(November 27, 2012 at 1:50 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's true, and that's why the whole god bit is dismissed. Asking why god has stopped interacting with people is humoring those who don't feel obliged to offer any evidence that he ever did. It's simply granting someone that god "walked" with people at some time, spoke to them directly. All of this overt and obvious interaction actually occurred - granting all of it with absolutely nothing offered as evidence in the first place....and then asking why this all seems to have stopped.

He didn't ask why it "seems" to have stopped. He said that God has stopped.

Also, when you automatically dismiss any account of God appearing to people, don't be surprised when you suddenly find very little evidence that God appears to people.

That's what the lack of evidence tells us. Even if god walked with us once, he doesn't seem to anymore, if god spoke to people once, he doesn't seem to anymore, if god made it's presence known once, it doesn't anymore. If this god ever interacted with anyone there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it interacting now.

I haven't been presented with any account of god appearing to people (you certainly don't seem to be interested in providing me with such an account) so how could I automatically dismiss the account? More directly, why would you feel such a comment applied to me?

(still wondering why your version of the proverb we were talking about isn't a self defeating statement btw)

(November 27, 2012 at 1:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's what the lack of evidence tells us. Even if god walked with us once, he doesn't seem to anymore. If god spoke to people once, he doesn't seem to anymore. If god made it's presence known once, it doesn't anymore.

You say, "[H]e doesn't seem to anymore." What evidence is there to support this? What makes it "seem" that God doesn't interact with people?

And what "lack of evidence" are you talking about? The fact that I couldn't personally give an account of God interacting with me?

Quote:I haven't been presented with any account of god appearing to people (you certainly don't seem to be interested in providing me with such an account) so how could I automatically dismiss the account? More directly, why would you feel such a comment applied to me?

I've heard lots of different accounts of God acting in people's lives in church. If you haven't ever heard a Christian give that kind of testimony, then I think you must not talk to very many. I'm sure there's lots of places you could find that kind of thing online.

But that's your responsibility. If you want to gather the evidence for the claim that you keep claiming "seems" true, then go. Gather.

(November 27, 2012 at 2:01 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: You say, "[H]e doesn't seem to anymore." What evidence is there to support this? What makes it "seem" that God doesn't interact with people?

Well, you certainly aren't interested in establishing that god interacts with you, and he hasn't interacted with me...so in that limited group I can safely state that god isn't interacting with us. The evidence being that neither you or I can establish such interaction. Proof, no, evidence, yes. Is there anyone else capable of or willing to establish that such interaction occurs?

Quote:And what "lack of evidence" are you talking about? The fact that I couldn't personally give an account of God interacting with me?

That would be a very tiny portion of what constitutes evidence Clive, yes. If you can't produce evidence that I stole something from you, for example...one could reasonably conclude that I didn't - on the basis of evidence-. Your inability to produce evidence individually isn't quite as compelling as our inability to produce any evidence for this interaction communally though, I'll grant you that.

Quote:I've heard lots of different accounts of God acting in people's lives in church. If you haven't ever heard a Christian give that kind of testimony, then I think you must not talk to very many. I'm sure there's lots of places you could find that kind of thing online.

Wheres your Hitchen's quote now Clive? It seems that here, as was the case with your interpretation of a proverb, you're willing to bend to whatever suits your continued "arguments".

Quote:But that's your responsibility. If you want to gather the evidence for the claim that you keep claiming "seems" true, then go. Gather.

I have a responsibility to discredit some claim made about your god by stating that no evidence has been offered? I disagree. I don't have any responsibilities with regards to your god. Not a one. Handle your shit Clive.

(November 27, 2012 at 2:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, you certainly aren't interested in establishing that god interacts with you, and he hasn't interacted with me...so in that limited group I can safely state that god isn't interacting with us.

No, you can safely state that you don't think God is interacting with us. That's like, "You and I don't think that Bob is wearing underpants, so we've established that Bob isn't wearing underpants!"

Quote:The evidence being that neither you or I can establish such interaction. Proof, no, evidence, yes. Is there anyone else capable of or willing to establish that such interaction occurs?

Your sample size is 2. You can't draw a conclusion with any kind of statistical significance.

Quote:That would be a very tiny portion of what constitutes evidence Clive, yes. If you can't produce evidence that I stole something from you, for example...one could reasonably conclude that I didn't - on the basis of evidence-. Your inability to produce evidence individually isn't quite as compelling as our inability to produce any evidence for this interaction communally though, I'll grant you that.

