Atheists err when asking for material evidence to prove God's existence

[racrguy]

As you can see from the bottom of my post, your reply was more than expected. The thing is, According to my religion, God can defy the logic and reasoning of humans.

Edit. In essence, an "arguement" with an atheist is useless and posses no benifit to either side. An atheist would have to take it upon themselves for them to be able to understand what a believer experiences, because it is greater than what logic and reason will tell you, I know first hand. We could do this all day, lol

Your edit is irrelevant, as most atheists were at one time theists, like Maddhatter and myself. To say that neither of us are able to understand what a believer experiences, again, is a foolish assumption on your part.

Off the religious topic- Just an fyi, arguing semantics like this will net you zero, absolutely zero. You sound much like a lawyer, our current POTUS. i was on a debate team with a bunch of liberals that argue points just like yourself. They admittly know that they are arguing nonsense too. Maybe you actually think what you are saying is constructive, but it is not.

But I gues I havent defined what I think constructive is, or what nonsense is, or what semantics means, so my point is to incorrect.

That word, semantics, I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Dlachance]

You have. Problem is that it was summarily dismissed, due to the subjective nature of the claim. You've yet to quantify how wordy is too wordy, or if there is even such a thing as too wordy.

So, until you can demonstrate the validity of your claims, there is no reason for anyone to believe you. That's not to say that you are false... Only that your claims, like all others, must be regarded as untrue until you can demonstrate that their accuracy.

Considering the subjective nature of your claim, good luck with that.

Off the religious topic- Just an fyi, arguing semantics like this will net you zero, absolutely zero. You sound much like a lawyer, our current POTUS. i was on a debate team with a bunch of liberals that argue points just like yourself. They admittly know that they are arguing nonsense too. Maybe you actually think what you are saying is constructive, but it is not.

But I gues I havent defined what I think constructive is, or what nonsense is, or what semantics means, so my point is to incorrect.

[Dlachance]

As you can see from the bottom of my post, your reply was more than expected. The thing is, According to my religion, God can defy the logic and reasoning of humans.

Edit. In essence, an "arguement" with an atheist is useless and posses no benifit to either side. An atheist would have to take it upon themselves for them to be able to understand what a believer experiences, because it is greater than what logic and reason will tell you, I know first hand. We could do this all day, lol

Your anecdotal testimony doesn't mean anything, as your experiences cannot be verified. We can only rely on statements that this is what happened, and eye-witness evidence is incredibly unreliable, and many times wrong due to the fact that we are social creatures and our brains will tailor our memory to match the professed memory of others. This is why police separate witnesses of an event, they will contaminate each others stories.

We've also been able to reproduce "religious experiences" of most stripes with chemicals and/or social scenarios. This is why science places no weight in personal testimony, only the ability to reliably reproduce results.



You are making positive testable claims, however. You are stating that this stuff did happen. So, this is something that can be addressed. As I've covered in previous threads, given the information you've provided, there is no reason for you, or anyone else, to believe that you actually heard from anything other than your imagination.

In the story above, you've only demonstrated a argument from ignorance. The same one made in the the thread linked above. Once again, if you apply logic and reason to your beliefs, they do not stand.

I've even conceded that you might have heard from your deity, there's just no reason for anyone, including yourself, to believe it based on the evidence you've provided.



Then, if you can be so certain as to be beyond doubt, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that your belief is true. So, as no one else has been able to do so yet, I challenge you to satisfy the burden of proof for your positive claims. Provide evidence that your god exists, and then demonstrate that a relationship of any kind is possible between you and it.

I doubt you have anything more than anecdotes and fallacious arguments to support it. Regardless of that, I want to know if what you are saying is true. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. If you can demonstrate that what you say as the truth, I would be very appreciative that you've corrected my ignorance.

[Maddhattter]

I once spoke at Northwood Church in Keller and gave my personal testimony. It was a 3-week series called "Coffee: Shut Up and Listen". My youth pastor and I had met up for about 2 years consistently, at Starbucks at 7am weekly before I headed off to school, usually on a Tuesday. The main emphasis of our morning meetings was to shut up and listen in prayer, as with praying are you not only to give your input, but to recieve.

Moreover, it was Week 1, and I was definitely nervous. My pastor and I did a re-enactment what we did at Starbucks, sat down, talked a little, prayed, praised God, and he would ask me questions about my testimony and I would answer to the crowd, he would also guide the conversation and keep the crowd zeroed in.

