(July 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Pizza Wrote: Randy is so dishonest, that he rules in supernatural causes but doesn't refute rival supernatural explanations. Others in this thread have given naturalistic and supernaturalistic alternatives to his pet theory. He hasn't refuted them all, so by his own stupid rules fails.

"The hardest thing to find in the world today is an argument. Because so few are thinking, naturally there are found but few to argue. Prejudice there is in abundance and sentiment too, for these things are born of enthusiasms without the pain of labour. Thinking, on the contrary, is a difficult task; it is the hardest work a man can do - that is perhaps why so few indulge in it."
- Mgsr Fulton Sheen (1942)

(July 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: As I said, if Jenny were to be taken up into heaven by Jesus for a three-hour tour, you would not believe anything she said upon her return.

You wouldn't read her book, and you wouldn't go to see the movie.

And that's supposed to be an indictment of myself and other atheists how?

Eyewitness testimony is the weakest form of evidence there is.  Not only do we forget things, get confused about things, and otherwise have faulty memories, we can 'remember' things that didn't actually happen:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/01/p...committed/

Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.

So, to sum up, you would not believe her.

(July 18, 2015 at 9:00 pm)IanHulett Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 8:12 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Based on what I know, no.


Yes, of course.


No, I'm not.

Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest.

Oh. Okay, please show me the evidence that God does not exist.

Thanks.

Quote:And why are you trying to convert people to your faith, who don't use faith to begin with? People who prefer evidence, over belief without evidence? Something verifiable over something not verifiable? You know it's futile to try and get a skeptic to accept something as fact when they see so many problems with it.

Incorrect. I am explaining Christianity in order to reduce and eliminate the intellectual problems people have with it.

Quote:There are too many problems with Christianity, so you're just wasting your one and only life trying to convert someone who can see through the lies of religion to begin with.

Don't worry yourself about how I waste my life; worry about how you are wasting yours.

(July 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 9:00 pm)IanHulett Wrote: Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest.

Oh. Okay, please show me the evidence that God does not exist.

Thanks.

Why do you guys insist on shifting the burden of proof? If you're trying to convince someone, you need to show the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anybody. The name of this thread is implying YOU'RE the one trying to do the convincing. Thing is, you're not proving anything. You were just making claim after claim after claim, but no evidence/proof.

Show us the evidence that Ceiling Cat doesn’t exist. Then we'll use your method.

(July 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Show us the evidence that Ceiling Cat doesn’t exist. Then we'll use your method.

Oh I'm real motherfucker, I'm real.

(July 18, 2015 at 8:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 3:26 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Try again, slick.  Evidence is derived from the word 'evident'.  Evidence is only evidence if it is evident to others.  God tapping Jenny on the shoulder and saying "Hi" isn't evidence unless it's observed by someone else.  And, even then, that's only evidence of someone/thing interacting with her, not of your god.  That requires much more evidence, evidence which must eliminate other possibilities from being the most likely explanation.

As I said, if Jenny were to be taken up into heaven by Jesus for a three-hour tour, you would not believe anything she said upon her return.

You wouldn't read her book, and you wouldn't go to see the movie.

If Jenny got that three hour tour, but couldn't take the rest of the world on a return visit, Jenny would be asking many questions more medical than religious. Which is really just a way of saying what Kevin said all over again.

(July 18, 2015 at 8:33 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: Do you begin to understand why we put zero stock into eyewitness testimony?  It's utterly unreliable.  It's why legal professionals use it to corroborate actual evidence rather than relying solely on it.  By itself, it just creates a narrative.  Narratives aren't proof of anything.

In other words, Jenny's hypothetical experience may indeed be valid, but unless she can produce actual evidence of it, evidence that can't be more easily explained by something else (Occam's Razor is a bitch, innit?), her claims of the divine are meaningless.

BINGO!

Though they might mean Jenny needs a checkup.

(July 18, 2015 at 10:07 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 9:47 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Show us the evidence that Ceiling Cat doesn’t exist. Then we'll use your method.

Oh I'm real motherfucker, I'm real.

Oh, pwaise da lawd ceiling cat!

(July 18, 2015 at 9:45 pm)IanHulett Wrote:

(July 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Oh. Okay, please show me the evidence that God does not exist.

Thanks.

Why do you guys insist on shifting the burden of proof? If you're trying to convince someone, you need to show the evidence. I'm not trying to convince anybody. The name of this thread is implying YOU'RE the one trying to do the convincing. Thing is, you're not proving anything. You were just making claim after claim after claim, but no evidence/proof.

You wrote:

"Randy, will anything convince you to become an atheist?" and "Actually, not being willing to change your mind based on evidence is one way a person can be intellectually dishonest. "

Since you are asking me whether I would change MY mind and become an atheist based on "evidence", I think it is fair for me to ask what evidence you have that God does not exist.