Total Posts:165|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheist False Claim: there is no evidence..

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 10:43:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

But its not so simple then, is it? Is what the "non rain" individual saying true? Could he/she just as easily point across the street and say "See, look, no wet grass". Did the rain support point to the tree and say "See, wet trees, wet roof", were those even applicable?

Highlighting ONE piece of the unexplained isn't "evidence". "How did it get here were it NOT for a supernatural entity", particularly one of a denominations choosing, but not another doesn't bring much to the conversation.

Back to the example stating "Look how completely the rain fell, look how engineered the grass looks from its watering" are all subjective interpretations. Again, across the street the lawn might not look nearly as good. Even the tried and true "Objective Morality" argument falls short, as that in no way excludes man from bettering themselves as society grows, as it takes a picture of some one's "lawn" and claims "THIS is the best a lawn can be... by standards of... um... THIS lawn!".

No, that is not evidence, that is inspiration. The countless theologies, panthologies, mythologies, religions, and cults are testament to this.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 10:48:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Existence is evidence of itself.
Human claims and opinions about existence and where it came from obviously differ greatly.
The evidence is the same in all cases.
Evidence is like the "leaves" under a tree.
Explanations for how the leaves got there differ.
God put them there.
Nature put them there.
The tree itself put them there.
The wind blew them there.
They evolved from the ground because they have all the same chemicals as the ground has.

Existence is evidence of itself.
Existence recycles itself.
It came from the existence before it which came from the existence before it. It teaches us where it came from by showing us its own cycle.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 12:45:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would clarify what definition of god you are referring to. Preferably a definition as good as what you have provided for 'evidence'. Also, if there were concrete evidence for any god this conversation would not be necessary - I would accept god exists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:59:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
To be more precise, the atheist claim is that there is no objective evidence for a god, and there is, to date, nothing false about that claim.

Then there is the theist (mostly) false claim: there is enough evidence for god. Perhaps enough for the believer, perhaps enough for a few current nonbelievers (children mostly), but not enough for those who once believed and have since been deconverted by reason, intellectual honesty, and information.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 3:21:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"


Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Oh there is evidence for God just like there is evidence for alien abduction. BUT, does that evidence hold up to scrutiny ? is the evidence sufficient enough to justify the claim that X exists.

I guess the question is, does God get a free pass here ? do we allow the God beliefs to go under the rader of scrutiny that we would apply to other such claims like we all live in the matrix or the universe was created last Thursday or alien abduction.

But you know how it is, the God you just so happen to believe in is real, all those other Gods are just existing in the mind of your fellow humans.

I dunno, maybe your God is the same as all those other Gods too eh ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:14:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a deity. As no such evidence exists non belief is the default position.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 6:19:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:45:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would clarify what definition of god you are referring to. Preferably a definition as good as what you have provided for 'evidence'. Also, if there were concrete evidence for any god this conversation would not be necessary - I would accept god exists.

Single entity that created the heavens and the earth and all life in them.

'Concrere' is a subjective term. And I'm sure not everything you accept as fact or true has a complete 'concrete' chain of evidence supporting it.

So your standards for evaluating the evidence and arguments change when God is the subject or potential conclusion.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 6:28:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:59:41 AM, Fly wrote:
To be more precise, the atheist claim is that there is no objective evidence for a god, and there is, to date, nothing false about that claim.

Then there is the theist (mostly) false claim: there is enough evidence for god. Perhaps enough for the believer, perhaps enough for a few current nonbelievers (children mostly), but not enough for those who once believed and have since been deconverted by reason, intellectual honesty, and information.

Objective means untainted by personal feelings. So facts like a finite univere, arrangement of life ect.. would sll be objective evidence.

Your suggesting a thiest accepts God becuase they feel they want to. You deny that there is rational belief.

It's to be expected. I'm sure you have heard Athiest deny God becuase they hate him.

But as far as what the words 'objective' and 'evidence' mean in the English language you are wrong.

As far as enough. Thats a subjecttive measure. 'Enough' in logic can be more readily seen as 'beyound reasonable doubt' and for many that is achieved.