I'm just wondering what leads you to think that there isn't evidence that God interacts with people. The only basis I know that you have is the account I gave; is that really all you have?

Quote:Wheres your Hitchen's quote now Clive?

Right where it used to be. You're the one who's supposedly interested in gathering evidence (incl. eyewitness testimony).

Quote:I have a responsibility to discredit some claim made about your god by stating that no evidence has been offered? I disagree. I don't have any responsibilities with regards to your god. Not a one. Handle your shit Clive.

You have a responsibility to support the claims you have made. You have claimed that there isn't evidence that God interacts with people. Support this claim, or expect it to be summarily dismissed.

(November 27, 2012 at 2:27 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: No, you can safely state that you don't think God is interacting with us. That's like, "You and I don't think that Bob is wearing underpants, so we've established that Bob isn't wearing underpants!"

You apologist types love to attempt weak analogies. It would be more like Bob says he's wearing underpants, but refuses to so much as show you the waistband.

Quote:Your sample size is 2. You can't draw a conclusion with any kind of statistical significance.

Between you and I - I can, because my sample size with regards to us is 100%....but lets extend that further....eh?

Quote:I'm just wondering what leads you to think that there isn't evidence that God interacts with people. The only basis I know that you have is the account I gave; is that really all you have?

As I've already mentioned, our inability to establish that such an interaction occurs leads me to this conclusion. If there's evidence, then just show me the waistband Bob.

Quote:Right where it used to be. You're the one who's supposedly interested in gathering evidence (incl. eyewitness testimony).

Eyewitness testimony that cannot be established as accurate is not evidence that interaction occurred, it's evidence that people see things, tell stories about seeing things...and of course my favorite..that people are entirely too credulous.

Quote:You have a responsibility to support the claims you have made. You have claimed that there isn't evidence that God interacts with people. Support this claim, or expect it to be summarily dismissed.

I made the claim that we don't have evidence, which is a solid claim in the absence of evidence (do you see any evidence laying around?, because I don't). Seriously Bob, just show me the waistband and I'll take this a hell of alot more seriously.

Quote:Between you and I - I can, because my sample size with regards to us is 100%....but lets extend that further....eh?

Right, you know everything about the population of {you, me}. But your claim isn't about that population. It's about a much bigger population.

Quote:As I've already mentioned, our inability to establish that such an interaction occurs leads me to this conclusion. If there's evidence, then just show me the waistband Bob.

This is horrible, horrible logic. "We haven't been able to establish p, so we can conclude ~p!" The fact that you haven't been able to prove something isn't persuasive in the least. What have you done to establish it? What do you think the state of evidence is with regard to the hypothesis in question (whether God interacts with people)? Why should I think that your opinion about the state of evidence is reasonable (i.e., what reasons/evidence do you have to support your characterizations of the evidence for the hypothesis)?

I mean, all you're doing is saying "There is no evidence for the hypothesis." That's it. No evidence for your claim (other than the evidence of my own personal testimony), you're just baldly asserting it.

The reason why I'm asking for evidence is that I could just as easily say, "There is plenty of evidence for the hypothesis." And, based on your standards of bald assertions without supporting evidence, our claims would now be equal and we'd be at an impasse. Both of these claims are useless in a debate without evidence.

Quote:Eyewitness testimony that cannot be established as accurate is not evidence that interaction occurred, it's evidence that people see things, tell stories about seeing things...and of course my favorite..that people are entirely too credulous.

Then why did you ask me for my testimony???

Quote:I made the claim that we don't have evidence, which is a solid claim in the absence of evidence (do you see any evidence laying around?, because I don't). Seriously Bob, just show me the waistband and I'll take this a hell of alot more seriously.

But you're just claiming that there's an absence of evidence. You're just flatly asserting, "There isn't evidence", and asking me to disprove you. That's bullshit. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

(November 27, 2012 at 3:09 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Right, you know everything about the population of {you, me}. But your claim isn't about that population. It's about a much bigger population.

Well, to be fair..not -everything- just that neither of us can establish that a god has interacted with us. This -would- be evidence that it hadn't. Now, clearly you and I aren't representative of the entirety of the population of the earth...except..perhaps strangely.... that the rest of us seem to be just as incapable of or unwilling to establish such interaction as we are.

