Positions

[PickelledEggs]

What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?

Well, first of all... What?

That is a common point made by non- atheists.

Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?

Sounds a little dangerous that we could never express anything without evidence :)

I'm just talking about things existing. Politics is a whole 'nother ball of wax that I don't feel like getting in to.

But no, it isn't dangerous only claiming things with evidence.

I actually think it's a lot worse to claim something without evidence. I don't know about over where you are in Europe, but in the U.S. there are public schools teaching children that Adam and Eve is a plausible beginning of the human race. There is a museum with a section that was based on the thought that dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony. My sister is borderline fundie and she thinks that unicorns may have actually existed.

If the point of education is to eliminate ignorance then why are there schools teaching it?

It's not like I'm saying: "wouldn't it be nice if there was a god that was looking out for everyone?"
That is preference. To all his own.  :)

But it's a different story to rewrite findings and discoveries to hold on to something you want to believe.

[Plu]

That is a common point made by non- atheists.

Simply put (in question form)... Why even claim something you have no evidence for in the first place?

Sounds a little dangerous that we could never express anything without evidence :)

Why? Name one example where something you have no evidence for should be used as a course for action? I can't see any situations where that would end well.

What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?

There's plenty. Loads of books on how and why it's supposed to work, as well as many examples of functioning implementations around the world. The main problem with these things is that how good they are depends on what you want from life, but it can't be denied that each of them is good at what it's designed to do.

[SGOS]

What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?

What is your purpose in bringing this up?  Are you saying they are analogous to some religious claim that has zero evidence to support it?  They are analogous to religions, but no one here is denying the existence of religions.  But we are discussing claims made by various religions, not whether the religions exist.

And yes, if capitalism makes a claim that cannot be supported by evidence, it is just as worthless as a religious claim without evidence, and indeed many such social and political philosophies make lots of worthless claims.

But having said that, few philosophies can top religions for making idiotic claims.  For example, you don't hear some capitalist say that if you avoid paying taxes, and amass a billion dollars, you will rise from the dead and go to some billionaire heaven, and no one claims Bill Gates can walk on water.

You're reaching to make a point with some pretty bad comparisons.

[Solitary]

Have to put this in quotes because saying it came from the internet isn't enough, even though this didn't.

Experiments have shown that a network of high-level control areas of the brain begins to shape upcoming decisions long before they inter awareness. This challenges the whole notion of free will and the associated religious teachings about sin and redemption. If our brains are making our decisions for us subconsciously, how can we be responsible for our actions? Is free will an illusion?

While "conscious will" may be an illusion, it can be argued that our material selves do still possess a kind of free will. Every decision we make is the result of very complex calculations made by our conscious and unconscious (body) brains working together. That calculation relies on input from our immediate circumstances and our past experiences.

So the decision is uniquely ours, based on our specific knowledge, experience, and abilities. This seems pretty free to me. While others can influence us, no one has all the data that went into calculations except our unique selves, not even psychologists. Another brain operating according to the same decision algorithms as ours would not necessarily come up with the final decision, since lifetime experiences leading up to that point would be different.

Solitary

[mykcob4]

Free will:
If you have free will your future is determined by you and your decissions in relation to your environment and condition.
If there is a god all knowing than you don't have free will. Everything has been predetermined.
In otherwords:
If you have free will there is no need for a god.
If everything for you has been predetermined by a god then there is no need for you.
Since you exist then there is no god.

I know theists that claim that free will and god's allknowingness is not a contradiction, though it certainly sounds like it. I think there is a problem that god would know everything I will ever do and yet my will is still free. I will investigate what theists say, I know there is a solution, just don't remember it.

But I don't fully understand that there would be no need for a god if we have free will. Theists say just the opposite, that there is power in the free will, that when we choose god (out of love for the ultimate good or something) and turn away from the material (ego-based, hate, anger), god did not force us to do so. Supposedly we grow as human beings by making loveful choices, and take step by step toward paradise (which could be a metaphor for a very peaceful state of mind where one has very little suffering and very much joy).

Nope if theist claim that we have free will but there is an all knowing god, then they are contridicting themselves. You wouldn't construct something that worked adverse to your goal.
This god thing is just a political tool to control the masses. It's only use is to get people to do what a few want them to do and nothing more.
I would love to own a business that has slaves that  willingly and gladly work for me, because they think that in the end(after they are dead) there is an undescribed wealth. That everytime they got out of line I could not only threaten them with not receive said riches, but also threaten them with an unknown  eternal torture.(BTW, I personnally wound't want such a company) That is all that religion is. Faith is belieing that story without any evidence of it being true. The bible is just a book of folklore and allagory that reinforces that lie with propaganda.
Anytime you face an arguement when one proposes a god, or attributes things to a god, demand proof. It will never materialise. The burden is theirs to prove their claim. And don't be so neive that any proof is valid, because it's not.
I don't know how many times I have asked someone to prove there is a god, and they have responded with "I know there is a god because he talks to me."
I could say Elvis whispers in my ear but that doesn't make it true.

[Humble Bee]

What evidence is there for capitalism, for socialism, for liberalism, for conservatism? Should they not claim there position?

