Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(October 1, 2013 at 10:10 pm)Doubting Thomas Wrote: What's so hard to understand about beyond a reasonable doubt? What would convince most people?
Perhaps if you could get this God fellow to show up at my house so I could talk to him for an hour or so, and maybe perform a few miracles so that I'd know he really was a god, then that would probably convince me. He used to appear to people in biblical times, so why not now? Having a picture of his son show up on a piece of toast is not evidence.
If "Vinny G" is so handcuffed by god's "never give them anymore evidence after 33ad" rule, perhaps he could show us evidence of the devil.
Vinny, show us the "paranormal" satan evidence and it too would go a long way to proving the god you think that squats all the time on a floating golden throne in the clouds.
Hey vinny, would you mind not putting an insult into every other sentence, it may improve relations with everyone here.
'The more I learn about people the more I like my dog'- Mark Twain
'You can have all the faith you want in spirits, and the afterlife, and heaven and hell, but when it comes to this world, don't be an idiot. Cause you can tell me you put your faith in God to put you through the day, but when it comes time to cross the road, I know you look both ways.' - Dr House
“Young earth creationism is essentially the position that all of modern science, 90% of living scientists and 98% of living biologists, all major university biology departments, every major science journal, the American Academy of Sciences, and every major science organization in the world, are all wrong regarding the origins and development of life….but one particular tribe of uneducated, bronze aged, goat herders got it exactly right.” - Chuck Easttom
"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched.....You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit." - Pope Francis on freedom of speech
Burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person making the claim, even OUTSIDE the issue of god claims.
"I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now. Since I am real, and she is real, and since you cannot see me in person, it is true until you prove it isn't true".
Only a fool would say "Ok you are fucking her since I can't disprove it".
"I have an invisible pink unicorn in the trunk of my car, it is true until you disprove it"
"I can fart an invisible Lamborghini out of my ass"
Claims are not true by default merely because of ability to string words together.
Exactly. Once in an internet chat room someone came in purporting to be a young female TV/movie star. Needless to say I was pretty skeptical, as were most people in the chat room. Could it have been her? Possibly. Should I have believed it just because that person said so? I wasn't born yesterday. Could I prove it one way or another? No.
But according to Vinny's logic my skepticism was irrational because I couldn't prove that she wasn't who she said she was. According to Vinny, it's only logical to be totally naive and believe everything and skepticism is illogical.
So why doesn't Vinny believe in every other god out there that has ever been worshiped throughout history? He can't prove that they don't or never existed, so his disbelief is totally irrational according to his own flawed logic.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
October 2, 2013 at 1:49 pm (This post was last modified: October 2, 2013 at 1:50 pm by pocaracas.)
(October 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
(October 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Each atheist has his/her own measure for the proof required to change their minds, true...
But we're not talking about convincing individual persons that there is a god.
That only requires a good con man.
And is hence not a good measure of the applicability of that proof.
We're talking about showing beyond the shadow of a doubt that there is a god.
Kind of like gravity... Is there anyone who denies that gravity exists?
So what qualifies as showing "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?
Beats me...
Maybe something along the lines of:
If such an powerful entity exists, which can contact people directly, and can embody people, then I see no difficulty in contacting everyone directly.
That way, everyone will have a similar experience which cannot be dismissed as an abnormal psychological event on an individual, because everyone will have experienced roughly the same!
If it's soooo important for said entity that we humans accept that it exists, then I see no reason why it should cower from such a simple feat.... as it seems to be doing now (if it exists)
(October 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: Do you expect this same high standard of proof for all your beliefs, or only for the one you wish was not true?
Oh, how I wish magic was real!!...
Sadly, it does not seem to be.
All my beliefs are based on some level of probabilities, based on previous experience (sometimes, compounded with other people's experiences).
And gods... warrant... a very low probability of existence outside people's imaginations.
(October 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
Quote:Oh?
What does theism have to support it, then?
Besides lots of wishful thinking?
Do tell, I'm open minded on this...
This is like asking "Give me proof that science works." Whether or not it works, the question is so broad, and can be answered with so many different answers, that we are spoilt for choice. I can pick something appropriate for your level of education. Are you in university? What kind of an education background do you have?
LOL, troll.
Assume I'm a 6 year old kid. Explain it like if my a very stupid blonde.
I once had a test that was something like "explain conservation of momentum as if you were talking to a 6 year old". (most difficult test evar!)
(October 1, 2013 at 6:42 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote:
Quote:Assess each position on its own merits?...
Shamanism - A human representative of the afterlife capable of contacting the "other side", the spirit world. The spirits of the dead, the spirits of the trees, the land, etc...
Celts - in tune with their surroundings; could read signs from plants, or animals and ascertain future events... or so they claimed.
Ancient Egyptians - Myriad gods, half human, half animal... some representing "forces of Nature", such as the sun or the moon. A very human pharaoh would be the divine representative on Earth and had to be considered a god himself.
Ancient Greeks - Myriad gods, very very anthropomorphized, each representing something from Nature, or human nature, such as the Sea, Love, Thunder...
Vikings - Myriad gods, similar to the greeks, but more warlike.
Hindus - Myriad gods, similar to the Egyptians, but less anthropomorphized. No human representative posing as a god.
Mesopotamics - Myriad gods, anthropomorphized, with a clear hierarchy, with the 3 main on top. One of those was the father god.
Judaism - One single god, the father god.
Christianism - Like judaism, but with a human representative that is claimed to be a god himself.
Muslim - Like judaism, but with a human representative who claimed to have direct contact with the father god.
MANY MORE!!!
Atheism - gods do not seem to be around.
Now, I look around me...
gravity works in a predictable manner
volcanoes work in a... not very predictable, but an understood manner
Lightning works in an understood manner
Earthquakes work in an understood manner
Projectiles work in a predictable manner
physics works in a predictable manner
chemistry works in a predictable manner
Life seems to work in a predictable manner
no gods are required
no gods have been measured
None of these religions, except atheism, fits the bill of the observed world.
I'll give you a chance to think carefully about your claims here. Read it again, slowly and carefully and tell me if you are 100% confident in your own reasoning, and believe it is irrefutable.
Once you are convinced it is, let me know and I will respond.
I'll give you a chance to think about your lack of ability to refute anything I write, while you try to make me feel like you know something I don't, but never quite elaborate it...
![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
