Instead of ranting and raving about atheists making claims. Just know that all we ask is for evidence for this god thing that you believe in. So instead of bitching about it. Do something about it. The theist states that a god exists. The atheist is saying “SHOW ME!”
But I don’t know what to show you, how do I know that whatever I show you, you won’t just wave away as not evidence? You don’t know what it is you ask.
Show me the evidence you do have.
It has nothing to do with me! You need to look inside yourself and ask how you can be sure you’ve never seen evidence for God. Your criteria for what constitutes evidence for God is down to you, not me, its about how you think, not me.
That is 
an illogical conclusion- which I have NO IDEA how you “got there”.
IF you noticed, Sheldon’s was more scientific.
Look man, I did the whole church thing when I was a kid. Read the bible. Heard people say they saw angels and a god. Then I moved in with my father who taught Evolutionary Anthropology at a state college and loved Science. Looked up and was even shown some historical things and it didn’t verify that your gospel Jesus was real. If it was undeniable, I’d be onboard believing in the existence of your god. But I need a little more than just bible stories and church camp to get there. I’ve got nothing factual that compels me to believe in it. The bible? faith? I can’t go on those things.
I’ve not said there is no evidence for any gods. If there is, I’ve not been presented with it. Are you able to do so? If so, do you contend it is convincing? If not, why not?
You refuse to be drawn in? So do I. Stale mate.
Is there an algorithm you use to determine that a unicorn doesn’t live in TinMan’s garage? What is it? Surely you can list it. I may be able to repurpose it.
How about the gospels you claim are true? Or the word theist in your profile?
Since you have at length poured fourth on the validity of the gospels it would be rational to infer you are defending the Christian religion, indeed it would offer no other ready conclusion? However by all means tell us which deity you believe created everything and intervenes in the universe if it is not that one?
Same as all other claims, is it sufficient and objective “evidence” to validate the claim. I have yet to meet or read a religious apologist who could accurately define a deity, or how it is possible, or any objective evidence for one. Thus I remain dubious.
What is your criteria for disbelieving in invisible mermaids? Atheism is a lack or absence of belief, it needs no “strong footing”, we are all born atheists. What was your criteria when you were a “staunch atheist” one wonders? What changed specifically?
Examine it using my faculties, what else could I do, use a Ouija board?
My faculties obviously, what a bizarre question. I think perhaps the claim was originally a little hyperbolic to be fair, as I would prefer to state I have never seen any objective evidence for any deity. Though why my faculties would be any less capable than a theists is not clear?
Atheism is not a belief, it the lack or absence of theistic belief.
What do you use? I mean you disbelieve in pretty much all the deities I do one assumes? How about the Aztec god of gluttony, what algorithm, or systematic sequence of tests have you are applied to determine you don’t believe it is real, how Thor, Zeus, or Apollo?
I asked that already. To share the methodology.
How did you conclude that gods existed? on what evidence?
Fer fuck sake! Have you not read that there are folks here who identify as atheist who have told you they have not, in fact, reached a conclusion that there is NO evidence for any gods!?
How very handy! Do you seriously think that this is at all acceptable?
Some atheists would seem a less strident assertion, but so what would seem to be the obvious answer? This doesn’t evidence a deity does it? You seem to be using a poisoning of the well fallacy now, based on what some atheists may have said. Some people who don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster are bat shit crazy morons no doubt, do you really imagine this tells us anything abut the existence of an unexplained monster in a Loch? Now that would be irrational.
Now you will forgive me here, but given how relentlessly irrational some of your arguments have been demonstrated to be here, anything you imply about atheism based on an atheist making an irrational claim would ipso facto apply to theism. Personally I prefer to address specific claims and arguments.
You keep doing this, we are all born atheists, do you imagine new born babies that have formed no beliefs about the world they perceive for the first time, are doing so based on rational, reasoned, scientific solidity and confidence? Now do you see where you are going wrong, again? You keep placing your wheezy clapped out old pony behind your cart, rationally the belief requires the evidence, the lack of a belief does not.
Yes I’ve seen religious apologists and theists attempt this type of smoke and mirrors before, it is risible to make a claim, (your profile says theist) and then insist others tell you what evidence you should demonstrate. It’s your belief, it is for you to demonstrate the best most compelling evidence you have, only I can decide if I think it is sufficient.