We had read about the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus asked her for a drink and she asked Him why He a Jew is even talking to her. Jesus told here that If she knew the gift of God and who it is that asks her for a drink, she would have asked him and he would have given you living water. Jesus went on and proved to her the He was the Messiah, and she felt compelled to go speak of Him.

This is what I decided to do after hearing from Him for the first time and the reason why I was speaking there. At one point, we lead in a prayer, and asked that all be silent and listen for him. While in prayer, God told me that someone who had heard my testimony had said that what we were doing was "stupid and that they were never going to hear from the Lord".

Through my mic, and bluntly said, "someone in here just said that this is stupid and that they were never going to hear from God. I will pray for you that you can hear from him." After a few more minutes of silenece, we resumed our conversation, ended up stopping again for a prayer. About 20 minutes later, when the skit and music were over, my pastor had a few announcements, and then we dismissed. I got off of stage and was greated by many, shook a few hands and proceeded to help out chairs up and so on. At one point, a member of the student came up to me in tears, looking as if she had seen a ghost, and confessed to me that she was the one who said exactly that during the first prayer session. That night, I sat down with her and she decided that she would want to take a step towards learning who Jesus was.

Your anecdotal testimony doesn't mean anything, as your experiences cannot be verified. We can only rely on statements that this is what happened, and eye-witness evidence is incredibly unreliable, and many times wrong due to the fact that we are social creatures and our brains will tailor our memory to match the professed memory of others. This is why police separate witnesses of an event, they will contaminate each others stories.

We've also been able to reproduce "religious experiences" of most stripes with chemicals and/or social scenarios. This is why science places no weight in personal testimony, only the ability to reliably reproduce results.

I am not trying to convince anyone that God talks to people, or that because of my story, everyone should now believe. I'm only giving an account of what I experienced and what I have seen happen.

You are making positive testable claims, however. You are stating that this stuff did happen. So, this is something that can be addressed. As I've covered in previous threads, given the information you've provided, there is no reason for you, or anyone else, to believe that you actually heard from anything other than your imagination.

In the story above, you've only demonstrated a argument from ignorance. The same one made in the the thread linked above. Once again, if you apply logic and reason to your beliefs, they do not stand.

I've even conceded that you might have heard from your deity, there's just no reason for anyone, including yourself, to believe it based on the evidence you've provided.

I may not know all of theology to be able to battle with some of the more informed Atheists, but I do have no doubt in my mind that there is a God and it is possible to have a relationship with him.

Dylan

Then, if you can be so certain as to be beyond doubt, then you should easily be able to demonstrate that your belief is true. So, as no one else has been able to do so yet, I challenge you to satisfy the burden of proof for your positive claims. Provide evidence that your god exists, and then demonstrate that a relationship of any kind is possible between you and it.

I doubt you have anything more than anecdotes and fallacious arguments to support it. Regardless of that, I want to know if what you are saying is true. If I am wrong, I want to be corrected. If you can demonstrate that what you say as the truth, I would be very appreciative that you've corrected my ignorance.

[Maddhattter]

Hey asshole, have I ever told you that you're far too wordy in responding to others? I sometimes question if the people understand what you're saying to them. lulz.

You have. Problem is that it was summarily dismissed, due to the subjective nature of the claim. You've yet to quantify how wordy is too wordy, or if there is even such a thing as too wordy.

So, until you can demonstrate the validity of your claims, there is no reason for anyone to believe you. That's not to say that you are false... Only that your claims, like all others, must be regarded as untrue until you can demonstrate that their accuracy.

Considering the subjective nature of your claim, good luck with that.

[Dlachance]

I once spoke at Northwood Church in Keller and gave my personal testimony. It was a 3-week series called "Coffee: Shut Up and Listen". My youth pastor and I had met up for about 2 years consistently, at Starbucks at 7am weekly before I headed off to school, usually on a Tuesday. The main emphasis of our morning meetings was to shut up and listen in prayer, as with praying are you not only to give your input, but to recieve.

Moreover, it was Week 1, and I was definitely nervous. My pastor and I did a re-enactment what we did at Starbucks, sat down, talked a little, prayed, praised God, and he would ask me questions about my testimony and I would answer to the crowd, he would also guide the conversation and keep the crowd zeroed in.

We had read about the Samaritan woman at the well. Jesus asked her for a drink and she asked Him why He a Jew is even talking to her. Jesus told here that If she knew the gift of God and who it is that asks her for a drink, she would have asked him and he would have given you living water. Jesus went on and proved to her the He was the Messiah, and she felt compelled to go speak of Him.

