Well, frankly, like @Calilasseia, I am waiting for a definition. As I iterated six months ago, the notion of expecting an explanation of what would constitute evidence for an undefined thing is rather absurd, ridiculous, and laughable.
Generally speaking, by its nature, sufficient evidence would be recognized when it’s seen.
6 Likes
You mean seek your acceptance that something is evidence? How do I know that you’d be honest?
Well if it is undefined why not define it? Those who say “I’ve never seen evidence for God” are surely the best ones to tell us what it is exactly that they haven’t seen evidence for. If one has no definition of God then how can one even claim to be an atheist, they might well hold a belief in God but don’t realize it.
All of this stuff comes up precisely because atheism is vacuous, the emperor’s new clothes, there’s no actual intellectual position at all, nothing of substance just “I don’t hold a belief in things that are undefined” and other such inanities.
That is the job of theism, although they like to play semantics, bend and twist words, ideas, concepts, all in order to put off the inevitable.
It’s actually quite a clever ploy, but it doesn’t do them any favors in the long run.
This is in actuality, the natural response to the theists that try to present evidence.
They try to use science and concepts to justify their belief or prove their god, but always fail.
From the kalam cosmological arguement, to the historical accuracy of the bible… it fails.
So its not as such, “ive never seen evidence for god” its more, “the evidence youve put forward is crap!”
Because atheism is simply the position of being unconvinced of the claim that there is a god!
As oppose to believing in a pan dimensional wizard that cannot be proven to exist?
2 Likes
We’re not talking about me. We’re talking about you. No one asked you to register here. You showed up here like a door to door salesman offering religious theories and claims to me and the other atheists of this community. We didn’t come to you. So really, the burden of proof is on you. Funny thing is, I’ve had Christians admit to me that there is no evidence of any kind supporting that their god exists. Just blind faith. How about you join them and admit that as well?
You want us to guess what you mean by deity? Now that is truly inane.
They do each time, they cannot do this when you claim to believe a deity is extant, but can’t define it, or demonstrate why beyond bare assumptions, archaic myths, and irrational arguments.
That you think not holding a belief in an undefined thing is nonsensical is truly hilarious. How many undefined things do you believe then? Could you give us a few examples?
2 Likes
Of course we are if you are the one adjudging said evidence.
Oh boy, OK, let’s see where this tangent takes us…
That’s true of almost all of us I suspect.
That’s a rather bizarre interpretation, but do go on…
I accept the burden of proof for any claims I make, I do not and have not argued otherwise. But we must be honest, we must be cognizant of the fact that proof entails two minds - not one - two of us. I am the advocate for claim X and you are the skeptic of claim X.
If I say X is evidence for God you can say you agree, disagree or don’t know. Can’t you see? we each carry some responsibility not just the person making some claim. You demand evidence and I, in turn demand evidence that you are impartial, that you’d actually recognize evidence rather than interpret it some other way.
What are some of the “good reasons” you claimed exist to believe the gospels are supernatural in origin?
No it’s not, not based on what we’ve seen so far.
I posit that it is meaningless to say “I do not hold a belief in X” without that person defining X, it is a vacuous statement. If you want to say “I do not hold beliefs in undefined things” then wow, that’s a profound intellectual stance, really, erm…impressive.
Never heard of such a beast.
No, I don’t know because I’m not a Theist.
You guys play those bullshit games with Muslims and Hindus all of the time on who has the right god. You xtians think the same arguments apply to Atheists. We’re simply asking for admissible evidence that would pass in a court of law seeing as you theists think a book written by primitive superstitious fanatics is evidence on it’s own and think you need to defend the existence of your god. Why?
Wouldn’t a god not need his followers to defend him if he were to exist?
1 Like
Look at you “you guys” and “You Christians” sounds like someone might have a complex.
Watch Orson Welles’ The Trial sometime. The question of the legitimacy of courts is central to that story.
Courts have rules for working with evidence, you atheists don’t.
That’s just your way of deflecting and copping out again. If it wouldn’t hold up in court, I’m not convinced. I have a few family members who have worked as police officers and they have a standard for what evidence is when they submitted it to the court.
2 Likes
That is simply your subjective opinion.
No more vacuous then twisting facts to suit your own theories and bias.
No, i say i don’t belive in unsubstantiated drivel.
You want me to essentially believe in magic, something immaterial, what is immaterial? You dont know.
You want me to believe in the supernatural, what is the supernatural? You dont know.
Its lunacy.
1 Like
Why should I believe the claim “I’m able to recognize evidence for God so let me examine the evidence”?
Nor should you.
I actually want you to tell me why you believe you can recognize evidence for God? because you must believe that else there’d be no point in asking for evidence would there?
I can answer that once you answer, “has god ever interacted with the universe?”.
1 Like
lol are you saying you dont know what evidence is for a deity?
1 Like
Oh, but can’t we answer questions in the same order they get asked? call me old fashioned I know…
I think you’ve wiggled out of enough.
Crack on.
3 Likes
No, you don’t but you insist on asking to see it, if you know nothing can be evidence then why even ask to see it, makes no sense, really atheism makes no sense.