New Member First Post

Debate Room
21

Absolutely, but even without the aid of an omniscient deity, if they have compelling evidence they’d lead with that, no nonsense and no preamble, yet they never ever do.

Every single time it’s the same, and at the end I’ll bet my house it is the atheists here who are blamed for not accepting the “evidence”, often bizarrely accused of ignoring it after weeks of nothing being presented, as if we somehow managed to miss it.

I’ve lost track of the number of visiting theists who have had the temerity to ask what I mean by objective evidence, as if a few seconds Googling won’t show definitively what those words mean.

1 Like
22

Present physical and objective evidence that your patron deity and Jesus exists. Back up your claim and prove that your superstitions are not imaginary.

23

It is aggravating when you tell them to present physical and objective evidence, they try to turn it around on us and start shaming] and acting like we’re the idiots. It’s simple. They can’t do it. I might as well ask them to prove that unicorns, cosmic elves, leprechauns, and dwarves exist too. They’ll fail with those tasks as well.

1 Like
24

Well I’m prepared to keep an open mind, but I’m not going to give someone what evidence they need to present for a belief I don’t share, that’s just silly. This would be laughed at in any other context than religion.

I will go as far as to say that my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support it. Beyond that I have neither expectation nor demand, it’s for those claiming a deity exists to offer the best evidence they think they have.

To save time, as this is often the next ludicrous request, here are the primary dictionary definitions of objective evidence.

Objective

adjective

  1. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Evidence

noun

  1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I can’t make it any simpler, or more accommodating than this.

25

Ignoring the captiousness, there’s no need to ignore the tautology as it was intentional. - e.g. “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing”.
No hyperbole whatsoever is intended. To most non-sociopaths, human relational dynamic are important, especially those within one’s immediate family, and one should not break them on a whim.
As to the idea that “one does not have to be certain a claim is false in order to disbelieve it”, one is certainly free be believe anything they wish. The question is whether one’s beliefs are warranted by rational empiricism or not. If they are merely based on whim, emotion, or argument from ignorance, perhaps a bit of due diligence may be in order.

26

I wasn’t asking for the definition of evidence. I was asking what subject you are referring to, and what kinds of evidence you might find convincing. To be clear - are you now asking me to furnish you with evidence for the existence of a deity?

27

It was redundant, as is usually the nature of tautologies. As if doubting the existence of a deity required a redundant repetition of the misnomer of certainty. Theism is a belief, and thus carries a burden of proof, so to speak, atheism is not a belief or therefore a claim, thus it is irrational to assert it need be evidenced, let alone that someone be certain which is epistemologically impossible,

Describing abandoning belief as pulling the trigger was nevertheless hyperbole, perhaps it was accidental, but I am used to theists “laying it on think” like that, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why should the onus be on that poster’s lack of belief, and not on his family to examine their unevidenced belief in a deity? That also strikes me as a no true Scotsman fallacy.

You just equated disbelief with belief in a single sentence? Atheism is not a belief…Theism is a belief, it is irrational to assert that one should require evidence a claim is false or untrue before disbelieving it, let alone that they be “certain they are certain”.

Well it is for you to demonstrate what your beliefs are based on, atheism is not a belief, thus it carries no burden of proof, to suggest otherwise, as you did with your tautology about certainty, is the very definition of an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Well thank you for the heads up, but most of the atheists here are more than capable of submitting claims to critical and objective scrutiny.

I thought he made that pretty clear tbh, here’s the quote.

However so there is no more confusion…

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity or deities? If so, then please do so.

1 Like
28

I’ve made myself very clear to you. Lets not resort to deflection tactics. You wouldn’t be the first Theist to do this here so cut the bullshit.

2 Likes
29

Based on the tone of your reply, as well as the assumptions you’ve made, it seems to me that the evidence thus far suggests that you don’t have a genuine desire to hear the answer, and as such I am skeptical that your question is being asked in good faith.

If this should change, I’d be more than happy to engage in rational dialogue with you. My intention as a fellow member of Atheist Republic is to listen, to learn and to share ideas when appropriate and helpful. I’m not here to be baited into fruitless arguments by captious comments for the entertainment or vanity of those who have no intention of discussing in good faith.

If future discussion is to be productive, it would go a long way if some basic principles of civility are observed, or at the very least the basic guidelines officially given by this site. Until then, I sincerely wish you the very best. Good day.

30

Not replied to me, but I’ll bite anyway:
As for me, I honestly don’t know what would convince me there is a god, and what evidence I would find compelling or convincing. However, an all-knowing and all-powerful god would surely know. If this evidence is not experienced in daily life or by reading religious literature or listening to religious people trying to convince me, then it would be up to the god to present the evidence for me, in one way or another. If this god doesn’t do that, it means he/she/it is actively withholding the evidence, or doesn’t care. Which would mean it’s not really my problem. In any case, no such evidence have been presented to me. Yet.

31

I guess we have no way of knowing as you keep posting like all the other theists who come here, yet no evidence is ever demonstrated.

