Shrunk wrote:

Armageddo wrote: Deliberately misleading example of what I mean. I'll explain it for you in a simpler way. When one says "seeing is believing", what they are saying is that when they see something which matches their PREconceived idea (belief), naturally, their PREconceived idea (belief) is confirmed. Confirmed to them, personally.

Yeah, and when someone believes all birds are ducks, then when they see a bird, even of a different species, it is "confirmed to them, personally" that they are seeing a duck. I understood you perfectly. Better than you seem you have understood yourself, to be honest.

Armageddo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Armageddo wrote: Deliberately misleading example of what I mean. I'll explain it for you in a simpler way. When one says "seeing is believing", what they are saying is that when they see something which matches their PREconceived idea (belief), naturally, their PREconceived idea (belief) is confirmed. Confirmed to them, personally.

Yeah, and when someone believes all birds are ducks, then when they see a bird, even of a different species, it is "confirmed to them, personally" that they are seeing a duck. I understood you perfectly. Better than you seem you have understood yourself, to be honest.

Strawman.

We're not talking about birds and ducks, we're talking about a cycle of preconceived belief and what we call evidence. Do try and keep up.

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Armageddo wrote: Deliberately misleading example of what I mean. I'll explain it for you in a simpler way. When one says "seeing is believing", what they are saying is that when they see something which matches their PREconceived idea (belief), naturally, their PREconceived idea (belief) is confirmed. Confirmed to them, personally.

Yeah, and when someone believes all birds are ducks, then when they see a bird, even of a different species, it is "confirmed to them, personally" that they are seeing a duck. I understood you perfectly. Better than you seem you have understood yourself, to be honest.

Strawman.

We're not talking about birds and ducks, we're talking about a cycle of preconceived belief and what we call evidence. Do try and keep up.

It's an analogy. DO try to keep up.

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Armageddo wrote: Deliberately misleading example of what I mean. I'll explain it for you in a simpler way. When one says "seeing is believing", what they are saying is that when they see something which matches their PREconceived idea (belief), naturally, their PREconceived idea (belief) is confirmed. Confirmed to them, personally.

Yeah, and when someone believes all birds are ducks, then when they see a bird, even of a different species, it is "confirmed to them, personally" that they are seeing a duck. I understood you perfectly. Better than you seem you have understood yourself, to be honest.

Strawman.

We're not talking about birds and ducks, we're talking about a cycle of preconceived belief and what we call evidence. Do try and keep up.

It's an analogy. DO try to keep up.

It's a strawman. You're trying to twist the topic and turn it into something which is irrelevant and incomparable to what is actually being discussed.

Armageddo wrote:Yes. And you do too, don't you? Unless you do it without thinking. Then again I suspect that's how it is.

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:Yes. And you do too, don't you? Unless you do it without thinking. Then again I suspect that's how it is.

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:Yes. And you do too, don't you? Unless you do it without thinking. Then again I suspect that's how it is.

Yawn. Getting tough for you, is it?

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:

josephchoi wrote:

Armageddo wrote:Yes. And you do too, don't you? Unless you do it without thinking. Then again I suspect that's how it is.

Yawn. Getting tough for you, is it?

rezling wrote:Evidence only gives us a certain level of information. We still have to frame an interpretation based on the evidence; and then we have to decide whether we believe our interpretation to be true.

Calilasseia wrote:
Also, atheism is NOT a "faith based system", because atheism rejects the idea that faith itself constitutes a valid means of obtaining substantive knowledge about the world.

Byron wrote:
Possible, although I prefer to think that Prof. Lennox has a different definition of "faith", namely, belief that goes beyond the available evidence, rather than belief without evidence.

z8000783 wrote:

Animavore wrote:I don't get that. When you see something you believe it.

And therein lies the difficulty with much of science and many of our personal beliefs, we don't actually get the opportunity to "see it". However that doesn't necessarily stop us forming a conclusion based on the evidence we do have.

Teuton wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
Also, atheism is NOT a "faith based system", because atheism rejects the idea that faith itself constitutes a valid means of obtaining substantive knowledge about the world.

Don't we atheists have faith in the absence of sound arguments for the existence of God or other gods?
Or do we know that there are no such arguments?
Or do we just believe to know that there are no such arguments?

Teuton wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
Also, atheism is NOT a "faith based system", because atheism rejects the idea that faith itself constitutes a valid means of obtaining substantive knowledge about the world.

Don't we atheists have faith in the absence of sound arguments for the existence of God or other gods?
Or do we know that there are no such arguments?
Or do we just believe to know that there are no such arguments?