Effective Altruism

[Tassman]

I was talking to Jaecp on facebook yesterday, and he was noting that a lot of theists assume that atheists must substitute something else in for God, and he's noticed a lot of theists sort of assume that evolution must fulfill the God-role for atheists and be something they "believe in" and "follow". He thinks this is why a lot of theists try to use weird misconceptions about evolution in arguments against atheists, because they see it as being "the atheist God". Seer looks like he's trying to do the same with our "all powerful god Multiverse".

Well, "all hail multiverse!" I guess... as part of my daily worship of multiverse over the next five seconds I will perform all possible actions simultaneously...

But does the great god Multiverse answer prayer?

[Starlight]

I love the "god-shaped hole" pseudo-psychology gibberish, it's pretty amusing.

But does the great god Multiverse answer prayer?

Yes - Multiverse creates possible worlds in which your prayers are answered.

[Meh Gerbil]

Concrete evidence is disposed of with as much ease as personal testimony.
You've spent enough time in Civics 101 to know that to be true.

Would you claim you've never dismissed concrete evidence in a debate?
I know I have many times.

[Darth Executor]

I was talking to Jaecp on facebook yesterday, and he was noting that a lot of theists assume that atheists must substitute something else in for God

This is correct but it's not an assumption, it's something easily and readily observed.

[Tassman]

Concrete evidence is disposed of with as much ease as personal testimony.
You've spent enough time in Civics 101 to know that to be true.

Would you claim you've never dismissed concrete evidence in a debate?
I know I have many times.

That's true as far as it goes. The difference is that with concrete evidence the facts can be dealt with and argued for or against, whereas subjective personal testimony can only true for the person providing it.

[Tassman]

This is correct but it's not an assumption, it's something easily and readily observed.

[Darth Executor]

I don't think you need a deity to believe in, I think you need an overreaching ideology to believe in, and lacking a god you latch onto insanity like liberalism to fill that void. Since it's a mismatch (albeit of a psychological nature), atheists end up being more likely to fall prey to atheism and degenerate behavior (not unlike a form of spiritual homosexuality).

[Tassman]

I don't think you need a deity to believe in, I think you need an overreaching ideology to believe in, and lacking a god you latch onto insanity like liberalism to fill that void. Since it's a mismatch (albeit of a psychological nature), atheists end up being more likely to fall prey to atheism and degenerate behavior (not unlike a form of spiritual homosexuality).

[Meh Gerbil]

That's true as far as it goes. The difference is that with concrete evidence the facts can be dealt with and argued for or against, whereas subjective personal testimony can only true for the person providing it.

I think members of our court system would find this interesting.

[Sparko]

That's true as far as it goes. The difference is that with concrete evidence the facts can be dealt with and argued for or against, whereas subjective personal testimony can only true for the person providing it.

Is that a fact or just your subjective opinion?

[Tassman]

I think members of our court system would find this interesting.

I don't think the court system would take very seriously a subjective personal testimony, which is unsupported by substantive evidence of any sort. The testifier would probably be dismissed as delusional.

[Sparko]

I don't think the court system would take very seriously a subjective personal testimony, which is unsupported by substantive evidence of any sort. The testifier would probably be dismissed as delusional.

Most eyewitness testimony in court IS THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, Tassman. I take it you never served on a jury or attended a trial before? Many times an entire case will depend on witness testimony.

[Adrift]

Most eyewitness testimony in court IS THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, Tassman. I take it you never served on a jury or attended a trial before? Many times an entire case will depend on witness testimony.

They must do things differently down under.

[Tassman]

Most eyewitness testimony in court IS THE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE, Tassman. I take it you never served on a jury or attended a trial before? Many times an entire case will depend on witness testimony.

...only if it can be supported, e.g. personal testimony about being abducted by aliens will not be accepted as substantive evidence, because there are no facts to support the claim. The same applies to the personal testimony of Christians about their alleged experiences with Jesus...it's all purely subjective.

[Sparko]

...only if it can be supported, e.g. personal testimony about being abducted by aliens will not be accepted as substantive evidence, because there are no facts to support the claim. The same applies to the personal testimony of Christians about their alleged experiences with Jesus...it's all purely subjective.

You really don't get it do you?

Personal testimony is accepted unless it can be proven to be unreliable. It is defacto accepted as true unless shown otherwise. That is how the courts work. Now it is up to each member of the Jury to believe the testimony or not. But as far as the court is concerned the eye witness testimony is accepted as true evidence in the case unless proven otherwise by contrary evidence or cross examination.