(June 26, 2018 at 6:00 pm)Succubus Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

The experiences of billions of people are religion induced delusions.

An assertion until you give reasons to believe that is true. What are those reasons?

Quote:An assertion until you give reasons to believe that is true. What are those reasons?

And have no reason or evidence to say it's proof of a god .

Oh and religious exist and are well documented . And no they are not all the result of mental illness.

But nice try

(June 26, 2018 at 6:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 5:27 pm)polymath257 Wrote: To be evidence, it must change the probability of the statement being true one way or the other. What evidence actually makes it more likely that a deity exists?

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

There are many Roman documents describing the cult of Mithras.  It was very popular from the 1st to 4th century AD.  There are descriptions of the divinity of Mithras, who was born from a rock and ruler of the Sun.  There are many statues and carvings still in existence.  Of course, it was a male-only religion, and secretive, so it wasn't a good choice for Constantine to appropriate.  

But we have a lot of knowledge of their existence, and their practices!  In fact, there are still Mithraist groups!  This must be evidence that Mithras exists, right?

(June 26, 2018 at 6:22 pm)drfuzzy Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 6:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

There are many Roman documents describing the cult of Mithras.  It was very popular from the 1st to 4th century AD.  There are descriptions of the divinity of Mithras, who was born from a rock and ruler of the Sun.  There are many statues and carvings still in existence.  Of course, it was a male-only religion, and secretive, so it wasn't a good choice for Constantine to appropriate.  

But we have a lot of knowledge of their existence, and their practices!  In fact, there are still Mithraist groups!  This must be evidence that Mithras exists, right?

The existence of a first century cult proves nothing 

The "personnel experience of people (vague as that is ) proves nothing 

The is a collection of stories and again proves nothing (not to mention picked to pieces despite the most spirited efforts of apologists ) But even aside that these stories prove nothing .

And still nowhere am i asserting the theist is wrong nor anything like it .Merely that these claim don't back your assertions .

(June 26, 2018 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote: Yes it does. Two points about your comments. 

1. You have set a threshold for proof. That itself is a belief about where that threshold should be as evidenced by the the fact that billions upon billions of people that have set that threshold somewhere else. So right there you have one belief (claim) that can be scrutinized. 
2. You care confusing the definitions of evidence and proof. Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. It is a false statement to say there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then your meme is an assertion. 

I know word definitions are tough and being precise is overrated. 

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

1. I wonder what makes you use the word threshold. It simply doesn't fit into your argument, which is why I am always concerned about the theistic worldview and its horrid vocabulary misuse.

2. If it is a false statement to state there is no evidence for the existence of god, then surely the evidence would be so logically and reasonably overwhelming that everyone would believe in god without a single doubt. The fact that doubt of god's existence is a reality proves personal belief and personal faith is not evidence of god's existence as much as the theist wished it were thus.

The bible is certainly evidence that man has a wonderful imagination. Nothing more. Experiences of billions of people are individual personal experiences, people sharing personal experiences with others and finding comfort as well as community in those personal experiences, yet there is zero evidence beyond the individual personal perspective to provide proof or truth to religious claims. Billions of people may think Pepsi is better than Coke, but it does not become a fact or a truth that Pepsi is better than Coke due to the fact that each individual, personal opinion is based subjectively rather than objectively.

Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .

(June 26, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .

It really us that simple. I thought my courtroom analogy would help, but sadly it did not.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 4:54 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 2:33 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: So, lets sat I reject the evidence presented by the prosecution for the man's guilt. I can still find him not guilty, but I am not asserting he is innocent.

As a juror, I am tasked to either vote guilty or not guilty. I am not tasked to vote guilty or innocent.

You are making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.

Yes, I am making judgements on the evidence that it is not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty. I lack belief that the defendant is guilty. This does not mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. It means that the prosecutor's case failed to meet its burden of proof.

