[So because the justification for opinions can comprise other opinions, that then means that opinions can comprise evidence?

Now that’s a non sequitur if I ever heard one!

Opinions can be made up “from” evidence, but not “of” (i.e. comprise) evidence and this is the part that YOU are really missing.]

Opinions can be the interpretation of evidence, but they themselves can comprise evidence for a broader assertion.

The statement that “There is no evidence of design in the universe” is undoubtedly an opinion.

If you were trying to prove the assertion that “A God who designed the universe probably does not exist”, your opinion that “There is no evidence of design in the universe” could form part of your overall case. Thus, it could help to “demonstrate the truth of an assertion”. Thus it would be a part of your evidence.

Again I stress- I am using a broad definition of evidence. But I have been consistently using this from the start. If you didn’t like the definition, you should have said so.

If you want to define evidence differently, that’s a separate issue and one I can’t be bothered discussing with you if you’re going to introduce it at this late juncture, when I’ve already made arguments based on my common sense definition.

Since you haven’t added anything new here, I’ll think it’s time to close this line of our argument because I don’t think repetition makes a point any stronger. I’m happy letting my arguments make their own case that opinions can form part of the evidence for something.

( This will be my last comment on this issue- you can have the last word. All you've done lately is repeat yourself (and so have I) so it will be poor form if you introduce a completely new line of argument in your final post)

[Oh, so because religions deal with fundamental questions, that excludes them from being interpreted through a lens influenced by external factors such as life experience and the culture in which one lives?]

[All you’ve done is taken advantage of the fact that religions deal with fundamental questions to ignore the fact that they too need to be interpreted through a lens.]

It is also true that the historical impact of religion on culture influences on the lens itself. So there needs to be a better tie breaker otherwise this just becomes a case of chicken and egg.

Regardless of the fact that religions are open to be interpreted differently through different lens, my point is still valid: The fact that religions deal with fundamental questions and attempt to guide people’s behaviour, combined with consideration of the level of devoutness common throughout the world still suggests that religious beliefs will heavily impact on the way in which followers view general matters of life and conduct. Hence, we would expect to see the divisiveness of religion filter through into justifications for war. Yet, it doesn’t happen that often (especially if you’re talking about Christianity).

This is still true, even though religious beliefs are also interpreted through a lens of sorts - a lens which was historically influenced by religion anyway, making it difficult to easily separate them.

Pericles “is not holding his breath” but nonetheless he deserves a response, so my next post will be regarding the evidence from Corinthians and the importance of historical evidence.

AJ to repeat, I will not be responding to the lines of argument which have become too repetitious. Namely: your claims that Christians cannot be free thinkers as we defined it, and that naturalists cannot become dogmatic with their beliefs, and secondly the opinion/evidence discussion. I'm happy with my arguments on those, and if you want to act in bad grace and introduce a new line of argument (as opposed to merely clarifying an existing one...again) then you may do so.

That should make interesting reading, Trav.

>>...my next post will be regarding the evidence from Corinthians and the importance of historical evidence.<<

I look forward to seeing how you handle the two different concepts, "evidence from Corinthians" and "historical evidence".

Make sure it has some substance, though, won't you. We deserve a little more than "it's true because I believe it to be true."

Sounds like you’re getting a little snippy there, Trav...

<<...it’s eager of you to be commenting multiple times when the other person hasn’t responded yet. Wait your turn next time.>>

I didn’t realise we had to take this in turns. Is this in OLO’s rules? But you’re damn right I’m eager. I care about truth and reason and when some assaults them, I’ll defend them.

Although I think, by this point, it’s abundantly clear that you’re never going to get this - you’ll make sure of that. Something is in place there to protect your religious beliefs; it’s working overtime at the moment and it’s never going to stop. But I may as well keep going for as long as this stays fun.

<<I’m happy to let others be the judge of that.>>

Are they sitting around with score cards? You don’t see it as a problem from your side that you are yet to make any headway?

<<...opinions can still be used to demonstrate the truth of another assertion.>>

No, the evidence used to form them (if there is any) does that. I have repeatedly informed you that evidence forms opinions - not the other way around.

