Login

~~John V~~ · October 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm

(October 22, 2012 at 5:50 pm)Chuck Wrote: Fine, then christianity shouldn't expect to be believed.

That fact that christianity is so constituteed as to be hard to support with evidence does excuse it from needing precisely that sort of evidence it lacks in order to be believed. It just suggest that it is constructed on bullshit, AND THEN fortified with sophistry and embellished with squishy intellectual rot. Otherwise it would have ended with "it lack proper evidence".

Proper evidence is the only acceptable evidence. Have it, and you gain credibility. Have it not, for whatever excuse, you lose credibility. It's that simple, it's that absolute.

If christainity lacks proper evidence for its own validity, then it is bullshit and it isd craven for you to try to propogate it. It's that simple. It is that absolute.

The only absolute thing about this argument is that it's a false dichotomy. People can and do have differing standards of evidence. I don't expect you to accept Christianity. However, that does not imply that it's unreasonable for anyone to accept it.

Darkstar · October 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm

(October 23, 2012 at 12:53 pm)John V Wrote: The only absolute thing about this argument is that it's a false dichotomy. People can and do have differing standards of evidence. I don't expect you to accept Christianity. However, that does not imply that it's unreasonable for anyone to accept it.

From your perspective. If you want to have faith in things for which evidence doesn't exist, then your standards for evidence are too low. You may disagree, but if you do then why don't you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

~~John V~~ · (This post was last modified: October 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm by John V.)

(October 23, 2012 at 12:52 pm)Darkstar Wrote: So, if people rountinely made stuff like that up, and there aren't even records for this one, why do you believe it?

First, I didn't say I agree with them. I'm asking the question.

Second, comparative strengths of religions is another topic. Feel free to pick a couple and start another thread if you like.

(October 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm)Darkstar Wrote: From your perspective. If you want to have faith in things for which evidence doesn't exist, then your standards for evidence are too low.

Yes, I prefer my perspective to one which dictates what all other people may and may not accept as evidence. That perspective is too arrogant for my tastes.

**The Grand Nudger** · October 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm

It is precisely on-topic. If your standard of evidence allows for your god is it not conceivable that it would allow for others? If your standard for evidence rules out some other god in particular is it not conceivable that the same standard - applied to your own god- would have the same effect?

~~John V~~ · October 23, 2012 at 1:07 pm

(October 23, 2012 at 1:02 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It is precisely on-topic. If your standard of evidence allows for your god is it not conceivable that it would allow for others? If your standard for evidence rules out some other god in particular is it not conceivable that the same standard - applied to your own god- would have the same effect?

I disagree, but regardless, a new thread would be more orderly.

Darkstar · October 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm

(October 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm)John V Wrote:
(October 23, 2012 at 12:56 pm)Darkstar Wrote: From your perspective. If you want to have faith in things for which evidence doesn't exist, then your standards for evidence are too low.
Yes, I prefer my perspective to one which dictates what all other people may and may not accept as evidence. That perspective is too arrogant for my tastes.

Arrogant? Well in that case praise Thor, he is real and if you disagree you are just too arrogant to accept my evidence!

~~John V~~ · October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm

(October 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Arrogant? Well in that case praise Thor, he is real and if you disagree you are just too arrogant to accept my evidence!

Er, that's the opposite of what I said. If you're going to mock, make sure you understand the point first.

~~Mystic~~ · October 23, 2012 at 1:19 pm

(October 23, 2012 at 1:15 pm)John V Wrote:
(October 23, 2012 at 1:13 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Arrogant? Well in that case praise Thor, he is real and if you disagree you are just too arrogant to accept my evidence!
Er, that's the opposite of what I said. If you're going to mock, make sure you understand the point first.

It's fine to have different standards of evidence/ knowledge / epistemology, but do you think Atheists who have a standard different then yours deserve to be condemned to eternal punishment just because of that?

Are they to be condemned to the "lake of fire" simply due to not having the same standards of evidence that a Christian does?

downbeatplumb · (This post was last modified: October 23, 2012 at 1:24 pm by downbeatplumb.)

(October 23, 2012 at 12:58 pm)John V Wrote: Yes, I prefer my perspective to one which dictates what all other people may and may not accept as evidence. That perspective is too arrogant for my tastes.

But if you don't have standards of proof people can believe any old......wait I see where you are going with this.

festive1 · October 23, 2012 at 1:22 pm

Some would say that evidence that can't be shared with others isn't evidence at all.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me