Well, first of all... What?

The point with my question was in contrast to the statement that nothing should be claimed without evidence. I think that is too broad. I don't have much evidence to support that my favorite color is green.

I'm just talking about things existing. Politics is a whole 'nother ball of wax that I don't feel like getting in to.

But no, it isn't dangerous only claiming things with evidence.

I actually think it's a lot worse to claim something without evidence. I don't know about over where you are in Europe, but in the U.S. there are public schools teaching children that Adam and Eve is a plausible beginning of the human race. There is a museum with a section that was based on the thought that dinosaurs and humans lived together in harmony. My sister is borderline fundie and she thinks that unicorns may have actually existed.

If the point of education is to eliminate ignorance then why are there schools teaching it?

I agree. Schools must be evidence based. We don't have the same problems as you describe in our schools luckily.

[Humble Bee]

Why? Name one example where something you have no evidence for should be used as a course for action? I can't see any situations where that would end well.

In making the choice between going to a movie or a concert a saturday night. I have no evidence for which road to take.

There's plenty. Loads of books on how and why it's supposed to work, as well as many examples of functioning implementations around the world. The main problem with these things is that how good they are depends on what you want from life, but it can't be denied that each of them is good at what it's designed to do.

Yeah, well of course all of them try to justify their positions with arguments. But if there would be hard core evidence there would be no debate over which system is better. Evidence would tell us.

But I think maybe that I put too much into the word evidence here. I thought of it in the science way, but evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.

[Humble Bee]

Hi ALL,

I really appreciate you for participating in this thread!

I never expected this amount of replies and I simply haven't got the time to answer it all.

I've got many nice replies and much food for thought.

Thank you!

[Plu]

In making the choice between going to a movie or a concert a saturday night. I have no evidence for which road to take.

This isn't a claim, though. You don't need evidence if you don't make claims. (Of course, you can rewrite it into a claim by saying "I think I will enjoy going to the movies more than listening to a concert". Then, you just need to convince yourself. And your mind will weigh pieces of evidence (like how much fun the movie sounds vs how much you'd like to see the band) and you will end up deciding based on your expectations, with your expectations being based on whatever evidence you have at hand.)

Yeah, well of course all of them try to justify their positions with arguments. But if there would be hard core evidence there would be no debate over which system is better. Evidence would tell us.

The problem here is that before you can end the debate, you need to define a definition of "better". The reason we have all these systems is because we don't have one. There's plenty of evidence to show that each of these systems meet the goals they claim they meet. And as such, that implementing them will generate the kind of results the system claims it will generate.

But you can't determine which of two systems is "better" unless you can define what it means for such a system to be "best", and such rules don't exist. As such, you can only have evidence that they do what they say they do, and then you have to figure out what you want, and then find the system that best gets you to where you want to go.

It's kinda like how you can't end the debate on which color is the best. But you can have good evidence to support that a certain color is better at a certain thing than another color. For example, hot pink makes really bad camouflage, and you can easily find evidence to show it. On the other hand, green is good for both doctor's outfits and camouflage, and you can find evidence for that as well. But that still doesn't give you a blanket definition of "best" by which you could measure colors.

So there's a big difference between "socialism is best" (which is undefendable because there is no definition for "best", remember what I said about needing definitions to build a proof?) and saying "socialism is best at ensuring the poor and sick in a nation aren't left to starve on the streets", which is a claim with a bunch of working definitions that you can gather evidence for.

[Colanth]

Religion is the existentially positive assertion that a particular god, usually with very particular properties and characteristics, exists.  That's all we're asking for evidence of - that this god, with these properties and characteristics, actually exists.

We're not asking for evidence that people believe - we know that they do, and they should be free to believe anything they want to believe.  (Unless it harms someone else - like the young diabetic girl who died because her parents believed that praying was better then taking her to a doctor.)

We have no problem with belief, except that it's a stupid waste of time, what we have a problem with is the effects of that belief, which are usually bad at best.  The Holocaust, the Inquisitions, Bosnia, the Middle East ...

[Humble Bee]

We're not asking for evidence that people believe - we know that they do, and they should be free to believe anything they want to believe.  (Unless it harms someone else - like the young diabetic girl who died because her parents believed that praying was better then taking her to a doctor.)

Word!

[Solitary]

but evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.

Correct, so where is the evidence to support the hypothesis there is God, or any other god that is imaginary? Atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief. Not every claim demands an opposite claim. Evolution is a theory and not an hypothesis, but Creationism is a hypothesis, for example, so evolution would have to have a better theory to dismiss it. If religion has no need for evidence, then any thing that refutes it doesn't either. Solitary

[Colanth]

but evidence according to wikipedia can be just anything supporting a claim.

Correct, so where is the evidence to support the hypothesis there is God, or any other god that is imaginary? Atheism is not a belief, it is a disbelief. Not every claim demands an opposite claim. Evolution is a theory and not an hypothesis, but Creationism is a hypothesis

No, sorry - Creationism is an assertion.  An hypothesis is based on observations, and unless I missed the memo, no one has ever observed God.  (Or anything that would lead a scientist to conclude that God exists.)