Your 'not a position' 'not making a claim' 'do not know' 'can't prove anything' personal lack and emptiness doesn't make you the arbiter of reason.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 6:33:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:14:44 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a deity. As no such evidence exists non belief is the default position.

'Non belief is the default position' I don't believe that. I challenge you to support this claim.

Support this.
Sosoconfused
Posts: 237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:06:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

The problem isn't a lack of evidence. It's a lack of quality evidence. There are different levels of evidence.

If I have a car that has an intermittent misfires, I can go gather evidence that would support my hunch that the problem is one of the spark plug wires. If I switch my spark plugs around and the misfire doesn't change cylinders, then I have evidence that the wires are to blame. However, that's poor evidence because the problem could still be with the fuel system rather than the electrical system. However, if I move the wires to a different cylinder and then see the misfire change, I have pretty conclusive evidence that my wire was indeed faulty.

So it's not about the presence of evidence, it's about the quality, reliability, and how definitive the evidence presented is.

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The grass being wet would be an example of poor evidence since there are other causes which might cause the grass to be wet.


The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

The atheist is participating in the discussion. His job is to evaluate the evidence for weaknesses and strengths, to offer rebuttals. A person arguing against the existence of unicorns can't offer any proof against their existence, he can only say that there is no evidence that unicorns exist. If a person claims that unicorns exist, the debate between the two would look exactly like the debate between an atheist and a theist. Pro presenting evidence for their case and Con evaluating it and looking for weaknesses and exploiting those weaknesses. Just because evidence against the existence of unicorns can't be presented doesn't make the a-unicornist as a non-participant.


Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

No, however, it does mean that standing on it's own, the grass being wet is weak evidence.


If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

You're misrepresenting and characterizing the atheist rejection of evidence presented here.

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

It is your job then to present evidence with sufficient strength to eliminate a rebuttal or show how the rebuttal offered by the atheist is not valid.


What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Again, that is the same argument made by any person who is an a-unicornist, an a-leprechaunist, etc.... can you tell me how you'd approach denying the existence of unicorns? Wouldn't your only course of argument be the denial of evidence for the existence of unicorns? How else would you claim that unicorns don't exist.

The atheist doesn't change the definition of evidence, he simply evaluates the strength of the evidence and whether or not the "evidence" presented is actually evidence for the claim.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:17:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 6:33:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:14:44 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a deity. As no such evidence exists non belief is the default position.
'Non belief is the default position' I don't believe that. I challenge you to support this claim.
Here's an easy argument for that, Mhykiel...

Let's assume that you do not believe in unicorns. (It need not be unicorns, but let's assume unicorns are something you don't believe in.) Let's also observe that the classes of things you believe in is finite -- since our language is finite, and you only have limited time to think.

Now, for every class of thing you do believe in, I can invent seven things you don't believe in, by mounting the real thing on the back of each of seven unicorns -- one for each colour of the rainbow.

Ergo, there are more things you do not believe in than things you do believe in. Thus, disbelief is your default position for nearly everything one could possibly imagine.

And so it is for most everyone. Really, there are so many things we might believe in that don't actually exist, we only really have time to believe in things we stand a good chance to experience reliably.

And so it is with gods.

Even if it were necessary to believe in some divinity, there are vastly many of those -- including infinitely many that humans have never described nor conceived of.

And they can't all be true. In fact, when one considers the space of possibility, the likelihood that a single idea of divinity chosen at random is real, approaches zero, since each specifed divinity is logically inconsistent with billions of other, unspecified divinities.

And to see that, pick any god and describe it. Now I shall define a one-eyed god which has created your god as an impossible figment of its imagination. Then a two-eyed god which has done so... and so on, up to a billion-eyed god. Each of these is inconsistent with the reality of your god, and there are as many of them as we wish.

So your burden of proof then is not simply to show that even one divinity exists, but that, against all metaphysical probability, the one existing is the one nominated by your particular theology.

And that requires your theology, when tested by independent observers on its explanations and predictions, to do things so impressive that no other faith or human agency could accomplish them.

