ZenMode
Well-known member
Yes. That should be everyone's favorite word when it comes to what you believe and how confidently you believe it.
Archaeology of the New Testament
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
Atheists always reject all evidence!
ZenMode
Well-known member
Religious people become atheist because they realize there is a lack of evidence.
Jerry Mathers
Was it me?
neither have you.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
They are not the same.
Faith implies a "track record" of some sort, within personal experience, which serves as the basis for the faith. This is why the term "blind faith" is needed, i.e. when there is no track record of personal experience and no basis for having faith.
The problem here is that you are asserting yourself as being the absolute judge of "evidence", and that you determine what evidence is "shitty" and what evidence has merit.
Evidence is always subjective, both in what constitutes evidence as well as what it means. Each individual determines the value of his own evidence. So, if Into the Night deems his evidence to be solid, you have no choice but to accept that he finds it to be solid. I imagine that Into the Night accepts that you find the evidence to be "shitty."
ZenMode
Well-known member
While terms like "lacking" and "shitty" and "insufficient " are subjective, they also have definitions and, as such, commonly understood uses. The evidence for gods, today, is circumstantial. There are no old men parting bodies of water with sticks. There are no talking bushes. The skies aren't parting and angels floating down from the heavens. (Nevermind that we know the skies aren't "heaven", anyway.)
Or, if you're Muslim, there are no prophets riding into the sky on a flying horse.
The lack of evidence for gods, when compared to the evidence for a great white whale, which I've never seen in person but I'm quite certain exists, is more than circumstantial. It's not lacking. It's not shitty, etc.
Numerous, multiple times I have.
Life experience, science, and logic all inform me that:
1) Every physical effect has an cause.
2) The rational can only come from a rational cause.
3) Something does not come from nothing.
4) Organization and lawful order does not arise from chaos or random chance.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
You aren't reading well. Yes, they have very common misuses, i.e. declaring something subjective to be bad/lacking in some absolute sense. You don't get to do that. You are in the wrong.
That's your subjective opinion of subjective evidence on an unfalsifiable topic. Someone else, e.g. Into the Night, obviously has a different subjective opinion stemming from different subjective evidence on the same unfalsifiable topic.
What part of this do you not understand?
... of which you are aware. You also have no idea which men will part what waters tomorrow, if any. All you have is your subjective speculation.
... of which you are aware. You have no idea what burning bushes (that remain unconsumed) are talking in the far corners of the globe. You also have no idea what talking/burning bushes there will be tomorrow, if any. All you have is your subjective speculation.
... but the clouds are, which is how the saying goes.
Same as above. All you have is your speculation.
Please wander over to Climate-Debate.com and talk to Spongy Iris about that.
I take it that you still have no time machine to verify the unobserved past, and no crystal ball to verify the future, correct?
... is not proof of a lack of gods.
I spoke to a Lutheran pastor who agrees with me that Noah's Ark is a story with a moral twist, it's not a historical biography.
ZenMode
Well-known member
In your world of "well, according to you, but you don't know if unicorns are flying around the sky in another part of the world", nothing is verifiable.
We live in a world where just under 6 billion people have portable video recording devices, yet not ONE has produced any convincing or authentic video of a miracle, god, etc. So, you can live in your world of "You don't know....". I'll live in a world of evidence.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
False. Are we done?
Who is making this determination that not ONE but many have produced convincing or authentic videos? You? I know of at least one person who disagrees. Ergo, you are incorrect.
What evidence do you have?
ZenMode
Well-known member
I'm not the one claiming gods exist. The onus is on the believer to support their claim.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Lot of Water in the Ocean!
From Adam thru to everyone born ,none have been "moral" ,they all have been sinners that need Salvation from the Cross !
Your Lutheran pastor is in the wrong line of work!
Why do Atheist always think it's the believers responsible to prove that God exists?
I personally feel no responsibility to prove anything to atheists!
ZenMode
Well-known member
Because believers are the ones making the claim.
It's like Bigfoot or the loch Ness monster.
So what, that doesn't mean ,we have to prove a thing to atheists!
You'll find out soon enough ,when it's your turn to ride Balaam's donkey!
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Irrelevant pivot. You are the one asserting that subjective evidence is bad in an absolute sense.
The error is yours; own it.
The onus is on the speaker to use correct grammar to say what he means, and mean what he says.
You are in the wrong, and you aren't fixing your fallacy. You lose this one as well.
ZenMode
Well-known member
There is no error. Circumstantial evidence is circumstantial evidence. Playing the what if game doesn't change anything. What ifs aren't evidence.
The onus is on the believer to support their claim of gods. I don't care if it's the god of Abraham, Muhammad, Zeus, Aphrodite or whatever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
... and circumstantial evidence is evidence. You don't understand this, do you?
You are still trying to play "absolute evidence judge."
Inventing games that are not being played doesn't change anything. You aren't the "absolute evidence judge."
Nope. No believer needs to justify his beliefs. You, on the other hand, must explain your assertion that subjective evidence is somehow lacking in an absolute sense.
FTFY. You haven't met your burden of support.
The oceans were on the primordial Earth billions of years before humans were around.
Pastor Brian is a dedicated and highly educated graduate of seminary school.