From: acsormd@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: What constitues evidence?
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Oct4.190643.29894@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
>acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>: In article <1992Oct2.050949.12343@oclc.org>, jay@oclc.org (Jeff Young) writes...
>: >acsormd@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Randall Desmond) writes:
>: >: 
>: >: Someone please supply a definition of evidence and how one is to determine
>: >: what evidence is and what it is not. Thank you.
>: > 
>: >You can look this up in the dictionary as well as we can.  You can
>: >tell if something is evidence by whether it fits the definition or
>: >not.  
>: 
>: 	That's true.
> 
>"I think therefore I am".  Other than that, *nothing* is necessarily
>true.  Ask any solipsist.  I personally am not a solipsist.  I am
>willing to believe that what appears via my senses is a very rough
>interpretation of something more tangible than solipsism.  If you
>wish to challenge this 'faith', please explain why I should feel
>compelled to justify it.

	When I say, "That's true," I am relying on my perceptual 
	map of reality which dictates that you would
	form the same general understanding of said words.
	Any other meaning (or lack thereof) was a result of
	interpretation from another's perspective based upon
	an individualistic/specified group interpretation 
	(not that it is necessarily bad...just unique). 

	One reason, which may not be the only reason, for you
	to feel compelled to justify/challenge this 'faith' 
	comes from the perception of having perceived 'reality'
	wrong before with your sensory receptors, and then
	realizing you could do this, and may do this, and may
	have done this.

>If you aren't going to challenge the belief that my senses provide a
>rough interpretation of reality, then these sensory observations provide 
>a form of evidence.  

	The rough interpretation I will not challenge. The unique/
	specifics, I may.

>The fact that others generally describe their 
>sensory observations in terms compatible with my interpretation, 
>provides me with fallible support that reality is possibly correlated
>to the way it is commonly observed.
> 
>: 
>: >What's your point?
>: 
>: 	To know what one can claim for or against his/her point of view.
>: 	In the context of this newsgroup, that would be for or against
>: 	atheism, would it not?
> 
>Atheism for me is the acknowledgement that evidence is lacking for
>the existence of God.  

	Is evidence lacking from your model of the world, or is
	it 'really' lacking? Have _all_ sources been considered/
	perceived by your senses or is your 'reality' understanding
	lacking perceptual experience of evidence (I'm not talking
	about lacking a feeling of "ooo ooo", I'm talking about 
	lacking the experience of discovering general perceptual
	"truths" e.g. Shrimp are pink, Flammingos are born white,
	flammingos eat shrimp and turn pink because of it.)

>Please don't start a definition war about
>the meaning of atheism.  

	I won't.

>I have evidence that the chair I'm sitting
>in exists because I can sense it through my pants.  I don't have
>sensory evidence that God does or doesn't exist.
>> Jeff Young 

	Allright. Before deciding on what is actually sensory perceptual
	concerning God, a definition would be in order. There are many
	conceptions of what the term "God" denotes. Any Ideas? (I 
	prefer the most untouched version of that of what is called the
	world's youngest religion which would be the oldest because
	it's definition is based on things hard to perceieve; attributes.)

	RMD