(Note that I said when tested independently -- i.e. by people not of your faith.)

Unfortunately this has never been demonstrated for any faith. In fact, what has been demonstrated for every faith is the reverse: a history of ignorance, error, inconsistency, excuses and evasions.

So unless the faithful can suddenly (for example) get prayer to work reliably under clinical conditions for one faith alone, there is no reason to entertain any particular theology, much less believe it.

I hope that may be useful.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:27:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Excellent post Mhyke, I'm about tired of hearing atheists repeat this crap over and over. I tell them to consider the amount of testimonial evidence (because it IS a type of evidence whether they like it or not) rather than empirical because of the nature of spirit but they want to believe they have a justified position, but they don't have one and the one they are trying to utilize will be the one they stumble over, the one that will make them look foolish in the end.
Goes something like this....
Atheist- I don't believe in God because there is no evidence.

Theist- what do you mean no evidence? you mean material evidence?

Atheist- yes precisely, I demand empirical scientific evidence for the existence of god.

Theist- okay but God is not material or physical, therefore science is unable to produce evidence for God. God is a Spirit not a physical object, science studies the natural world not the supernatural.

Atheist- You have no evidence any god/creator exists.

Theist- LOL, wait a minute I have plenty of evidence, I have reasoning, logic, observation and my own experience. On top of that there is by far more than enough sources testifying to a spiritual existence, actually more than any other topic. There is more testimonial evidence of a spiritual existence and an afterlife than for any other subject.

Atheist- No empirical evidence has been shown to exist for any gods.

Theist- but I just explained why science can't produce evidence for anything spiritual, why do you keep repeating that?

Atheist- because until you can demonstrate your claim with evidence, I'm just going to reject everything you say, because I can, na nanny boo boo..

Theist- you mean to tell me you came to debate and discuss the existence of God and religion and you don't even know God is outside the restrictions of physical evidence lol?

Atheist- now you're just making stuff up, give me evidence.

Theist- No, I'm making nothing up, this simple truth has been around long before you and I. I don't have to make anything up nor do I need or want to rather I'm testifying that it is true, I'd be lying to say otherwise.
2000 years ago it was written
John 4

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Atheist- I will not discuss without physical evidence....

Theist- okay dummy, but you should learn to freely think and not hinder your mind and its potential filtering everything through atheism, science doesn't have answers about the existence of God and never claimed to, that is why we have spiritual sources.
It's your atheist boys mindsets that are hijacking science in the name of materialism, but God IS science, we are utilizing science to study the creation of God and how it operates and those attempting to reject God through science will be the most shocked lol.

Atheist- I don't believe in any gods or an afterlife, until you produce some evidence I'm gonna stay here sucking my thumb!

Theist- God bless.
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:50:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

The sprinkler is an unproven ad hoc. Many atheists don't use unproven ad hocs.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:54:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 6:33:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:14:44 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a deity. As no such evidence exists non belief is the default position.

'Non belief is the default position' I don't believe that. I challenge you to support this claim.

Support this.

A. It is more likely that a positive assertion is true than not (assumption)
P1. If B, then not C
P2. B is more likely to exist than not
P3. C is more likely to exist than not
C. P2 & P3 together entail a contradiction from P1, thus A is false
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:14:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

When will you learn to stop misrepresenting atheism?
You make generalizations, strawmans, etc.
It is really pathetic.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:35:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Atheists have provided evidence there is no God of the bible.
1. Virgin birth is impossible and cannot be experimentally reproduced.
2. Prophets claiming to hear God's voice and seeing apparitions are suffering from hallucinations and delusions. These disorders have been diagnosed and entered in the DSM-5 diagnostic manuals.
3. The genealogy of Adam and the Genesis of creation puts the universe at 10,000 years. That is a few billion years off the mark.
4. The Jews were a fractured tribal group and never an advanced or powerful nation. They were preceded by more advance civilizations like Egypt, Babylon, Mesopotamia , India and China. They were certainly not the centre of creation as the bible suggests.
5. Jesus was a liar and a lunatic. He was careful to maintain his authority and words came from God which offered him some protection in the beginning. But the Jews got tired of his nonsense and put him to death for blasphemy.
The moment of truth came when he was hanging on the cross dealing with his delusions.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

6. Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

7. There weren't enough miracles to save the Jews from foreign invasions and occupations throughout their history.

8. The bible is a story about the Jews struggling with their neighbours and conscience. It is no different today with Israel. The Jews always lived by justification by faith just as much as the world justified their persecution.