This is what I decided to do after hearing from Him for the first time and the reason why I was speaking there. At one point, we lead in a prayer, and asked that all be silent and listen for him. While in prayer, God told me that someone who had heard my testimony had said that what we were doing was "stupid and that they were never going to hear from the Lord".

Through my mic, and bluntly said, "someone in here just said that this is stupid and that they were never going to hear from God. I will pray for you that you can hear from him." After a few more minutes of silenece, we resumed our conversation, ended up stopping again for a prayer. About 20 minutes later, when the skit and music were over, my pastor had a few announcements, and then we dismissed. I got off of stage and was greated by many, shook a few hands and proceeded to help out chairs up and so on. At one point, a member of the student came up to me in tears, looking as if she had seen a ghost, and confessed to me that she was the one who said exactly that during the first prayer session. That night, I sat down with her and she decided that she would want to take a step towards learning who Jesus was.


I am not trying to convince anyone that God talks to people, or that because of my story, everyone should now believe. I'm only giving an account of what I experienced and what I have seen happen. I may not know all of theology to be able to battle with some of the more informed Atheists, but I do have no doubt in my mind that there is a God and it is possible to have a relationship with him.

Dylan

Your better use of time includes regurgitating information that is demonstrably wrong? Seems that your time would be better suited actually verifying the information before you post it. If you'd do that, there would be no need to "argue" or, if someone did argue, correcting them would take little effort. Much like the refutations of Matt Slick's pontifications taking me little effort.

Actually taking the time to verify the accuracy of your information would also help prevent you from parroting lies and misinformation as you've done here and at least twice before.



It would be the same way that most atheists report losing their faith, considering that most atheists are former theists. The only thing required to demonstrate that what they believe is untrue is the application of logic and reason.



I've yet to see anybody long for something they do not believe exists. Much like I've never seen anyone yearn for the blessings of Tzeentch. So, to imply that atheists are "longing for Christ ..., conscIously or not" is outright laughable.

Nearly every atheist I've ever met has sought accuracy in beliefs. In other words, they want to believe as many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. It's not about proving anyone wrong about anything. It's about placing the burden of proof where it lies, on the one making the positive claim. Once verifiable, demonstrable proof of a deity is presented, I, and nearly every atheist I know, will gladly state that they've been wrong. That doesn't mean that we'd have any desire to worship it, but we'd at least admit we were incorrect.

However, up until this point, no evidence has been presented. At least, none that's truthfulness will hold up against scrutiny or isn't outright wrong.

[racrguy]

Hey asshole, have I ever told you that you're far too wordy in responding to others? I sometimes question if the people understand what you're saying to them. lulz.

[Maddhattter]

Because I have no felt need to argue with anyone here, I have much better uses for my time. I will however, continue to disseminate info as I choose.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

Your better use of time includes regurgitating information that is demonstrably wrong? Seems that your time would be better suited actually verifying the information before you post it. If you'd do that, there would be no need to "argue" or, if someone did argue, correcting them would take little effort. Much like the refutations of Matt Slick's pontifications taking me little effort.

Actually taking the time to verify the accuracy of your information would also help prevent you from parroting lies and misinformation as you've done here and at least twice before.

When a person has a relationship with their God that to them is real, and tangible, how could they possible believe or be convinced that He is non-existant?

It would be the same way that most atheists report losing their faith, considering that most atheists are former theists. The only thing required to demonstrate that what they believe is untrue is the application of logic and reason.

The Atheist mentality of most, seems to me, to be a longing for Christ rather than a desire to "prove everybody wrong", conscIously or not.

I've yet to see anybody long for something they do not believe exists. Much like I've never seen anyone yearn for the blessings of Tzeentch. So, to imply that atheists are "longing for Christ ..., conscIously or not" is outright laughable.

Nearly every atheist I've ever met has sought accuracy in beliefs. In other words, they want to believe as many true things as possible and as few untrue things as possible. It's not about proving anyone wrong about anything. It's about placing the burden of proof where it lies, on the one making the positive claim. Once verifiable, demonstrable proof of a deity is presented, I, and nearly every atheist I know, will gladly state that they've been wrong. That doesn't mean that we'd have any desire to worship it, but we'd at least admit we were incorrect.

However, up until this point, no evidence has been presented. At least, none that's truthfulness will hold up against scrutiny or isn't outright wrong.

[racrguy]

You sir, are blind, blindy following yourself. I'm glad you have all the answers to life, how has that been working out for you?

You are a fool to make those assumptions, but pretty well, actually. I do exactly what I want, when I want to do it, and I don't have to apologize to a murderous egomaniac for being human.

