What is the religious meaning of 'evidence'?

The boldes part is where you jump to an asinine conclusion. We can still view morality as relative and still be disgusted by the actions of somebody.

 

Well, seems like you're doing precisely what you're claiming I'm doing. You're taking my words and distorting them to fit your skewed narrative. I wasn't suggesting that every psychopath will break the law and kill someone (where did the law come into this?). I was pointing out that psychologists find that psychopaths are more opt to act without a moment hesitation, and therefore, associate psychopaths to immoral behavior - further due to the fact that they lack a connection with the emotional center of their brains. Of course, you appear to have a very narrow and distorted view of the facts presented to you, which is why I claimed you do very little research on what you talk about.

And speaking of doing little research... You haven't done research on what psychologists are saying about the Trolley Problem have you? I presented you with proof to back up my convictions. It's now _your_ job to further research the matter now that you've been presented with evidence; despite how much or how little is being provided initially. I understand you're new at doing your own research, so consider this your first lesson.

 

What conclusion? That he's immoral?
Ask yourself this one question... Does Sam Harris agree with Nihilism? If he doesn't, that means you and Sam Harris disagree on atheism.

 

You did NOT say that "psychologists find that psychopaths are more opt to act without a moment hesitation", you said "The only people known to push the man down the bridge are labeled psychopaths." So, not only are you lying about what psychologists say (the ONE psychologist that you linked me to didn't even say what you said, and he certainly isn't the spokesman for all psychologists), but now you're lying to me about what YOU said.

I asked you to prove your statement that "psychologists are saying that only psychopaths would push the man into the path of the trolley" (paraphrasing), what you did was provide a link to one psychologist who didn't even say that.

- - - Updated - - -

Your silly conclusion that because we view morality as subjective, we also are A-OK with everybody's view.

Why in the world would I care if Sam Harris disagreed with me on atheism or nihilism?

 

I didn't lie at all. Saying, "only people known to push the man down the bridge are labeled psychopaths" is correct. There's nothing incorrect about that statement. However, I had to explain my words to you so you understood the gist of what I was saying _overall_. Apparently, you did not and you're very hung up on the precision of my words. Most of what I say is implied, but I see I'd have to speak as if I were speaking to a child. Now that you understand what I'm trying to say, you can't argue anymore.

Once again, you're not reading deep enough into what I'm telling you. Not to worry. In the future, I will talk to you as if you're in 3rd grade. If this offends you, then I apologize. However, if I need to spell out what I mean each and every single time, then I won't be able to help but talk to you that way.

Because your logic doesn't make sense.

1) If a person felt slapping you was a good thing, you'd condemn the action of being slapped, but you won't condemn the thought process

2) Yet, if a rapist thought rape was a good thing, you'd condemn the action of rape, but you won't condemn the thought process.

It's easy to argue with your logic, because its similar to that of a child (no offense). Your logic runs in circles and when faced with a question that points out that fallacy, you make excuses.

Just answer the question.

 

Yes there is! Where in the world are you getting that such a statement is correct? The psychologist certainly doesn't say that.

Of course I'm hung up on the precision of your words because precision matters during a debate, especially if you want to bring logical form into the debate. There is a vast sea of difference in between the statement "Psychopaths more readily will push the man into the path of an oncoming train" and "Only psychopaths will push the man into the path". The fact that you're confused about this, and have actually called me childish because of this, is incredibly unsettling. There is a distinct difference between saying one group of people is better at doing Task A and saying one group of people ONLY does Task A. There was no implication of yours to pick up; they are completely mutually exclusive statements. You can't say one and then the other for a reason I elucidate on below.

Well, I think you ought to step back and try to understand the distinction between what you've said. It's incredibly simple to understand. Saying "Kindergartners are better at finger painting" and "ONLY kindergartners finger paint" do not have equal value. Hell, what you're saying doesn't even make rational sense. If one group is more apt (I think that was the word you were looking for) to do something, that directly implies another group does said act. Otherwise, who exactly are they more apt than? Makes no sense. For someone caught up on logic, you sure are poor at it.