Since you’re having so much trouble with this, I’ll put it another way...

Let’s run with your view on opinions vs. evidence for a moment. In fact, since I’m feeling so generous, I’m going to grant that you’re right from here on in. Why? Because I think there's a more fundamental problem here.

Let’s agree that opinions can be used as evidence so long as they can be shown to be plausible.

What’s wrong with this? How is this problematic?

Ding! Time’s up.

There is an unnecessary step there of having to check the opinion for its validity. It is a violation of Occam’s razor. All opinions that can be shown to be plausible will align closer to reality and they will align closer to reality because of evidence. So why not drop that additional step and instead of using an opinion as evidence, just present the evidence for that opinion.

Continued...

...Continued

In the context of what I’ve just said, do you see the problem with your usage of an opinion as a control mechanism for determining whether or not the 7% of wars was enough to class religion as inherently divisive? Even when you tried to show that opinion to be plausible, it turned out that the reasoning it was based on was flawed all along. Why couldn’t you have saved us both a step and simply stated that reasoning instead of your opinion based on that?

In fact, now that I’ve mentioned all that, can you now see just how convoluted and problematic stacking opinions would then become?

<<But I’ve given a common sense definition of evidence...>>

Doesn’t look too common-sense-like now, does it?

<<Strawman.>>

A strawman, is it? How can a statement, phrased in such a way that it begs clarification, be a strawman?

I think you need to learn what a strawman is.

<<Have a read of Sam Harris or Richard Carrier and you’ll see some dogmatic close mindedness. Refusal to thoughtfully consider opposing points of view and the making of overstated, under supported assertions are surely traits that are consistent with being a dogmatist and completely inconsistent with being a free thinker.>>

No, I asked you of an example of someone (who considered themselves to be a freethinker) telling you that they refuse to consider other’s views.

“I can know what others think when they tell me what they think.” - Trav

But if you were referring to what Sam Harris et al have once said before, then please stop dodging my request and provide me with an example. I’d understand if you couldn’t come up with one; many theists would, understandably, just broadly interpret the discomfort the arguments of such people bring them as close-mindedness - whether or not that was the case. After all religion is an emotional beast, not a rational one.

<<...this distinction ... make[s] no difference to the substance of my arguments that there are plenty of Christians who are critical thinkers and plenty of atheists that are not.>>

Continued...

...Continued

Ah, so now you’ve broadened the scope of your argument to assist it. Before it was only about faith...

“I detest your implication that one cannot think intelligently about religious faith and that intelligent people must, either consciously or subconsciously turn their brains off whilst considering such matters.” - Trav

Now you’ve broadened that to all thinking. Well, I know many Christians who are brilliant critical thinkers outside their faith...

<<Thus, your claim of the atheist sole ownership of critical thinking was unwarranted.>>

So why would I claim this?

<<This will be my last comment on this issue [of evidence] ... All you've done lately is repeat yourself (and so have I) so it will be poor form if you introduce a completely new line of argument in your final post>>

Someone's losing confidence! Being one who responds to posts as they're reading them, you could imagine how pathetic this looked.

You get to determine whether or not my form is poor by declaring this your last post on evidence, eh? Too bad if I had a little more confidence in your ability to understand my point as it was. Would it be better form to assume everyone's stupid?

Sorry, Trav, but that's really screwed-up, not to mention desperate.

<<It is also true that the historical impact of religion on culture influences on the lens itself. So there needs to be a better tie breaker otherwise this just becomes a case of chicken and egg.>>

The tie-breaker is the fact that life experiences (many of which, culturally universal/independent) also influence us and like with the logical absolutes when we discussed reason, you’ve conveniently missed that part.

You really need to ask yourself, Trav, why is it that you need to omit crucial aspects of my arguments to make yours and yet (despite knowing that I’m going to be accused of having no life and now snapped at for not waiting my turn) I put in the additional effort of posting again at a later date to ensure I cover every angle of your arguments.

Think about that.