Drich Wrote:Because no matter what makes sense to me whether it makes sense to you or not, you will dismiss it.

Methinks you have no idea the moral fortitude of Esquilax, and to assume he'd dismiss actual evidence for god is folly. It's easy to identify the reasoning behind this; you simply wish it to be true, because that would then make alllllll the atheists allllll over the world-- merely in denial, rather than waiting for actual evidence/reasoning/proof for believing in something, a step you yourself seem to have skipped.

(January 8, 2014 at 12:26 am)Drich Wrote: ...and me offering you evidence that you can not process is also a true to form exercise in futility. Because no matter what makes sense to me whether it makes sense to you or not, you will dismiss it. Therefore the only sensible recourse is to ask you what you are looking for and help you find it. (In order to break this cycle)

So, first of all, this entire paragraph is an unjustified assumption you've made; you have no idea whether I will or won't object to your evidence, and you also don't know my reasons for doing so, if I did. What this is, is a wonderful way to cover up for a lie: "Oh, even if I told you the truth you wouldn't believe it. You just can't understand it anyway." It's just a way to escape justifying the position you've taken, and I'm not even going to indulge it with the dignity of getting angry at you for accusing me of it. You're wrong, moving on.

What I will do is remind you- and I'm rather bemused that I need to in the first place- how ideas work in the real world: A rationally justified idea is formed when converging lines of evidence produced by reality flow together to form a conclusion about the nature of that evidence. That's the justified way to come to an opinion: evidence first, then conclusion.

Therefore, if you've come to this conclusion of yours through a rationally justified way, there would be evidence you can present without me needing to tell you where you should look to find it. That conclusion, when matched to this evidence, will either be correct or incorrect, but if it's the former I'll accept it, and if it's the latter, that will be the only reason I reject it.

What you're trying to do, is to get me to do half the work for you by showing you where to look, whereupon you'll find whatever evidence you can that suits your position in that area, but I somehow doubt you'll present the actual current state of the research in that area if it disagrees with the idea you're trying to convince me of. In fact, you've already done that here: in conversation on the fossil record, you've presented the claim that there aren't any fossils in a given area, but in doing so you've ignored the position of mainstream science on that claim, because it isn't that this is because that's where the garden of eden was.

The question you're asking is phrased in such a way as to eliminate from the outset contradictory evidence in favor of exclusively discussing only what confirms your view, separated from the larger context of everything that doesn't confirm it.

Quote:I know your not stupid, and I know you can recognize me turning the tables on you, and I know you know, if you were to participate you would do so without a safety net. (The atheist anthem 'prove it/where's the proof.') so let me bottom line it for you.

You don't know it, you believe it: knowledge is demonstrated, not asserted. And don't you dare presume to tell me what I know, either.

Yet more assertions made without evidence.

Quote:Man up, define what your looking for, or cower behind haughty words, insults and thinly veiled self assurances.

Do I have to remind you that I did that the first time you asked? Your response was to simply detail to me why you couldn't possibly find evidence in that field, in doing so eliminating one of the few paths of research you would have to confirm your theory. That's why I haven't bothered supplying more suggestions from there, and instead asked what you have beforehand.

Because I think you're playing a kind of trick, Drich. I've seen what convinced you, and we both understand, I think, why "the holy spirit," isn't a terribly compelling piece of evidence to an atheist; by relying on that you're putting the cart before the horse, and I don't think you have a way of getting that horse around the cart. Instead, you ask us what would convince us, and then slowly eliminating any suggestions we give you, until eventually we can't supply you with any more. At that point, you've won: "Aha!" you'll say. "There's nothing that would convince you of my claim?! Atheist dogma has blinded you!"

I'm not willing to engage in your mind games, so you can keep your delusions safe from interference, Drich. You have the burden of proof; stop pretending that we'll never allow it to be fulfilled.

Quote: Either way it make absolutely no difference to me. I've found what I have been looking for. The only question is are you brave enough to look for yourself?

Faith is an insufficient reason for believing something.

(January 8, 2014 at 3:21 am)Bunny Wrote:

Drich Wrote:Because no matter what makes sense to me whether it makes sense to you or not, you will dismiss it.

Methinks you have no idea the moral fortitude of Esquilax, and to assume he'd dismiss actual evidence for god is folly. It's easy to identify the reasoning behind this; you simply wish it to be true, because that would then make alllllll the atheists allllll over the world-- merely in denial, rather than waiting for actual evidence/reasoning/proof for believing in something, a step you yourself seem to have skipped.

this could be true if I hadn't spent a year maybe even a year and a half talking with esq. There has been more than one topic Esq has walked away from without a formal concession or any other type of resolution.

I will grant Esq will go beyond the typical atheist retoric, but in the end when faced with something he does not like he simply moves to dismiss via personal attack rather than addressing the topic itself, just like everyone else.