[Dlachance]

You sir, are blind, blindy following yourself. I'm glad you have all the answers to life, how has that been working out for you?

He wants to come in, drop some impossible nonsense and not have his views challenged. It really saddens me though, Bryan is a smart dude, articulate, and really cool, but he's got this god box that he keeps locked up, available only to things that agree with his already held beliefs, with rules that apply only to that one topic.


Except it's not information. It's someone's flawed logic and failed thought processes.


Yeah, we have a name for things that are real and tangible to one and not others. They're called hallucinations.

A longing for christ? Hardly. It's more of a longing for things that are true and not made up bullshit.

[racrguy]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

He wants to come in, drop some impossible nonsense and not have his views challenged. It really saddens me though, Bryan is a smart dude, articulate, and really cool, but he's got this god box that he keeps locked up, available only to things that agree with his already held beliefs, with rules that apply only to that one topic.

Because I have no felt need to argue with anyone here, I have much better uses for my time. I will however, continue to disseminate info as I choose.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

Except it's not information. It's someone's flawed logic and failed thought processes.

When a person has a relationship with their God that to them is real, and tangible, how could they possible believe or be convinced that He is non-existant? The Atheist mentality of most, seems to me, to be a longing for Christ rather than a desire to "prove everybody wrong", conscIously or not.

Yeah, we have a name for things that are real and tangible to one and not others. They're called hallucinations.

A longing for christ? Hardly. It's more of a longing for things that are true and not made up bullshit.

[Dlachance]

When a person has a relationship with their God that to them is real, and tangible, how could they possible believe or be convinced that He is non-existant? The Atheist mentality of most, seems to me, to be a longing for Christ rather than a desire to "prove everybody wrong", conscIously or not.

[Tx Redneck]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

Because I have no felt need to argue with anyone here, I have much better uses for my time. I will however, continue to disseminate info as I choose.

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.

[exlude]

Why did you never revisit your last thread in this forum?

[Maddhattter]

A 4th grade girls science teacher told the class today we are going to talk about evolution. The teacher asked Billy if he would look outside and asked if he saw the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. The teacher asked Billy if he saw the sky, Billy said yes I see the sky. The teacher asked Billy did you see god, Billy thought a second and said no I didn't. The teacher then said so if you didn't see him how can we believe he exist. Then the little girl asked the teacher if she could ask Billy a few questions. She asked Billy to look outside and asked Billy do you see the grass, Billy said yes I see the grass. She asked Billy do you see the trees, Billy said yes I see the trees. She said okay can you see the teachers brain, Billy said no. So the little girl said okay then by the teachers logic she has no brain and she is dumb cunt.

The most salient feature of the story is that neither the teacher nor her students have an adequate grasp of the most basic concepts of science. What kind of idiot is this teacher? Whose idea of science is that if you can't smell it, taste it, feel it, hear it, or see it with our immediate senses, then it doesn't exist? If that's the case, then what happened to the things we can't smell, taste, feel, hear or see, such as electrons, cells, Newton's laws of motion, living dinosaurs, black holes, photons, magnetism, infrared light, and general relativity? For that matter, what about abstract concepts like "harmonic chords" or "Thursday"?

It could be argued that the teacher was only keeping it simple for the 4th graders to understand, but that would undermine the entire point of this fable as that would only indicate that the children are right, but only because the teacher oversimplified.

Anyone who works with science knows it isn't about what we can perceive with our five senses. It's about organizing facts about the known world into descriptions that can explain the way things happen. These descriptions make predictions which can be tested, repeated, and falsified if they're wrong.

Of course, science can't definitively prove that the teacher has a brain. Just because every human or animal body that has ever been dissected and analyzed has always had a brain; just because countless experiments have demonstrated that the brain controls an organism's ability to move and speak and reason; just because an animal with a damaged brain becomes an inanimate mass of carbon... these things are hardly conclusive proof. What science can do is make predictions with confidence and high accuracy; it can prove things beyond reasonable doubt but it can't prove anything with 100% certainty. The fact that it is able to change and correct mistakes is part of what makes it a powerful tool.

If the teacher in the story had any kind of clue what he was on about, she could have explained all this, not that 4th graders (or anyone who thinks this story is a valid counterpoint to anything) are likely to understand the explanation. Of course, the problem isn't with the teacher, who is after all only a fictional character. The problem is that the author of the story doesn't understand the scientific method or the proper application of logic and reason.

NOTE: As the story presented is nothing more than a retooling of an urban legend, the response above is nothing more than a retooling of a response to the basic story. Small changes made were to fit the response to this rendition of the fable. Unedited response can be found here.