On the nature of evidence.

[Chas]

You have serious trouble not letting others have the last word, even when you are forced to repeat your previous assertions ad naseum. This is indicative of poor social skills. Feel free to leave another comment without reiterating points you've previously made, and I'll be more than happy to stop pointing out your personal flaws in a public forum.

Good luck with your time here. Judging by your posts thus far, you'll need it.

He won't last long - he's simply not good at this.

[Whateverist]

Who should be embarrassed? Me who is willfully ignorant of scripture? Or you who have put so much time and effort into such a pointless endeavor?

BrianSoddingBoru4, who claimed to be more educated on the Bible than a Christian when he doesn't even know how it ends. I'm am not interested in your opinions about how you enter into the equation.

That's okay. I don't need you to be. I mostly talk to hear what I have to say. I'm constantly surprised. But thanks for taking the time to reply.

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Would you mind saying what your interest is here? I might want to make a better effort to converse with you depending.

---

You have serious trouble not letting others have the last word, even when you are forced to repeat your previous assertions ad naseum. This is indicative of poor social skills. Feel free to leave another comment without reiterating points you've previously made, and I'll be more than happy to stop pointing out your personal flaws in a public forum.

Good luck with your time here. Judging by your posts thus far, you'll need it.

Oh I don't know. I thought his jab deserved some props for glibness and snarkiness. Personally I'd like to see what he is like when he doesn't feel so embattled and defensive.

[Mudhammam]

Oh I don't know. I thought his jab deserved some props for glibness and snarkiness. Personally I'd like to see what he is like when he doesn't feel so embattled and defensive.

At this point all indications suggest unoriginal, uninteresting, idiot, Bible-thumper. And between Frodo and Drich, I'd say that niche is full.

[Brakeman]

I would like to know what the atheists on this forum WOULD consider to be persuasive evidence of God's existence. If you are interested in scientific evidence of the existence of God, how would one go about acquiring this evidence?

Once upon a time, god was afraid that the tower of Babel was going to let humans sneak into heaven without paying so he scrambled the worker's languages so that they couldn't talk to each other. I guess he moved heaven's address then too as we haven't seen it in the days of jet planes and steel skyscrapers. Furthermore we haven't found the location of hell either despite digging miles underground.

So discovery of the locations of heaven and/or hell and a personal interview with satan (he doesn't have a "no reveal" clause!), would do nicely for me.

[Whateverist]

I would like to know what the atheists on this forum WOULD consider to be persuasive evidence of God's existence.

I have no opinion nor any conception of what would count as persuasive evidence of something so ill defined and absurd on the face of it. Fortunately that isn't really my problem.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

On that note, my point becomes: If God did in fact exist and the ways I've described were the only way he were willing to communicate with you at the moment for reasons he can't currently explain to you, then your standard of evidence would tie his hands in terms of reaching out and making contact with you.

And we're none the worse off for it. On the other hand, if the requirements for what can be correctly recognized as evidence are bastardized to the point of personal credulity, for which you allow, then virtually all claims become justifiable as truths and man remains ignorant of true causes.

And that's the thread.