Quote:This is horrible, horrible logic. "We haven't been able to establish p, so we can conclude ~p!"
The fact that you haven't been able to prove something isn't persuasive in the least.

Well, you can't seem to decide whether or not we're talking about proof or evidence can you? You asked me for evidence of absence...and the absence of evidence qualifies as such.

Quote:What have you done to establish it? What do you think the state of evidence is with regard to the hypothesis in question (whether God interacts with people)?

Well, I asked you didn't I? You didn't seem to have any evidence, I'm not aware of any evidence, no one else has come forward with any evidence........

Quote:Why should I think that your opinion about the state of evidence is reasonable (i.e., what reasons/evidence do you have to support your characterizations of the evidence for the hypothesis)?

Oh you don't have to at all Clive, I mean hell, you could always show that my opinion is entirely unreasonable by reference to a single example (or contend that it isn't reasonable without a single example - as you have done thusfar-). Of course this can also be turned right back at you, why should I think that your opposition to my opinion about the state of evidence is reasonable? We wouldn't get very far that way though would we...and it seems fairly silly to go down that road if the subject is evidence, it's either there or it isn't. I contend that it isn't, that's just the null man, you seem to be opposed to this (but similarly unwilling to directly oppose it by claiming that it is, or presenting it)

Quote:I mean, all you're doing is saying "There is no evidence for the hypothesis." That's it. No evidence for your claim (other than the evidence of my own personal testimony), you're just baldly asserting it.

I'm asserting that there's no evidence in support of the hypothesis because no one seems to be willing or capable of presenting any....you think that this is a problem? Again, absence of evidence qualifies as evidence of absence. What you mean to say (likely) is that there's no proof......

Quote:The reason why I'm asking for evidence is that I could just as easily say, "There is plenty of evidence for the hypothesis." And, based on your standards of bald assertions without supporting evidence, our claims would now be equal and we'd be at an impasse. Both of these claims are useless in a debate without evidence.

You could, absolutely, and I'd ask you were it was, since you'd be contending that it exists. So...where is it?

Quote:Then why did you ask me for my testimony???

Well, if you had any, and you could establish it's accuracy...then that would be all the evidence required for me to change my position...now wouldn't it?

Quote:But you're just claiming that there's an absence of evidence. You're just flatly asserting, "There isn't evidence", and asking me to disprove you. That's bullshit. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I'm still looking around...I'm still not seeing any evidence. I'm not asking you for proof of anything Clive...I'm asking for evidence. If i had any evidence, or was aware of any evidence..it would be difficult to come to the conclusion that there isn't any...now wouldn't it? Would whatever you offer prove - one way or another- anything about gods interaction (or lack thereof)...well that's hard to say without having that evidence at hand to consider...don't you think? You're pretty selective about when you attempt to leverage that quote aren't you? Unfortunately it doesn't apply here, you and I both are suffering from a complete absence of evidence...which is evidence of absence. I asserted, -we- provided. Thanks for the help btw.

Now, for a break from evidence, and since you asked about my opinion up there..I'll give you my opinion on something. It's my opinion that this discussion is diversionary, a deflection from that lack of evidence that seems so damning to me and so unimportant to you. A deflection from our previous conversation about your self defeating interpretation of a proverb. It's my opinion that apologetics are all deflection, start to finish (and just to tie the circle...this conversation would be my evidence of the accuracy of that opinion - but wouldn't qualify as proof that this opinion was accurate).

(November 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: After going back and rereading all that was send between us and not once did I use the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' as I can't see it (if you want to point it out then I will gladly except my mistake) and at no point did you offer a challenge (again I can see it so if you want to point it out...). Yes you did answer my point but I was unsure of what you were agreeing to. Also when did I say you were a not Christian (if your on about my agreement with Kirbmarc I was agreed I to his point that if you were not a Christian, then you should have not answered the point, I never once said you were not and if I did tell me were).
Also I did go back to the OP. Obviously the question was not as clear as I thought.

Dude, you should just stop responding to my posts as I WILL pick apart everything that you try to deny...

1.

