Empircal Evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-04-2017, 08:26 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:13 AM)Walluin Wrote:  This is always the go to for atheists, seems a stupid argument to me.
Religions are based on Faith and Belief. In some cases it is actually the entire
point of their religions to have no evidence and use their faith.
If the evidence was ever produced then their religions would no longer be...
as the evidence would make it science.
Yet I'm always hearing this, "Oh you believe in a god? where's the evidence?"
Seems a circular argument that's pointless.

Then you don't understand what circularity means and asking for evidence is not an argument, it's what any rational person would do to begin evaluating a claim. I've heard this many times fro believers, that it's not fair to ask for evidence. Tough titties on a boar hog.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
27-04-2017, 11:58 PM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 12:13 AM)Walluin Wrote:  This is always the go to for atheists, seems a stupid argument to me.
Religions are based on Faith and Belief. In some cases it is actually the entire
point of their religions to have no evidence and use their faith.
If the evidence was ever produced then their religions would no longer be...
as the evidence would make it science.
Yet I'm always hearing this, "Oh you believe in a god? where's the evidence?"
Seems a circular argument that's pointless.

If the theist has no evidence for God, it could be God does not exist. The big problem for Atheists is that the concept of God as defined by Christians, Moslems et al soon involves itself in far too many logical problems, paradoxes, contradictions and nonsense to be viable as a concept. There is good reason to actively not believe in such a God.

Dodging the issue by denying that a coherent concept at least is needed, and that on top of that, no evidence is needed, in the end does not impress the knowledgeable strong atheist.

In the end, theists dodge the issue by claiming God is incomprehensible and unprovable. After 4000 years of written history, much of the writing being about religion, no proof of God's existence has been created.

Why should I, an Atheist, allow that to pass without comment? The burden of proof is firmly on the theist shoulders. Theologians and religious philosophers fill small libraries each year trying to solve all the problems of the God proposition, and fail. That is a clue about all of this.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
28-04-2017, 12:48 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
It's extremely rare that I can even get a debate started. It typically goes like this:

Me: "Please define God."

Theist: Huge wall of text explaining why they don't need to define God.

How do I tell a god apart from an arbitrarily powerful non-God? I've had almost no answers to this from theists.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
28-04-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 12:48 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  It's extremely rare that I can even get a debate started. It typically goes like this:

Me: "Please define God."

Theist: Huge wall of text explaining why they don't need to define God.

How do I tell a god apart from an arbitrarily powerful non-God? I've had almost no answers to this from theists.

My response to this is what I call the toaster test.

If they refuse to define what a god is, or give a definition so vague or so weak or so abstract that just about anything could fit the bill, I say that, okay, sure, gods exist. There's one right now. And I point at a toaster.

"I just feel that there exists.... SOMETHING out there." TOASTER. There's a TOASTER out there!

"Well something must answer prayers, right?" The TOASTER answers prayers. (Well, maybe not, but there's just as much proof for the toaster answering them as God answering them.)

"Obviously it's a miracle! God burnt that image of Jesus into that toast!" THE TOASTER IS GOD.

No definitions is a new one for me, but it should work even better. How can THEY say it doesn't meet the criteria of being God WHEN THEY SAY THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE CRITERIA?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
28-04-2017, 04:18 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
They do like requests for evidence because they have no evidence. Short, sweet and to the point.

I ask them to prove any god or gods exist. They never reply coherently. Trying to reply might, just might, cause doubt. If they doubt either the whole shaky edifice comes down or they believe themselves condemned to hell. They're stuck between reality and damnation, and neither appeals.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gawdzilla's post
28-04-2017, 04:48 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
Religion deals with the hidden.

The subject matter is hidden. The "evidence" is hidden. It's all personal, non-reproducable, emotional or anecdotal. Most of the time an argument is presented in place of evidence.

It has to be that way, because once subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny, it all evaporates.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Robvalue's post
28-04-2017, 04:57 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(27-04-2017 05:25 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  My Personal Deity is Dr McNuggerfingers, who turns small amounts of chicken nuggets into many amount of Chicken nuggets, although I can't show him to you, and I definitely can't reproduce the trick, I mean, miracle. You'll just have to believe.

[Image: chicken_zpsrlm9kgfz.jpg][Image: Cave_drawing_of_the_Great_Chicken_God_zpsfisf09lw.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
28-04-2017, 05:14 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 04:57 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(27-04-2017 05:25 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  My Personal Deity is Dr McNuggerfingers, who turns small amounts of chicken nuggets into many amount of Chicken nuggets, although I can't show him to you, and I definitely can't reproduce the trick, I mean, miracle. You'll just have to believe.

[Image: chicken_zpsrlm9kgfz.jpg][Image: Cave_drawing_of_the_Great_Chicken_God_zpsfisf09lw.jpg]

[Image: ce509fff25f03bdede9901588d36c0b9.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheInquisition's post
28-04-2017, 05:28 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
Evidence gained. McNuggetfingers = Proven

I don't want Fop, goddamn it! I'm a Dapper Dan man!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OakTree500's post
28-04-2017, 05:43 AM
RE: Empircal Evidence
(28-04-2017 05:28 AM)OakTree500 Wrote:  Evidence gained. McNuggetfingers = Proven

More.




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: