Radorth

That's fine. You won't mind people disagreeing with you, pointing out evidence we think you are ignoring, and pointing out that in some cases you may not have applied the same standards of proof to what you believe or don't.

If it were true that you were damned simply for not accepting it, I would agree. I strongly suspect one is damned only for applying different standards of proof for comparable beliefs. I believe people are self-condemned, by their own hypocrisy, and that the NT backs me up in many places.

If I can get a few folks to see that being judged by our own rules is fair enough, I might be doing some good I think.

Rad

Illithid

(Gauntleted hand slams visor down, shield and lance are
hoisted, horse is spurred)

Well, no, maybe a bit more friendly than that...


Radorth says:
That's fine. You won't mind people disagreeing with you, pointing out evidence we think you are ignoring, and pointing out that in some cases you may not have applied the same standards of proof to what you believe or don't.

No, I don't mind any of those things.

As far as I can tell, my standards of proof (if I start to have a
problem with this term, I'll suggest a replacement) are fairly
consistent. Please bear in mind that I have entered few
debates on this forum, and may not share the positions of
others. Do you have any particular areas where you suspect
I may be being inconsistent?

No, that's hardly fair, is it? How can I ask you to guess my
position? I do my best not to hold "beliefs". I have opinions,
weak or strong depending upon the evidence supporting them.
I have a very strong opinion that the physical world exists, for
example. I have a slightly less strong opinion that New York
City exists (I have been there). Existence of Canada (people I
know and trust have been there) E.o. China (the idea that this
place doesn't exist requires a massive conspiracy involving too
many people to be plausible). E.o. electrons (ditto, but less
strong, since the evidence is filtered through instruments). Etc.

However, all of these propositions I hold with such high
confidence that it may fairly be called "certainty". I do not even
passingly entertain the notion that they are false, nor will I,
unless some drastic new evidence meets my attention.

Continental drift, oceanic anarobic vent life, planetary motion...
never checked it myself, but it makes sense and lots of people
have checked it out in excruciating detail.

The battle of Waterloo, the geologic age of the earth, the
existence of Julius Caesar, biological evolution, quantum
mechanics...

High confidence. Cannot check it myself, but it makes sense in
light of existing evidence.

Existence of non-terrestrial intelligence: neutral. Given the
size of the playground, I would be surprised if there were no
other complex life, but I don't know enough to estimate
probabilities (yes, I know the Drake equation).

Existence of some being or beings which could be described
by humans as deities (as opposed to super-aliens): Low, and
the more spectacular they are, the lower the probability. No
evidence for this I know of, just lots of speculation.

Existence of the Loch Ness monster, bigfoot, ghosts: quite
low. There are large problems with any of these being true, but
it is possible some of them is true in some respect, somehow.
I'd take a lot of convincing.

Existence of leprechauns, elves, dragons: very low indeed.
I can imagine some real-world basis for legends about these,
but think it much more likely they're just made up.

E.o. various deities including the Christian God: Darn low. Near
zero. Just plain silly or seem self-contradictory.

If I have not totally exhausted your reading patience at this
point, any comments you have are welcome. In such talks,
I tend to make one reply rather than a point-by-point dissection.
I promise to be civil, but not to reply quickly, as I cannot always
log on every day.