To you perhaps, but then you are arguing from a position of bias in favour of a belief, whereas atheist is not, it is a default position we all start from, and what I have learned is not sufficient or objective evidence for theistic belief.
Does it matter? You can only demonstrate the best you have, and you have done no better than any religious apologist I have debated or read, if you want to feel aggrieved at that crack on, it won’t change anything. You see I am debating to examine the claim for validity, whereas you are debating to convince others that what you believe is valid. I have yet to meet a theist who does not have a prodigious emotional investment in their religious belief, I am fine either way, the facts are what will ultimately sway me.
Again then present the best evidence you think you have, if I believed something I’d always start there. Why so many theists waste time offering archaic texts that are anonymous hearsay if they have something better is baffling, just like the irrational arguments you offered. The bottom line is you can’t argue something into existence, but you failed to offer arguments that weren’t riddled with common logical fallacies, the kind I have seen countless times before from every apologist who comes here, nd who writes on the subject.
So you cam to a forum that is predominantly atheist, to tell them you have nothing? Come on now, I simply don’t believe you can’t see how that will be received.
Correct, but you have brought the claim here, so I can only asses what you present, and so far it is nothing new, nor does it demonstrate sufficient (any) objective evidence, or rational argument for any deity.
When I was a child I was told about the attributes that God has, and those contradicted my real world experiences. Presumably there can be no evidence for such a thing. What would I accept as evidence of the existence of god? A statement about God that measurably altered a probability distribution. When I say there is no evidence for God that is what I mean. No one has ever given me such a thing, and it is my guess that it would be impossible.
It’s probably not that noteworthy, but in his question @Sherlock-Holmes
doesn’t even specify what he means by “god”, yet demands we specify what evidence we’d accept for it, even after all these many decades I can’t help but smile at the irony.
Which one? Oh and properly define it please, then cite the best evidence you think exists for it, until you do that much there is nothing to respond to. You’re basically asking us “to state clearly the proof, the reasoning, the process that they used to reach the conclusion there is no evidence”, while refusing to offer any for us to examine, it’s an irony overload alright.
Like me asking you to state clearly the proof, the reasoning, the process that you used to reach the conclusion “there is no evidence for weepadocks”.
Don’t ask me to define it or evidence it please as:
Ratty, I saw one of your cousins this morning. He lives under the rosemary by our front stoop. His name is Ben Phat-tail McFlea. He strikes a grand resemblance to you.
Your profile says theist.
Yes, and I have made no mention of religion. Theism is not religion. Do a web search for “Are Theism and religion the same thing?”.
He’s asking quite clearly if your criteria for belief in your religion is based on the anonymous hearsay of the gospels, how can you justify disbelieving comparable anonymous hearsay for other religions? Clearly that implies an inherent bias.
Yes but the question is irrelevant to the question I have been asking, that’s what I mean. I have no idea what relevance such a question has given the context of the discussion between us, this is sometimes known as a red herring fallacy.
I will try once more then, I believe claims that are supported by sufficient (not the qualifying first word) objective (note the criteria for differentiating types of data) evidence.
So you reserve the right to arbitrarily decide what constitutes sufficiency and evidence. I could show you anything at all and by your definition here you can reject it out of hand every time. Let me throw another wrench into the works here, all evidence involves interpretation, and therefore atheism is simply the position of always interpretating all material and data and observation as not being evidence for God.
I’m not sure how I could make this any clearer? Subjective anecdotal claims are not sufficient for me to believe such claims, extraordinary claims means only comparably extraordinary evidence would be sufficient. The sighting of a black cat is neither sufficient nor objective “evidence” for me to believe they represent impending misfortune, see?
This raises further rather serious problems though. Subjective anecdotal claims can be true or false. The term “extraordinary” is itself subjective what is extraordinary to you might not be so to me and vice versa.
I think the above is for @Sheldon
I didn’t post the boxes you’ve highlighted.
It was @Sheldon (post 36)
I’m confused. How can you bring up “God”, which is what you’ve done, without not bringing up religion?
It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not, in that there is, and it is to not believe without sufficient evidence. Although there is an element of truth in the assumption claim, that element is that it is reasonable and logical to assume the position of withholding belief, in the absence of persuasive evidence.
Well of course this is wrong in that the only assumption demonstrable here is that of assuming a position of proportioning one’s beliefs to the available evidence. The only “conclusion” drawn is that insufficient evidence has been forthcoming to warrant belief.
