Miller: It’s not that. It’s just that this is not the first time I’ve seen Liberal bring homosexuality into an unrelated thread in response to a post by gobear
One example. I’m fairly confident that there are others.
I don’t see why it’s a comparable statement, Liberal. You hadn’t even entered the thread at that point, so it was hardly directed at you.
What I “called you out” for was making it personal by referring to gobear’s homosexuality when it was not to do with the discussion.
It’s an observation that gobear has previously used as evidence for his arguments on this board. This thread is about what does and does not constitute “evidence.” gobear’s position in this thread seems to be undermined by arguments he has made in other threads. That doesn’t sound very “unrelated” to me.
kaylasdad99 (and I guess Miller, but kaylasdad put it more succinctly): I think you have a good point–it just seems a bizarre way to use the word “evidence”. Like me saying “I like eating curry” is evidence that bluecanary likes curry!?
Sengkelat: OK, I can see how you can interpret that in the way you described; and that that interpretation is nowhere near as idiotic (on Cardinal’s part) as the way I read it is.
[hijack] I came in here thinking that Shodan or some other Doper was being pitted for saying the death penalty was justified for the West Memphis Three again [like here, and it’s about God instead. Odd upgrade.[/hijack]
It’s only bizarre in that circumstance because “bluecanary likes curry” is not a subject that is often debated. But yes, you saying that you like eating curry is, indeed, evidence that you like eating curry. “Jesus speaks directly to me,” is evidence. To the person who “hears” Jesus, it’s evidence that God exsists. To gobear, it’s evidence that the speaker is insane. Either way, it’s still evidence.
No, it’s pretty much just useless evidence. The individual in question can use it for personal purposes, of course, but it’s useless to anybody other than that specific person, believer or otherwise.
Personally, my take on the situation is that if you want to believe in something based on personal feelings and/or subjective signs, that’s A-OK with me, but if that’s all you can give me in support of your belief, don’t be confused as to why I (and all others who don’t agree with you), lacking as we may currently be in that spiritual enlightnment you feel you possess, don’t share it…and damned skippy don’t expect me to accept your 100%-subjectively-grounded belief as an a priori justification for taking actions you agree would be otherwise immoral. That last part doesn’t apply to the vast majority of believers, and not even necessarily anyone here, but the ones for whom it’s intended know who they are…and trust me, the rest of us do, too.
Until such time as I discover some practical evidence of a deity, or else experience for myself the feeling of enlightenment which many of my believer friends sincerely state that they possess, I will remain an agnostic as I currently am. But, while I would accept either of the above conditions as evidence in support of a personal belief of this nature, the difference in the two lies in what I might do as a result of having formed my belief from each.
Hadn’t entered the thread? When I posted, the thread wasn’t even an hour old. I posted as soon as I saw it, opened it, and read it. It was just a few minutes after Gobear posted.
The statements are comparable because Gobear is saying that merely making a claim about faith is not evidence, but so likewise is merely making a claim about anything else — including sexual orientation. Your implication that I am disparaging Gobear for being gay is intellectually reckless. I have never attacked homosexuality on this board either politically or religiously. In fact, I have vigorously defended it from both points of view. I have even said that homosexuality is a Godly act if both men are in love. You cannot accuse me of bigotry against gays in any way, shape, or form.
Gobear, on the other hand, has consistently and relentlessly called people of faith delusional. It is annoying to the extreme. I have no problem with Gobear’s homosexuality, or anyone else’s. My problem is with his insulting characterizations of the faithful with broad brushes and categorical statements. You should have a problem with it to. When that kind of brush is in the wrong hands, it can paint anyone anywhere.
Say what? I think you’re a tad confused. My position is perfectly consistent. The statement, " I hear the voice of God" (which is not meant as a slam agaisnt Liberal or any other theist, but was a cite of statements I’ve heard fom people with mental illness–I could have said “the CIA” or “Brad Pitt.”)
There is a significant difference between the statements, “My homosexuality is not a choice” and “God speaks to me.” The first is a declaration about an internal state–I’m talking about myself; but the second is a claim about the speaker’s relationship to an external object, God (or the CIA or Brad Pitt.)
Now the second statement as it stands is unassailable-I can’t prove that he isn’t hearing a divine voice–and it meets a reasonable standard of evidence about the speaker’s belief in what he says he is hearing. It isn’t however, reasonable evidence for the objective reality of a relationship with the object–Speaker A may believe he hears Brad Pitt, but after getting a denial from Brad, we may be assured that Speaker A is delusional.
And why Libearal thionks that he was targeted when his name was not mentioned, nor any reference to him was made is beyond me. I might as well break into a discussion of Oscar Wilde’s epigrams to demand that people stop talking about me.
And I am getting tired of the “well, but **you’re GAY!” retort in discussions.
Now come on–that’s a ridiculous misrepresentation. I didn’t accuse you of bigotry or of being “disparaging” and you know it. Simply of using once again a tiresome debating tactic which I feel is not a little disingenuous (not that word again)
Again, I wasn’t referring to religious faith, but to schizophrenic delusion, which often features religious iconography. I could have said, “My dog speaks to me,” but then you’d attack me for animal cruelty or some such nonsense.
A heads-up: Stranger On A Train has started a GD thread related to this one.
, I apologized for lashing out at you. Not that you’ve acknowledged it, but there it is.
In a recent Pit thread, some people complained that I never miss an opportunity to select references to “leftists” or “rightists” when making my points. As a result of that valid criticism, I’ve reigned in that sort of reference. Could you possibly reign in your references to God and His faithful for purposes of illustrating your points?
Okay, sorry. That wasn’t entirely clear in your OP. I also suspect that even with that caveat, many religiously-inclined posters will still take issue with it, but that’s up to them.
But they are similar in that they are both statements based on personal experiences that are not outwardly falsible. How much weight I decide to give either statement is entirely dependent on how much trust I give the speaker, and how his observations match up with my own experiences. They are still evidence for whatever argument is being made. How much weight I give that evidence is a seperate matter.
Sure, but that’s a matter of contrasting two pieces of evidence. On the one hand, we have Speaker A’s statement that Brad Pitt speaks to him. On the other, we have Mr. Pitt’s denial. Whichever piece of evidence we choose to believe is a value judgement on the quality of the evidence. It does not speak to the definitional status of either statement as “evidence,” merely the perceived quality of said evidence.
You lashed out, apologized, then lashed out again, so I assumed the apology was merely pro forma.
I will do my best to rein in such references.
Hijiack aside, I just want to agree with OP. The way the word “evidence” is used in a practical sense implies something that is objectively observable or demonstrable to others.
As far as I’m concerned, that objectivity is obvious necessity. If some people want to insist that their personal feelimgs and experiences are “evidence” to them, then whatever, but objectively speaking, such a definition of evidence is solopsistic and useless to anyone else.
Good post, Bricker.
Metacom, if you’re going to dig up dictionary definitions they should at least support your assertions. Definitions 2 and 3 clearly imply/state that ‘evidience’ should have some outward, demonstrable component. It can also be inferred from definition 1.
Now, though I’m a non-believer, I have to go with Cardinal on this one. Personal evidence as a justification for your faith in a deity is perfectly acceptable. However, if your evidence isn’t very convincing (“I saw the virgin Mary’s face in my breakfast burrito,” to use an extreme example), you should be prepared to be attacked as a credulous schmuck.
The “just stating the facts” line was perhaps a bit superfluous, but I’ll let it slide.
I already conceeded 3 in post #4 (although it doesn’t make sense to use that definition in this context). As for number 2, “outward sign” doesn’t mean “replicable and demonstrable to others” (which is all I asserted).
So, neuroman, of the 3 meanings in the definition I dug up, neither of the 2 that could apply in this context require evidence to be replicable and demonstrable to others.
I didn’t lash out a second time. Saying that your constant references to delusion are annoying is a simple truth. I can’t help that they annoy me. They would annoy me no matter who used them.
Thank you. 
Doh! I actually asserted “demonstrable or replicable.” I should have identified only the first as allowing something non-physical to be evidence. I don’t concede that #1 implies the event needs to be physical though–can you elaborate on that?
Metacom, I re-read this numerous times and I really can’t figure out what you mean. If you want to try phrasing it differently maybe I’ll see what you’re getting at.