9. Israel was never a great civilization and contributed nothing in their past history. Most of what they wrote or learnt came from the more advanced civilizations that preceded them. Even the stories in the bible are plagiarized from prevailing mythologies of the time.

10. The God of the bible is a jealous, vengeful genocidal maniac. Only a persecuted people could attribute such vicious qualities to a God they love to hate.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:40:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

David Hume put to rest this type of argument in 1748. There is a difference in the amount of evidence needed to establish that a common event happened and the amount of evidence to establish a miracle (defined by Hume as "a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.").
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:51:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 6:19:09 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2015 12:45:17 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would clarify what definition of god you are referring to. Preferably a definition as good as what you have provided for 'evidence'. Also, if there were concrete evidence for any god this conversation would not be necessary - I would accept god exists.

Single entity that created the heavens and the earth and all life in them.

No personal aspect? Is this being powerful? How knowledgable is this being? Why is my belief in such a being important?

Plus, if I were to poll other believers on their own definitions, we would likely get as many definitions as people we poll. If God cannot be defined properly, then is it not obvious the 'evidence' for God is lacking?

'Concrere' is a subjective term. And I'm sure not everything you accept as fact or true has a complete 'concrete' chain of evidence supporting it.

I grant that some claims require a higher standard of evidence than others. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. 'God exists' is an extraordinary claim. There is no extraordinary evidence for God. There is evidence consistent with God being a construct of the human mind. I am willing to accept God in that capacity. If that is the evidence you're referring to, then I concede there is evidence for God.

So your standards for evaluating the evidence and arguments change when God is the subject or potential conclusion.

Yes, and that is as it should be.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:01:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The problem with these kinds of arguments, Mhykiel, is that the analogy must align with the claim. In your analogy, how does the "wet grass" align with evidence for God? Wet grass is obviously a real, tangible thing, so what real tangible thing are you referring to when you say it is evidence for God? Once we align the analogy with the claim, then we see if it is valid or not.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:19:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 7:27:15 AM, EtrnlVw wrote:

Excellent post Mhyke, I'm about tired of hearing atheists repeat this crap over and over.

And, we are tired of hearing your special knowledge crap over and over, you've had this explained to many times that it is not an argument, yet you persist on repeating it.

I tell them to consider the amount of testimonial evidence (because it IS a type of evidence whether they like it or not)

It's not a matter of liking testimonial evidence, it's a matter of testimonial evidence is not hard evidence, because it cannot be verified in any way. There is testimonial evidence for Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, but there is no hard evidence. Do you understand yet?

rather than empirical because of the nature of spirit but they want to believe they have a justified position, but they don't have one and the one they are trying to utilize will be the one they stumble over, the one that will make them look foolish in the end.
Goes something like this....
Atheist- I don't believe in God because there is no evidence.

Theist- what do you mean no evidence? you mean material evidence?

Atheist- yes precisely, I demand empirical scientific evidence for the existence of god.

Theist- okay but God is not material or physical, therefore science is unable to produce evidence for God. God is a Spirit not a physical object, science studies the natural world not the supernatural.

You have NEVER defined spirit/spiritual, you have never told us what that is exactly and telling us what it isn't is completely useless. If I asked you what a dog was and you said it wasn't a cat, that tells me absolutely nothing about a dog.

It is unbelievably mind-boggling that you have yet to grasp this simple concept.

As well, if claim something is spirit/spiritual, that it is not material, then it is impossible for you to know it exists, because it is not material, hence you can't see, hear, touch or smell it. This concept too, you can't seem to grasp.

