We are not disagreeing. You and I both know that the Apostles did not just die for nothing. Someone had to create the universe. And besides, when I was young I was dying of cancer. I had a lump on my ass and before I could get to a doctor, I prayed and God removed the lump. He saved my ass from cancer. Prove me wrong! (EDIT: I know it was ass cancer because I read about ass cancer in a book in the library. You know, those hubs of real knowledge that existed before Google?)
ā¦and overlooked your personality.
That lump in your ass was just a lump of faeces, and when you prayed, you pooped it out. Q.E.D.
Itās very easy for an amateur to make an erroneous diagnosis, especially while high on religion.
There is actually. What there is not is empirical/scientific evidence.
āEvidenceā is literally anything presented in support of an argument/proposition.
Evidence of the existence of god and the life of Jesus and all the saints includes: The bible, old and new testaments, EVERYTHING ever written or spoken about those things. Among those mountains of fecal detritus there is no empirical or scientific evidence for any kind of non material being or realm.
Perhaps I should have added āā¦as a defiant toddler.ā
I agree that it is not scientific evidence. On the other hand, this is not a court of law, so I donāt see how the legal context meaning of āevidenceā applies. Or maybe my brain is just too hooked on the sciences. Or it might be me not being a native english speaker that tricks up my brainās language center. In any case, to me, what you mention are unevidenced claims or assertions.
[quote=āGet_off_my_lawn, post:66, topic:967ā]
so I donāt see how the legal context meaning of āevidenceā applies. [/quote]
I think thatās a straw man. I didnāt draw that comparison, nor do I think itās apt.
They are claims and evidence. Was I unclear? Thatās my understanding. I wonāt argue the point, I may have misunderstood.
To me, this is arguing about semantics rather than the subject. I can do that in my native language, but Iād rather not do that in a secondary language, as I, as a non-native speaker of English is not in a prime position to do that. So I hereby withdraw from this discussion.
Why mess with perfect? 
After allā¦ I will eventually evolve intoā¦ (See Pic)ā¦ Monkeys Evolve you know!
1 Like
You think an attack on my competence as as patron of libraries and avid reader of bookes is going to win you the argguement. Ha! Ad Hominim atack is lowest form. You sound fool.
I question this idea of āScientific Evidence.ā It sounds as if science has manufactured the evidence. Is there such a thing as āscientific evidence.ā Donāt we simply mean āEvidence that has undergone scientific investigation.ā āEmpirical Evidenceā as Shelden would put it. Measurable, repeatable, predictable, and independently verifiable by anyone willing to put in the time and effort to conduct the same experiments.
The Creationists invent āScientific Evidence.ā At least that is what they call it.
1 Like
Given what is always presented by theists and religious apologists, if indeed anything at all is presented, to support their claim for an extant deity. Iād be very wary of calling it evidence.
I think what Cognostic is saying is right here, in the sense that the available body of facts or information indicating whether the belief or proposition is true or valid, obviously exists. Where I part company with those who believe a deity exists, is that I have never seen or heard of any fact or information that remotely amounts to objectively validating the belief, or even any rational argument to support it, though like others here I am extremely dubious that you can argue something into existence, but that doubt has never been properly tested since all the theistic arguments Iāve seen presented are based on known logical fallacies like argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argumentum ad populum.
This is why I disbelieve god claims that are unfalsifiable, as that is how I would treat all unfalsifiable claims, and see no objective or rational reason to treat god claims any differently.
I also always ask for objective evidence, as I generally withhold belief from all claims that are based solely on subjective or anecdotal testimony. Again I see no rational or objective reason to treat god claims any differently here.
Too many theists who come here spend weeks or even months making bare claims, and offering nothing beyond irrational arguments, or anecdotal claims and bare assertions. I have never seen any objective evidence demonstrated for any deity, or anything supernatural.
More tellingly is that those same theists and religious apologists trumpeting their claim for evidence often tediously waste many hours trumpeting the bare claim they have evidence, or trying to reverse the burden of proof.
Tellingly not one has ever demonstrate the best most compelling reason or evidence they have for their belief in their very first post? What does that rationally infer to you?
Thatās just bullshit and you know it. You are restricting your ability to understand the world around you. Quit being so closed minded. Open your heart and mind to the reality of God. Not all evidence has to be objective. . 80 percent of the global population CANāT be wrong.
OUCH! I strained my funny bone writing that last sentenceā¦
1 Like
No, so thereā¦
Great then in my subjective opinion youāre wrongā¦aaaaand wrong. 
Yeah actually they can, do you know how many people think jazz is cool?
Iāve got some snake oil I can sell you, guaranteed to workā¦
Even less.
When I told my father I had left the church, he said, quite rightly too ; " Well, there are a lot of people a lot smarter than you who believe!"
Since then, I have learned about the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The claim is also statistically untrue as far as Iāve been able to tell. Taken en masse, I think using the term āflockā [of sheep] to describe Christian congregations is most apt.
When theists use argumentum ad populum fallacies, it always makes me smile. Not just because it is a fallacy and therefore irrational, but because there is no religion that isnāt a minority of the global population.
Being ignorant of a known logical fallacy is bad, but basing it on bogus statistics is pretty fucking hilarious.
1 Like
Well, a whole lot of people agree with you so I guess there must be something true in what you are syaing. Hmmā¦ Iām having cognative dissonance moment as I doublethink my current position. Satan must be affecting the minds of the non-believers and Jesus affecting the minds of the believers. There is no other obvious soulution.
actually there is a much more obvious solution, using Occamās razorā¦
Yeaā¦ I can see what you mean. God has a plan and he works in mysterious ways. We can just cut away Satan. Thanks!
@Cognostic Doublethink? Sounds like you are referencing the book āAnimal Farmā by George Orwell.
Good book, by the way.