WTF are you talking about? One, I don't even see how this deals with logic since there's no logical form to any of your statements. Logical arguments don't use the word "if". Secondly, why in the world are you saying I won't condemn the thought process? You're jumping to conclusions and forcing those assumptions into my mouth, as if I already believe them. This is intellectual dishonesty.

Why? It is a completely irrelevant red herring. For somebody so caught up on logic, you eagerly use logical fallacies again and again. Go ahead and explain how Sam Harris' beliefs about nihilism are relevant to this conversation. If you can't, drop it, because it's a red herring.

 

You're just avoiding my points and questions altogether. You're not confirming or denying my claims. So, all I see is rhetoric.

 

Wow, what a cowardly act. You accuse me of avoiding your points and questions, after I literally wrote paragraph after paragraph confronting them, then answering my numerous paragraphs with one sentence (which doesn't address any of what I said) and I am the one avoiding the points and questions? Hahahahahahaha, how pathetic. I straight up denied your claims and then provided you with arguments against said claims. Do I need to delineate it more for you, or are you willing to admit that you clearly are an inferior debater and run away from a conversation once it gets hard? And of course I'm avoiding your last question because it isn't even relevant to this discussion. How do I know this? Because I told you to explain how it was relevant and you refuse to do so.

Here's my main argument that completely demolishes what you've previously said: If one group is more apt (I think that was the word you were looking for) to do something, that directly implies another group does said act. Otherwise, who exactly are they more apt than? Makes no sense. For someone caught up on logic, you sure are poor at it.

So, what Qchan, are you unable to read this argument? Is this not a denial of your claim? How can one group be more apt to do something if they're the only group to do it? Simple flipping question.

 

Evidence is the means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents,
or physical objects.

Some want evident to mean something else.

http://thefreedictionary.com/evidence

http://thefreedictionary.com/evidence

 

Some others would also argue that Math is capable of offering PROOF while yet others would argue that Logic is capable of offering PROOF. However, in the long run, PROOF to the individual can only be found by evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. Whether that PROOF be Math, Logic, Evidence or Argument, it is still up to the mind of the individual as to whether or not those submissions of logic, math, argument or evidence can be accepted as true.

 

Math proofs are different that logic proofs, which don't exist.
A math proof is always produces the same outcome, .i.e. 2+2 = 4. Logical proofs
don't. Three people can see the same incident and logically produce three
different outcomes. Much like members of a jury.

 

You clearly are unfamiliar with what logic, or a logical proof is. Or maybe you're unclear as to what logic he's talking about. He's not just talking about thinking with your brain, he's talking about the field of logical analysis.

 

Your comments then reduce the number of proofs to two categories .. logic and math.. Both of which are concepts and concepts can vary in meaning and description by as many people as there are on the planet. Even Einstein stated "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Albert Einstein
Furthermore: In either case, the concepts must be related to another potential believer for his or her evaluation of the conceptual thing being presented. At that point the person doing the evaluation, must reach a conclusion as to whether or not the conceptual thing is compelling to his mind to a degree that will cause the person to either accept the conceptual thing as true or false.

 

Logic is only as good as the premise it is found upon... making logic subjective. Scientists use logic all the time, yet there are many examples throughout history of scientist coming to conflicting conclusions based upon the same evidence... and sometimes both conclusions are later proven incorrect.

As a theist I had an experience that I perceive as evidence that there is a power greater than myself... aka God, but as said evidence is only valid to me I make no attempt to use my evidence to sway the mind of another.

 

That's because only two categories have been mentioned.

Still, math proofs produce the same results everytime.
http://cut-the-knot.com/proofs/index.shtml

Yes, which is why logical proofs are subjective. They can change on a whim.

 

Why shouldn't those "math proofs" produce the same results every time? They do so (produce the same results) because they are concepts which practically all people have agreed upon.

In one sense of the word math proofs can change on a whim. Example: 2 + 2 = 22 ... that expression can be true because the expression does not specify how the set of 2's are to be joined. The rule that results in 2 + 2 = 4 is also subjective. The rule does not exist in nature... only in the subjective mind of man.

 

Now back to the question found in the OP.
"
Can anyone explain what is the religious meaning of the word 'evidence'?"