You constantly appeal to having special knowledge, but then pressed for a definition, you provide nothing. You have no argument, you have only a word that you toss around which is utterly meaningless to you and to anyone else.

So, it anyone looks completely foolish, it is YOU.

Atheist- You have no evidence any god/creator exists.

Theist- LOL, wait a minute I have plenty of evidence, I have reasoning, logic, observation and my own experience. On top of that there is by far more than enough sources testifying to a spiritual existence, actually more than any other topic. There is more testimonial evidence of a spiritual existence and an afterlife than for any other subject.

Then, tell us what a spiritual existence is rather than blathering on about it, If there is evidence for it, then show this evidence. No one cares about sources testifying to something that you have not defined, that is entirely irrelevant.

Atheist- No empirical evidence has been shown to exist for any gods.

Theist- but I just explained why science can't produce evidence for anything spiritual, why do you keep repeating that?

It is YOU who keeps repeating, spiritual over and over, yet you've never told us what that is, hence you could use the word ooga-booga and it would have exactly the same meaning.

Theist - but I just explained why science can't produce evidence for anything ooga-booga, why do you keep repeating that?

Atheist- because until you can demonstrate your claim with evidence, I'm just going to reject everything you say, because I can, na nanny boo boo..

That is a lie and you know it. It is YOU who can never define what you're talking about.

Theist- you mean to tell me you came to debate and discuss the existence of God and religion and you don't even know God is outside the restrictions of physical evidence lol?

Is he? Then, how do you know God exists if He is outside the restrictions of anything you can see, hear, touch and smell?

Atheist- now you're just making stuff up, give me evidence.

Theist- No, I'm making nothing up, this simple truth has been around long before you and I. I don't have to make anything up nor do I need or want to rather I'm testifying that it is true, I'd be lying to say otherwise.

You ARE lying.

2000 years ago it was written
John 4

23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

And, spirit is what exactly? Please define what it is and not what it isn't.


Atheist- I will not discuss without physical evidence....


Theist- okay dummy, but you should learn to freely think and not hinder your mind and its potential filtering everything through atheism, science doesn't have answers about the existence of God and never claimed to, that is why we have spiritual sources.

No once cares about spiritual sources if "spiritual" cannot be defined.

It's your atheist boys mindsets that are hijacking science in the name of materialism, but God IS science, we are utilizing science to study the creation of God and how it operates and those attempting to reject God through science will be the most shocked lol.

More lies.

Atheist- I don't believe in any gods or an afterlife, until you produce some evidence I'm gonna stay here sucking my thumb!

Theist- God bless.

Talking like a small child does not help you in any way.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:25:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 7:17:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2015 6:33:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:14:44 AM, JJ50 wrote:
The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a deity. As no such evidence exists non belief is the default position.
'Non belief is the default position' I don't believe that. I challenge you to support this claim.
Here's an easy argument for that, Mhykiel...

Let's assume that you do not believe in unicorns. (It need not be unicorns, but let's assume unicorns are something you don't believe in.) Let's also observe that the classes of things you believe in is finite -- since our language is finite, and you only have limited time to think.

Now, for every class of thing you do believe in, I can invent seven things you don't believe in, by mounting the real thing on the back of each of seven unicorns -- one for each colour of the rainbow.

Ergo, there are more things you do not believe in than things you do believe in. Thus, disbelief is your default position for nearly everything one could possibly imagine.

There are 2 groups: {A} and {B}.

{A} contains 'W'

{B} contains 'Y' and 'Z'

'X' is an entity in question. Best to treat it as if it belongs in {B} becuase be has more members.

Another:

In a bag of marbles I reach in and pull out one at a time 2 reb marbles and 5 blue marbles. I should assume the next marble I pull out is blue becuase I have more blue marbles.