(November 27, 2012 at 8:51 am)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(November 27, 2012 at 8:46 am)Kirbmarc Wrote: Then technically you aren't a Christian.

agreed, and if your not a Christian, WHY THE HELL DID YOU RESPOND TO THE 9 POINTS?. This thread was about Christians giving there personal views on there own beliefs. I was looking for Christian views Only. -facepalm-

Here you agreed with Kirbmarc that I wasn't technically a Christian, care to deny that??? Your "if" statement didn't mean squat and was just a lead-in to your facepalm emoticon. You received your Christian response but were too afraid to deal with what I said.

2. I directly challenged your point #3 twice! Care to deny that too?

3. You say that I did answer your point but you weren't sure what I was agreeing to??? First, I numbered the fucking thing so any normal sane person could identify the point I was responding to. Second, I didn't agree with that point, now did I? (you do know the difference between "agree" and "disagree", don't you?)

(November 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: On the point of research, the 9 points are what I have been hearing and seeing from Christians over the years and I wanted to see if my 'stereotyped' points are accurate from the 'horses mouth'. If I researched this point I would have got what a group said not what a individual said, which is what I am after. To point it simply the whole thread was: 'Are my stereotypes that I have got about Christians, over the years accurate' and I thought the best people to ask was Christian there-selves.
I hope that cleared it up.
If you have disagreements with anything I said, quote me on it, And I will gladly correct or make clear any misunderstands or contradictions or logical fallacies or inconsistencies.

If you had researched the points, you would have got what an individual said (yourself) and NOT a group. That's not too hard to understand, is it?

Since you like stereotypes, I'll tell you one... It's been my experience over the years that atheists will lie and deny their own words when faced with the cognitive dissonance of being called out on their bullshit...

(November 27, 2012 at 6:57 pm)catfish Wrote:

---

(November 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: After going back and rereading all that was send between us and not once did I use the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' as I can't see it (if you want to point it out then I will gladly except my mistake) and at no point did you offer a challenge (again I can see it so if you want to point it out...). Yes you did answer my point but I was unsure of what you were agreeing to. Also when did I say you were a not Christian (if your on about my agreement with Kirbmarc I was agreed I to his point that if you were not a Christian, then you should have not answered the point, I never once said you were not and if I did tell me were).
Also I did go back to the OP. Obviously the question was not as clear as I thought.

Dude, you should just stop responding to my posts as I WILL pick apart everything that you try to deny...

1.

(November 27, 2012 at 8:51 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: agreed, and if your not a Christian, WHY THE HELL DID YOU RESPOND TO THE 9 POINTS?. This thread was about Christians giving there personal views on there own beliefs. I was looking for Christian views Only. -facepalm-

Here you agreed with Kirbmarc that I wasn't technically a Christian, care to deny that??? Your "if" statement didn't mean squat and was just a lead-in to your facepalm emoticon. You received your Christian response but were too afraid to deal with what I said.

2. I directly challenged your point #3 twice! Care to deny that too?

3. You say that I did answer your point but you weren't sure what I was agreeing to??? First, I numbered the fucking thing so any normal sane person could identify the point I was responding to. Second, I didn't agree with that point, now did I? (you do know the difference between "agree" and "disagree", don't you?)

(November 27, 2012 at 1:42 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: On the point of research, the 9 points are what I have been hearing and seeing from Christians over the years and I wanted to see if my 'stereotyped' points are accurate from the 'horses mouth'. If I researched this point I would have got what a group said not what a individual said, which is what I am after. To point it simply the whole thread was: 'Are my stereotypes that I have got about Christians, over the years accurate' and I thought the best people to ask was Christian there-selves.
I hope that cleared it up.
If you have disagreements with anything I said, quote me on it, And I will gladly correct or make clear any misunderstands or contradictions or logical fallacies or inconsistencies.

---

If you had researched the points, you would have got what an individual said (yourself) and NOT a group. That's not too hard to understand, is it?

Since you like stereotypes, I'll tell you one... It's been my experience over the years that atheists will lie and deny their own words when faced with the cognitive dissonance of being called out on their bullshit...

Well if you good at calling bullshit, show me were I am wrong, quote me on it as I want to be consistent. If I (mistakenly) said or did something that's full of bullshit then show me, quote it. As I want to learn and get my facts straight, also quote your challenge as I can't see it, unless your the one bullshiting

Quote:If you had researched the points, you would have got what an individual said (yourself) and NOT a group. That's not too hard to understand, is it?

I am trying to get the peoples on here thought on the 9 points, is that so hard to understand?