The only assumption apparent for belief is the assumption of a standard by which one allows themselves to become convinced enough to adopt a belief.
Hahah…hilarious. Ask the imaginary atheist that question. How do you know anything is true? Most thinking atheists I have encountered would not say this but rather “I have never seen compelling or even persuasive evidence for a god”.
Babbling JW’s or my Mormon neighbor or your Christian friends preaching Ad nauseam, is evidence…just really bad evidence.
Yeah, I’m sure you have. Do you always generalize to such degrees?
If you fancy yourself as a hammer, well of course everything looks like a nail to you.
To a discerning mind, everything that I have no explanation for does not qualify as evidence for god.
This is your feeble attempt to shift the burden of proof. You don’t get to just claim that atheists are obstinately denying “evidence” when what is presented is nothing of the sort.
You are playing semantical games, not to establish a solid line of reasoning, but rather to obfuscate the responsibility of a claimant to demonstrate the viability of their claim.
You like to refute the notion(s) of universality, yet you expect a universal answer to what constitutes evidence for god and what does not. You have to present the evidence first and then an assessment may be made.
Several criteria would apply, but of course they would be dependent upon the nature of the so-called evidence presented.
Wow, there it is again. Who the hell is “the atheist”? What constitutes evidence is what constitutes evidence. You are playing this stupid game again by asking what determines what is not. The burden of proof is on whomever starts the absurdist conversation by claiming the existence of a supernatural being.
Since you are clearly enamored with the idea of a god, it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate the process by which you have become convinced, with clear and concise explanations. If the so-called evidence is not immediately and overwhelmingly convincing to all but the cognitively challenged (given the remarkable nature of the god claim) then the default position would obviously be to reject the claim. So to summarize for you so as not to confuse, evidence for god can be, and so far has been shown virtually everywhere to be,
bad evidence and can be easily dismissed as not evidence for god.
Again, I think this is just a game for you and not a serious endeavor. You may not like it but shitty evidence is the functional equivalent of no evidence.
Let me take a jackhammer to your “works”.
All god beliefs involve interpretation and acceptance of supernatural claims, therefore theism is obviously the position of always interpreting unexplained phenomena or details of observable reality as “evidence” of god.
Yeah, you like this game of burden reversal.
There are obvious “tests” and you know it.
If evidence for any claim is presented, that evidence can be examined, scrutinized, dissected, compared, etc., and if the reasoned honest conclusion is that the evidence is useless, then the categorization of the purported “evidence” as “not evidence” is warranted.
Why are you not arguing with ancient alien deniers? (Maybe you are and excuse me if I spoke out of turn).
No, no, and…no. Back to “the atheist” again. Stop it.
Thanks for admitting your bias going in to the conversation. Your resorting to a smarmy comment is also unsurprising.
The only claim that many atheist make is that they are not convinced by the really pathetic “evidence” that there is a god.
If you want to continue beating that poor dead horse, by all means go ahead.
You want a demonstration of a reasoned refutation of something which does not exist. That is unnecessary as the rational position is of course, to reject any claim not supported by “good evidence” as could easily be determined by a consensus of reasonable thinking, honest interlocutors.
Sure, you have a way of knowing if it will be rejected…show it, and stop pouring Glyphosate in the water supply.
I appreciate your tenacity in trying to put the onus on “the atheist” by demanding proof of the non-existence position, but it is a position of response to an assumption of the existence of a supernatural being, which has never been demonstrated to be true by even the lowest possible standards, and requires a suspension of rationality.
Thanks for playing.
Edit/alter/amend/change/augment/modify for gear-reduction ratio accommodation(s)
HOLY OILY CHRIST ON A TWO-SEATER UNICYCLE! Jeeeee-zus! Just got home from work and saw the avalanche in here! Damn… Go away for a few hours and shit just explodes! All to no avail, however, as it seems are newest member is not here for any true and sincere debate. Oh, well… (shrugging shoulders)…
This one goes out to our new friend Sherlock…
(Sing to the tune of “Rollin’ On The River” by CCR.)
“… Trollin’ (oh, lawd)… Trollin” (oh, lawd)… Trollin’ on the A Rrrrr…"
(Edit for backup vocals.)
I call it the pushy straw-man. Instead of wasting all that time waiting around for you to make your argument so they can straw-man it; they just make something ridiculous, then demand that YOU defend it.