BS. Go read a book on logic and set theory. Your default position is athiest illogic
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:31:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:35:09 AM, Harikrish wrote:
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

Atheists have provided evidence there is no God of the bible.
1. Virgin birth is impossible and cannot be experimentally reproduced.
2. Prophets claiming to hear God's voice and seeing apparitions are suffering from hallucinations and delusions. These disorders have been diagnosed and entered in the DSM-5 diagnostic manuals.
3. The genealogy of Adam and the Genesis of creation puts the universe at 10,000 years. That is a few billion years off the mark.
4. The Jews were a fractured tribal group and never an advanced or powerful nation. They were preceded by more advance civilizations like Egypt, Babylon, Mesopotamia , India and China. They were certainly not the centre of creation as the bible suggests.
5. Jesus was a liar and a lunatic. He was careful to maintain his authority and words came from God which offered him some protection in the beginning. But the Jews got tired of his nonsense and put him to death for blasphemy.
The moment of truth came when he was hanging on the cross dealing with his delusions.

Matthew 27:46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

6. Exodus never happened and the walls of Jericho did not come a-tumbling down. How archaeologists are shaking Israel to its biblical foundations.

Israel Finkelstein, chairman of the Archaeology Department at Tel Aviv University, with archaeology historian Neil Asher Silberman, has just published a book called "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Text."

"The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land [of Canaan] in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the twelve tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united kingdom of David and Solomon, described in the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom."

7. There weren't enough miracles to save the Jews from foreign invasions and occupations throughout their history.

8. The bible is a story about the Jews struggling with their neighbours and conscience. It is no different today with Israel. The Jews always lived by justification by faith just as much as the world justified their persecution.

9. Israel was never a great civilization and contributed nothing in their past history. Most of what they wrote or learnt came from the more advanced civilizations that preceded them. Even the stories in the bible are plagiarized from prevailing mythologies of the time.

10. The God of the bible is a jealous, vengeful genocidal maniac. Only a persecuted people could attribute such vicious qualities to a God they love to hate.

I wonder if your Hindu mommy and daddy are aware their beloved offspring is a closet-atheist, the amount of money they put forth to get their boy a little western education and now he's squandering it all by chasing mental cases around, antagonizing theists and pretending he is an online psychologist, all day long.

I'm sure all that education could land you at least a few more opportunities other than parroting atheism and demonizing Jesus and any followers in a spiritual waste land of a forum?

Oh what was that again about atheist providing evidence of what.....?
Reasonslap
Posts: 221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:44:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 10:33:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
Evidence is defined as"

http://dictionary.reference.com...
noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Another:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Take for instance the statement "It rained last night."

Now the Atheist will announce "there was no rain." And when challenged to support that claim the Unscrupulous will then clamor "You have to prove it rained."

Then the Theist will say, "Because the grass is wet"

The Atheist will retort, "There is a sprinkler system in the ground! One day our Seismograph data will show us so."

And therefore the Atheist who never sees themselves as a participant in a logical discussion, but as the judge and jury of what logic is decrees, "There is NO evidence for it raining!"

Well while a sprinkler is one alternative explanation that would explain why the grass is wet, it does not magically remove other alternatives that equally explain the same observation.

If the theist presents an argument that explains the observations, is internally consistent and externally consistent with reality. THEN I say how can such a argument compete with "I'm not convinced", "I don't know" or "nope no nadda no way jose"

Because those are not positions of any structure that can be defended, they are no claim about reality. they are the words of the undecided. And yet those who claim to be undecided to some of the harshest judging?

What a sly position to take. Make no claim, but holler "God is dead!". Answer no challenge but say the question is "do you have any evidence". Take no burden of proof, but pass judgement on what can and can't count as "evidence". Of course "evidence" is redefined by the Atheist to be what they want it to be. Not what it has been for ages, not what has been written about it in lesson plans of logic and argument. No no, the evidence supports the Atheist lack of any position or claim, and so everything either conforms to the Atheist view or .. well or it's not evidence obviously.

The burden of proof is on Christians. If I claim mermaids are real, according to your logic, I am right because the burden of proof is on the person rejecting the idea.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:48:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Atheists are people who don't know what "God" is supposed to represent. They don't know any better. It is completely understandable too, because very few people are actually qualified to teach theology.

A lot of atheists have a severe case of theophobia too, and they are not nearly as scientific as they'd like to think.