(January 8, 2014 at 11:07 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 8, 2014 at 3:21 am)Bunny Wrote: Methinks you have no idea the moral fortitude of Esquilax, and to assume he'd dismiss actual evidence for god is folly. It's easy to identify the reasoning behind this; you simply wish it to be true, because that would then make alllllll the atheists allllll over the world-- merely in denial, rather than waiting for actual evidence/reasoning/proof for believing in something, a step you yourself seem to have skipped.

this could be true if I hadn't spent a year maybe even a year and a half talking with esq. There has been more than one topic Esq has walked away from without a formal concession or any other type of resolution.

I will grant Esq will go beyond the typical atheist retoric, but in the end when faced with something he does not like he simply moves to dismiss via personal attack rather than addressing the topic itself, just like everyone else.

Oh, please! You were asked for evidence (any evidence!) for your claim, and you have not only failed to provide it but you have indulged in the most childish obfuscation to avoid providing it. Somehow, in the fantasy land that is your faith, that adds up to a rhetorical victory. The only person convinced/fooled by this silly ruse is you.

Humor Esquilax (and the rest of us) and grant the possibility that if your evidence is sufficient to convince you, then it ought to be convincing to other rational people. Please provide it or acknowledge that you don't give a tinker's damn about evidence. It's one or the other.

I almost forgot, you also need evidence for the presence for god. Yes it must be scientific. No this is not a "narrow minded perception of evidence". This is what's required to find the presence of God if He may be in or not in this universe in some form albeit any form imaginable, the scopes of science are ever reaching within the chainz of mankinds ability to reason, (religion as you know throughout history has had a bad track record of pulling on those chainz) God may exist in some form but until evidence for that existence is found people cannot take his existence as fact nor can people institute any theories that rely on his existence as a key component for validity can be taken as fact(such as yours Drich sorry but you have played with "dogs", I suggest If you haven't already try joining physics forums, or some other forum that does not tolerate personal attack while tolerating a wide plethora of free thought, you had one hell of a theory here I'll admit that, it should go on the history channel, it's right up there with ancient aliens.

P.S. I apologize for insulting you but claiming I have a narrow world view really pisses me off, which admittedly I probably do have. After all i am still under the age of 20 and was brought up by a lower class family with narrow simple and contradictive views on the world and life. (Like racism, stupid fucks)

(January 8, 2014 at 11:59 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 8, 2014 at 11:07 am)Drich Wrote: this could be true if I hadn't spent a year maybe even a year and a half talking with esq. There has been more than one topic Esq has walked away from without a formal concession or any other type of resolution.

I will grant Esq will go beyond the typical atheist retoric, but in the end when faced with something he does not like he simply moves to dismiss via personal attack rather than addressing the topic itself, just like everyone else.

Oh, please! You were asked for evidence (any evidence!) for your claim, and you have not only failed to provide it but you have indulged in the most childish obfuscation to avoid providing it.

..and all i did in return was ask what evidence are you looking for specifically. When those of you were man enough to step up to the plate and provide parameters for the proof you were looking for, I provided the evidence they were specifically looking for.. Don't pretend that I have avoided everyone. I have been good to my word. Esq, simply does not want to have a discussion with out his favorite goto safty net.

I'm asking for the scientific kind.

(January 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Belac Enrobso Wrote: I almost forgot, you also need evidence for the presence for god. Yes it must be scientific. No this is not a "narrow minded perception of evidence".

I am glad we agree on the idea that evidence needs to be well defined. So here again tell me what 'Well defined' evidence of God looks like.

Quote:This is what's required to find the presence of God if He may be in or not in this universe in some form albeit any form imaginable, the scopes of science are ever reaching within the chainz of mankinds ability to reason, (religion as you know throughout history has had a bad track record of pulling on those chainz) God may exist in some form but until evidence for that existence is found people cannot take his existence as fact nor can people institute any theories that rely on his existence as a key component for validity can be taken as fact(such as yours Drich sorry but as I said you have played with the "dogs", I suggest If you haven't already try joining physics forums, or some other forum that does not tolerate personal attack while tolerating a wide plethora of free thought, you had one hell of a theory here I'll admit that, it should go on the history channel, it's right up there with ancient aliens.

I don't even know if one can call it a theory, but it is enough for those who want to believe in a literal 7 day creation, and still accept or at least not have to dismiss everything in evolution/The fossil record.

I don't know about the History channel but I do want to make a youtube video. I just need someone to help with production/filming ideas.

Quote:P.S. I apologize for insulting you but claiming I have a narrow world view really pisses me off, which admittedly I probably do have. After all i am still under the age of 20 and was brought up by a lower class family with narrow simple and contradictive views on the world and life. (Like racism, stupid fucks)

Having a narrow world view has nothing to do with intellegence. It simply means one does not adopt everything everyone else spouts.