I may believe the defendant is innocent, but that is a different prong of the dilemma. And, just like the defense does not have to prove his client innocent in a court, I do not have to defend the position that I believe gods do not exist in a debate.

(June 26, 2018 at 7:09 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 6:52 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Let me repeat this one more time .WERE NOT ASSERTING THEIR WRONG !. Only that they case for belief sucks. And their supposed evidence simply is not .

It really us that simple. I thought my courtroom analogy would help, but sadly it did not.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 4:54 pm)SteveII Wrote: You are making a judgement on the quality of evidence and registering that conclusion. Presumably you have reasons why you don't think they are conclusive of guilt. Any reasoning and conclusions are not simply a "lack of belief" as to the question. You made a series of conclusions and believe those conclusions to be true.

Yes, I am making judgements on the evidence that it is not sufficient to prove the defendant guilty. I lack belief that the defendant is guilty. This does not mean that I believe the defendant is innocent. It means that the prosecutor's case failed to meet its burden of proof.

Agreed i lack acceptance of his guilt at the same time i'm not saying he's innocent . But i wouldn't even really call that judgement i call it withdrawing judgement of guilt .

(June 26, 2018 at 6:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 5:27 pm)polymath257 Wrote: To be evidence, it must change the probability of the statement being true one way or the other. What evidence actually makes it more likely that a deity exists?

The existence of 27 documents detailing the claims of members of the first century church (we all know what those claims are). The existence of the first century church. The experiences of millions of people that have been chronicles for 2000 more years and exist today.

None of which is evidence of a deity: knowledge of those historical events doesn't change the probability of a deity existing by one bit.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 5:35 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(June 26, 2018 at 4:30 pm)Kit Wrote: In no way does it contradict itself.

Correct, atheism rejects theism because atheism dismisses theism as inadequate, because theism has yet to succeed in proving any of its assertions. (1)

If there was any real evidence upon which theism could lean, only then would the meme be an assertion.(2)

Yes it does. Two points about your comments. 

1. You have set a threshold for proof. That itself is a belief about where that threshold should be as evidenced by the the fact that billions upon billions of people that have set that threshold somewhere else. So right there you have one belief (claim) that can be scrutinized. 
2. You care confusing the definitions of evidence and proof. Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive. It is a false statement to say there is no evidence for God. If there is evidence, then your meme is an assertion. 

Quote:

---

If there was sufficient evidence for the existence of god, there would be no need for atheism, but of course you prefer to use an apologetic blame wrapped in semantics to cover the fact that theists are prone to boldly misusing dictionary definitions to suit their theistic needs.

There is, in fact, absolutely no "pieces of information or facts" available to prove the existence of god.

I know word definitions are tough and being precise is overrated. 

No pieces of information huh? What about the NT? What about the experiences of billions of people? That is not information or those people are wrong? To say yes is a HUGE claim--a claim to knowledge for which you don't have any basis besides ASSERTIONS--which you meme said you don't make. Hmm...

Go ahead, tell me why these don't count as "pieces of information or facts" and I will show you how your answer is question-begging.

---

(June 26, 2018 at 5:22 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Nope because their isn't facts or information merely assertion saying that it is . And yes your making positive claims that have no fact or information they are hollow and no i have made no judgement none acceptance is not a judgement . Nor is it a belief only a lack of belief in the non information and non facts presented. So your ploy has again failed .

FYI rejection can be a passive state rather then a willful judgement

Wow. So you argument is basically

1. The NT, the early church, the personal experiences of billions of people is not information or facts because I failed to believe they are information or facts.


that's it. There is no #2. 

I think question-begging would be a step up from that.

No, they are not information or evidence because the confounds are so extreme as to make the evidence useless for any conclusion.

The experiences of people are evidence only that people have certain experiences under emotional stress. That is an interesting neurological fact about the human species, but doesn't support the existence of a deity.

Yes, we have set a threshold for proof. You don't have any but out of charity we'll tell you if you ever get close.