Truly, I find it very difficult to believe that there is even such a thing as an atheist. The existence of an Ultimate Reality seems fairly easy to arrive at. The evidence is everywhere.

If you don't believe in the existence of Truth, I don't understand why you'd even bother trying to argue with people about it.

It's, like I said, most atheists don't even know what God is supposed to represent. Their problem isn't with God usually, but religion.

I tell you the truth when I say, there are many atheists who are closer to God than those who identify as being religious.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,628
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 9:52:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 9:48:54 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Atheists are people who don't know what "God" is supposed to represent. They don't know any better. It is completely understandable too, because very few people are actually qualified to teach theology.

A lot of atheists have a severe case of theophobia too, and they are not nearly as scientific as they'd like to think.

Truly, I find it very difficult to believe that there is even such a thing as an atheist. The existence of an Ultimate Reality seems fairly easy to arrive at. The evidence is everywhere.

If you don't believe in the existence of Truth, I don't understand why you'd even bother trying to argue with people about it.

It's, like I said, most atheists don't even know what God is supposed to represent. Their problem isn't with God usually, but religion.

I tell you the truth when I say, there are many atheists who are closer to God than those who identify as being religious.

Oh look, yet another believer claiming special knowledge of God, yet can only regurgitate the Bible. You are not qualified for anything but preaching, which anyone can do.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,127
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 10:01:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One more thing. You accuse atheists of being disingenuous while you mutate your definition to fit your argument. I have seen you argue for the God of the Bible, yet when I asked you to provide a definition of God here you provided a severely stripped down version. My response to the Christian god is one of utter and complete denial. That god is nonsensical and there is evidence against that god. When discussing a deistic God, my position is that of a weak atheist due to lack of evidence to match the claim. I don't claim a deistic God does not exist. If anything is malleable, it is the definitions of "God" not the position of atheists.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:05:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 9:48:54 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Atheists are people who don't know what "God" is supposed to represent. They don't know any better. It is completely understandable too, because very few people are actually qualified to teach theology.

A lot of atheists have a severe case of theophobia too, and they are not nearly as scientific as they'd like to think.

Truly, I find it very difficult to believe that there is even such a thing as an atheist. The existence of an Ultimate Reality seems fairly easy to arrive at. The evidence is everywhere.

If you don't believe in the existence of Truth, I don't understand why you'd even bother trying to argue with people about it.

It's, like I said, most atheists don't even know what God is supposed to represent. Their problem isn't with God usually, but religion.

I tell you the truth when I say, there are many atheists who are closer to God than those who identify as being religious.

Atheism is modern secularism. You are free to believe whatever you wish. But provide the proof of existence if you want others to believe you. Liars, lunatics and believers are not mutually exclusive. They are a variation of the trinity doctrine. They should be considered as one (1+1+1=1)
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:47:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 9:25:42 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
There are 2 groups: {A} and {B}.

{A} contains 'W'

{B} contains 'Y' and 'Z'

'X' is an entity in question. Best to treat it as if it belongs in {B} becuase be has more members.

Another:

In a bag of marbles I reach in and pull out one at a time 2 reb marbles and 5 blue marbles. I should assume the next marble I pull out is blue becuase I have more blue marbles.

BS. Go read a book on logic and set theory. Your default position is athiest illogic

The problem is your example has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. Lets take your bag of marbles example. You pull an 8th marble out of the bag but don't let me see it. You then claim "the marble I pulled out was blue". My default position would be to not believe you until you. I have no idea, maybe it is blue, maybe it is red, maybe it is some other color we have yet to pull out, maybe there were only 7 marbles to start with and the bag was now empty. The burden of proof is on you to show the blue marble you claim that you pulled.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 11:49:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 11:05:14 AM, Harikrish wrote:
Atheism is modern secularism. You are free to believe whatever you wish. But provide the proof of existence if you want others to believe you.

An atheist is someone who asserts that there is no Ultimate Reality independent of human bias that ties all these experiences together.

A Christian can be a secularist. Indeed, a lot of secularists ARE Christian.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer