Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth, it also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for....yet atheists do not believe these things anyway....
47 comments
What atheist, and sane Christians like me for that matter, believe is that the current evidence shows the world as probably it is, not as shepperds from the bronze age thought it was and that your reasoning is a full bundle of nothing. What is truth, after all?. That snakes speak?, that people live 900 years?, that pi=3?
"Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence Correct and concise. I
what? So what is supposedly real is just an illusion? Like the Matrix? That was just a movie I don’t think you’re supposed to read
Which is just a cutesy way of saying you’re going to believe something no matter how impossible and improbable because things that are so bizarre couldn’t possible have proof for them, so we’ll assume that it’s yet to be discovered and hold on to the idea of dragons, satyrs and the cockatrice. Saying this doesn’t make it so. There is evidence of some sort for everything outside of emotions and such, but even those can be shown on a CAT scan to cause a chemical and/or electrical reaction in the brain. Again, this statement is more of the “I’ll believe whatever absurdity I want because you can’t prove a negative” . You might think this is some groundbreaking statement but it is all bullshit wrapped in more bullshit. No. I don’t believe in things that there is absolutely no evidence for. What constitutes evidence to you? Because it’s in an old book? Because your mommy and pastor said so? Because you heard it in Sunday school? There is no proof of the Loch Ness monster; do you specifically believe in that because of the lack of evidence? Most people don’t do that. Usually a person makes a rational and thought out decision based on the facts. But I guess you just bite whatever bait comes down the river first.
Dear VitalOne,
Your first sentence was absolutely true. The rest is mostly just garbage. Although you are correct in that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. (The fact that there is no evidence for unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, gnomes, etc. doesn't mean they aren't really out there somewhere.)
BTW: It was very brave and rational of you to acknowledge that there is no evidence for the existence of any kind of higher power.
"...all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth..."
So, the evidence invalidates itself? Care to put that in terms that make sense, bub?
all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth
But if that's what the evidence shows, wouldn't that then not be the actual truth, so the actual truth would be that what the evidence shows is true?
Gordian Knot of Logic Award seconded.
Seeing as 'all the evidence' and the 'current evidence' are the same thing in this context, it should say:
the evidence shows us that the evidence is not the actual truth
And by replacing 'it, 'that' and 'yet' with their implied meanings, we end up with this:
[the evidence] also shows us that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and [the evidence also shows us] that there are many things that are true that there is no evidence for....[In spite of there being no evidence] atheists do not believe these things."
"Delusion is believing in something in the face of contrary evidence..."
OK, I'm with you so far.
Huh? Do you have any idea what you just said? You're an idiot.
Indeed, it is not PROOF of absence, but repeated lack of confirming evidence is EVIDENCE of absence.
OK, if there are so many why don't you name a dozen or so?
I believe love can exist without evidence, but I do not believe the love of an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent being can exist without evidence.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
No. But absence of evidence increases the probability of absence. And the longer the evidence is searched for, and the more people who search for it, the greater the probability becomes. At some point, rational people begin abandoning the hypothesis and adopting the alternative.
image
I feel sea-sick....
all the evidence shows us that what the current evidence shows is not the actual truth opposite is true. Coupled with his first statement, this means that believing what the evidence says, or "the truth" if you will, is delusion. Truth is delusion. Therefore God exists. Quod erat demonstranduum motherfucker.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
