductive argument for your position.

Part of the point of evidence is that it’s not simply one’s opinion, but that it’s available for examination. Essential points for evidence is that it should be public, objective and independently verifiable. Not only does that ensure that you’re not simply deluding yourself, but that is also what makes it convincing to other people.

concerning 2) thru 6)….i have done some reading on the points, and when i can attempt to formulate a civil response, i will try to do so.

Fair enough. I do consider those point absolutely essential as building blocks of a rational approach to reality. Well, the atheism one isn’t specifically, but it would fall in the category of defining the terms you use, which is important. Take the time you need.