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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Maddhattter]

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.

If something can defy logic and reason, there is no reason to believe in it at all. Nothing you can say about something that defies logic and reason can be relied upon, as it would be different the next moment. Not only would believing in something that defies logic and reason be, by definition, unreasonable, it would be outright stupid because it would be impossible to know anything about it, let alone whether it exists.

Example:
If your deity does not adhere to logic and reason, then it would be both existing and non-existing. Unfortunately, the two things are mutually exclusive. That means that nothing can be both, or you'd have to concede that all gnostic atheists are correct. This would mean that the spook you speak of cannot exist.

While I can introduce you to logic and reason, I can't fix stupid.

Note: This is not stating that you, as a whole, are stupid. Only that your belief of such a thing as you've described is.

Edit. In essence, an "arguement" with an atheist is useless and posses no benifit to either side.

Incorrect. What is true can be demonstrated to be true, and, once it is demonstrated, would benefit both sides as they would not believe something that is untrue.

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.

But, as you've demonstrated, you don't know what you experienced, you've only asserted that you've experienced it. So, you can't know anything about it. Again, an argument from ignorance.

We could do this all day, lol

Only so long as you maintain your fallacious arguments, as you've provided nothing else to support your assertions.

Off the religious topic- Just an fyi, arguing semantics like this will net you zero, absolutely zero.

Except that what I am stating is as accurate as I can be. In doing so, I am doing everything I can to ensure that we are communicating our messages to each other as reliably and accurately as possible.

Ensuring that both my and his posts are accurate, when we are having a conversation, minimizes the possibility that he will be misunderstood or misrepresented and that he will misunderstand or misrepresent me.

So, it does, in fact, net quite a bit.

You sound much like a lawyer, our current POTUS.

So?

i was on a debate team with a bunch of liberals that argue points just like yourself.

This far, nothing you've done in this discussion supports that you've had any experience with formal debates. In fact, you've not presented anything that could stand on it's own. You've also not demonstrated that I'm a "liberal".

They admittly know that they are arguing nonsense too.

Then you've refuted your own point. Not once have I argued anything that I felt was nonsense.

Maybe you actually think what you are saying is constructive, but it is not.

Constructive? No.

Explanatory? Yes.

You see, the post you quoted was a direct response to a question. I was not trying to convince him, nor anyone else, of anything. My positive claims about his failure to define and quantify his terms are supported by his post.

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.

This is more evidence to support that you've actually no experience with formal debate, or that you were terrible at it if you had.

Your failure to define your terms would not make your point incorrect. It would make it unsupportable until the words have been defined in the context you are using them. This would allow me to dismiss your statements with no further consideration as they have no usage because you've not actually stated something that can be demonstrated.

[Dlachance]

None of your above replies make sense, especially the liberal oe, sine I did not call you a liberal. I stated that the arguement you are making sounds a lot like a liberals.

There is no discussion with you. Also, I resent your tone and arrogant insults against my "beliefs". Our culture is based upon them.

When you want to have a discussion that is intelligent and respectful, I am all ears. Thus far, you've exibited neither trait, and I will not continue to engage myself in such ridiculousness,

[Maddhattter]

None of your above replies make sense, especially the liberal oe, sine I did not call you a liberal. ]I stated that the arguement you are making sounds a lot like a liberals.

Ok. So, then I've misunderstood. You said that liberals make arguments using logic, reason and attempt to use well defined terms in order to maintain accuracy and avoid misunderstanding. I'll accept that charge.

There is no discussion with you.

Considering that we've had a back and forth thus far, we've been having a discussion, regardless of your claims.

Also, I resent your tone and arrogant insults against my "beliefs".

Your resentment has no bearing on whether or not you defined your position as unreasonable and illogical. That is how stupid is defined. No arrogance is present, I'm only working with the attributes you've given something that you have not demonstrated exists and words as they are defined.

If you want to be resentful that you called your belief stupid(I only articulated it), be my guest.

Our culture is based upon them.

Unsupported assertion. Christian culture is the only culture defined by Christianity. So, this claim is axiomatic and carries no relevance to the rest of the thread or conversations. It will continue to be irrelevant until someone attempts to assert that Christian culture is not defined by Christianity.

When you want to have a discussion that is intelligent and respectful, I am all ears.

You've not demonstrated how I've not been either. So, there is no reason to assume that the qualifiers do not already exists within this conversation.

Thus far, you've exibited neither trait, and I will not continue to engage myself in such ridiculousness,

When you bother to support your statements, it's possible you might have a point. Until then, you've done nothing more than attempt to declare that you are right because you say so. That's circular reasoning.

I'd assume that if, at some time, you had any formal debate training, you'd not commit so many fallacies, or at least be able to know to avoid making claims that you will not, or cannot support. Especially considering that formal debates are explicitly for supporting your claims, not just making claims into absurdity.

[Gqsmash]

Very interesting thread! That's what faith is for..to put it where you want! Ultimately isn't it just another investment?

[Maddhattter]

Very interesting thread! That's what faith is for..to put it where you want!

Religious faith is, by definition, belief without evidence. Which is my exact problem with faith. Without proof, believing in something is pure gullibility. Faith is not a road to truth.

Does this make people with religious faith wrong? No, it does not. It is possible that they are correct. It's also possible that the stork hypothesis is correct, or the demon hypothesis for illnesses. Science does not prove anything definitively. It cannot, and does not, rule out the possibility that new evidence will not arise in the future to overturn a previous theory. Without support for a claim, however, there is no reason to believe it.

Sure, you can have faith. You can have faith in whatever you want. I've no interest in removing someone's right to have faith, nor could I if I wanted. There's just no reason to take that belief seriously, due to its reliance on faith. At least, not until it can be shown to be likely, let alone true. Of course, then it wouldn't be faith.

Ultimately isn't it just another investment?

Going by your investment analogy, it is the worst type of investment you can make. It gives no evidence that it even can provide a return, it consistently asks for more investment, and most religions demand that you try and get your friends and family involved as well. The better analogy, as it is more accurate, would be a multi-level marketing scheme like Amway.

Ultimately, yes. Faith can be seen as an investment. It would just, by all evidence, be a terrible one.

[mustangguy289]

There will be a day when it is proven that there is a God or not. I just hope and pray each one of you is on the right side.

[mustangguy289]

Why do athiest spend so much time trying to disprove something that they believe does not exist?