Aren’t you obliged to evangelise? I’m pretty sure that since atheism has no doctrine or dogma how an individual atheist treats unevidenced claims for evidence that seem to go on and on, but never actual demonstrate any objective evidence, is up to them.

I’m not defending being uncivil, but I did warn you that whilst you had a right to expect respect, any beliefs or ideas you espouse could not demand respect, and would be subjected to proper critical scrutiny, and have to earn it. If you keep claiming or implying such evidence exists, in post after post, yet never actually demonstrate anything, well of course posters will become frustrated. You can’t say I didn’t warn you.

Well you haven’t offered anything thus far, and while I personally don’t believe that anything can be argued into existence, you could at least offer a rational argument that a deity is even possible.

Well if you’d opened with the evidence you believe is most compelling, instead of posting repeatedly whilst offering nothing, this need not have happened. As it is your objection seems a little hollow to me, as if you already know you don’t really have any objective evidence that will stand up to critical scrutiny.

Well good day then, I can’t say I’m surprised at your departure, or the fact you failed to offer a single shred of objective evidence, t’was ever thus. At least you can pretend your failure was somehow our fault when you discuss this with other theists, this delusion seems a common and important factor to the theists who come here, claiming they can evidence a deity. From those with the soft sell, to the grandiose bombast of the grandiloquent, the result is identical each and every time. No candid and direct responses to questions are ever given, rather blatant evasion, and of course no objective evidence is ever demonstrated, of any kind.

I concur, but I will go as far as to say a demonstration of sufficient objective evidence. If a theists could demonstrate a fraction of the objective evidence of any accepted scientific theory like evolution, then I’d accept it of course, though given an accepted scientific theory is the pinnacle of scientific thought that is setting the bar very high indeed.

After so many failed attempts to provide anything, I’d settle for a theist who didn’t obfuscate, and posted the best evidence they think they have right out of the gate, I mean what is it they are afraid of?

2 Likes
32

It does not look like you are here for anything but to continue commenting on why you are here. If you have a point to make, why not start a thread and make it? Your current nonsense is tiresome.

4 Likes
33

Seems to me, the evidence thus far, suggests that you don’t have any fucking evidence or you would have been happy enough to post it instead of engaging in this bullshit. Furthermore, with an attitude like ours, we just fucking don’t deserve to hear your evidence. So, why not pack up your little rubber Jesus, his holy wooden cross and real bleeding action, the little toy Roman soldiers, and that hammer and nails, shove it all in the little bag you pulled them out of, pick up your bible and just be on your way. You are boring as fuck and have broght nothing new to the table.

3 Likes
34

I’ve you asked you twice now and the hint I’m getting is that you don’t want to give me anything. So now you’re making excuses because either you can’t give me what I want or you refuse to. Which is it?

I was very rational with you before you became evasive with my question after you heavily implied your god was real. Either you can’t prove that it exists or you can. So which is it?

You’re the one who signed up here and started implying that a deity existed. All I asked was for you to provide evidence that a deity existed and now you’re throwing around shade & being evasive. This “fruitless argument” didn’t happen until you started posting claims that you either can’t or won’t back up. Not a good way to kick off your membership here.

That’s a cop out.

I’ve asked you twice already. Twice I was very polite about it. Third time you evaded and you’re playing dumb. This is something I’d expect out of an 11 year old child to evade telling the truth. So in other words, you’re the one who is being rude. When someone asks you a question. You answer. It’s not my fault you’re being childish about it and are now refusing to provide an answer or evidence to my requests.

Obviously. You can’t do it.

35

I don’t think I’ve ever before heard an Atheist (or anyone) so a aptly summarize both the combined sentiment of this echo chamber, as well as the thesis of Romans 1:18-31.

  • Thy will be done.
36

You had ample chance to demsonrate something, anything that supported your belief in a deity, and you didn’t. So I’m afraid these protestations are ringing hollow. Especially as you seem to have focused on, and be revelling in replying to, only the very posts you claim to object to. Easier than answering critical observations of your unevidenced claims obviously.

To paraphrase Shakespeare, “the theist doth protest too much” seems more apropos than anything the bible has to offer here.

1 Like
37

That’s nice dear. Screw you too. Instead of answering a question and providing evidence that your god is real, you just stoop to being a judgmental conniving little asshole who uses scripture from a book written by fanatics as insults.

38

I know the evasion is frustrating, but responding with ad hominem is just giving ammunition, far better to take the high road, so to speak.

39

It is very aggravating. I ask a question, he evades, plays stupid, and then stoops to throwing insults. All he’s done since he’s joined is troll. That’s all he’s done.

40

19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

So what is known about God, and how do you know? And how do you know that you know the truth? How do you know that you’re not just imagining things?

20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

This is just a deepity; plain obfuscation of the fact that nothing is known, or can be known about this God. Pure speculation and intricate formulations can not cause a god to pop into existence.

So we’re still left with the question that nobody have been able to answer as of yet: What is the objective empirical evidence for God/a god and his/her/its qualities?