How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God???

[LastPoet]

Lol. You are the one here asking for what evidence would we accept. And it's you that needs to provide it.

Nice shift of the burden of proof. A classic.

[Edward John]

Again, all you are doing is offering your opinion. Why should any of us in here adopt your position, your opinion, as the best representation of reality? The Big Bang, for example is essentially the claim that the universe came into existence spontaneously in the distant past. I assume that you acknowledge the Big Bang. If I am wrong, please let me know.

Bolded mine.  Okay, you're wrong.  That's not what the Big Bang Theory is.  You're either ignorant of its actual meaning (which could be remedied by 20 seconds on google) or you're being dishonest.  Either way, I don't think people should waste their time with this.

You just I am wrong, but you haven't said Why I am wrong?

[Mister Agenda]

No, you came to this forum.
Obviously, you want to share something with us.
so...

YOU tell me how you know your belief is true... which, btw, I accept that your belief is true. Just like my atheism is true. It is true that my mind has no belief in any god, hence practices atheism. It also seems to be true that your mind has a belief for a particular god, hence practices that belief.

And, also, YOU tell me why any of us should adopt your opinion as the truth.

That's just your opinion. I'm not interested in mere opinions.  Please demonstrate that your atheistic opinion is a proper representation of reality.  If you can't, then your just a person of faith.

Atheism is not an opinion, it is a state of mind. The state of not having a belief that any supernatural deities are literally real. Atheists have opinions, but atheism is not itself an opinion. Neither is theism, which is the opposite state of mind. It is a fact that you are a theist, and it is a fact that I am an atheist. That what evidence there is for the existence of God is sufficient or insufficient is an opinion that largely depends on how high you raise the bar of skepticism before you'll believe it is true. I'm an atheist because I am a skeptic. I used to believe all sorts of things, just about everything: ESP, ghosts, ancient astronauts, miracles, you name it. After seeing some of those things faked, I became more skeptical, and developed an interest in critical thinking and skepticism. The belief in God was one of the last low-evidence things I stopped believing in, because I was raised to think that belief was critically important, but there was only so long that I could apply a different standard to that belief than I applied to all the other ones.

It's my opinion that you have not made your case to a degree that would sufficiently justify rational acceptance of it. How do you think your employment of the tu quoque fallacy of 'you're just stating opinions!' is going to change that? For someone desperate to convert me, you seem awfully attached to your pre-chosen approach of thinking you don't have to learn anything from us or believe anything we say in order to reach us. Wouldn't someone who really wants to reach me treat me with love and respect rather than condescension and contempt?

[Edward John]

Lol. You are the one here asking for what evidence would we accept. And it's you that needs to provide it.

Nice shift of the burden of proof. A classic.

 So you admit God can't be disproven, yet you argue from the position that he does not exist? Am I understanding you correctly?

[FatAndFaithless]

Bolded mine.  Okay, you're wrong.  That's not what the Big Bang Theory is.  You're either ignorant of its actual meaning (which could be remedied by 20 seconds on google) or you're being dishonest.  Either way, I don't think people should waste their time with this.

You just I am wrong, but you haven't said Why I am wrong?

..Are you serious?  Your summary of the Big Bang Theory is not what the Big Bang Theory says.  You're just flat wrong.

[Minimalist]

Edward John Wrote:

Minimalist is an HateTheist.

Probably the first time in your life you ever got something right, dickwad.

[Joods]

Well, at least he got ONE thing right. Everything else he says is just fallacious nonsense.

This proves that you are good at lying.

Fuck off and go play in traffic. You come to an atheist forum, admitting that your sole intent is to "convert" us, you have the balls to tell others here what they think and/or feel, assert your opinions that your piece of shit god exists, without any shred of proof (which you still have yet to supply) and then have the audacity to demand we provide your proof for you? You're nothing more than a festering boil on the ass of humanity, who does nothing more than troll and spread ignorance.

No, sweet cheeks, I'm not lying. You are the liar. Show some tangible proof via the scientific method, you know, the kind thats been tested, for the existence of any god.

I'll wait.

[Edward John]

That's just your opinion. I'm not interested in mere opinions.  Please demonstrate that your atheistic opinion is a proper representation of reality.  If you can't, then your just a person of faith.

Atheism is not an opinion, it is a state of mind. The state of not having a belief that any supernatural deities are literally real. Atheists have opinions, but atheism is not itself an opinion. Neither is theism, which is the opposite state of mind. It is a fact that you are a theist, and it is a fact that I am an atheists. That what evidence there is for the existence of God is sufficient or insufficient is an opinion that largely depends on how high you raise the bar of skepticism before you'll believe it is true. I'm an atheist because I am a skeptic. I used to believe all sorts of things, just about everything: ESP, ghosts, ancient astronauts, miracles, you name it. After seeing some of those things faked, I became more skeptical, and developed an interest in critical thinking and skepticism. The belief in God was one of the last low-evidence things I stopped believing in, because I was raise to think that belief was critically important, but there was only so long that I could apply a different standard to that belief than I applied to all the other ones.

It's my opinion that you have not made your case to a degree that would sufficiently justify rational acceptance of it. How do you think your employment of the tu quoque fallacy of 'you're just stating opinions!' is going to change that? For someone desperate to convert me, you seem awfully attached to your pre-chosen approach of thinking you don't have to learn anything from us or believe anything we say in order to reach us. Wouldn't someone who really wants to reach me treat me with love and respect rather than condescension and contempt?

Okay. Then I have a request of you. I would like you to give me a better explanation for moral absolutes than God.  I will propose a moral absolute to you.  I would like you to demonstrate how the no God position is a better explanation for the moral absolute.  "It is always wrong for people to torture babies to death merely for their personal pleasure." Can you please tell me how that moral absolute gains its validity in an atheistic worldview?  I would say that an atheistic worldview, particularly in a Christian one, God has given us morals which are a reflection of his character. Because we are made in his image (Genesis 1: 26), we recognize what is right and wrong because the law of God is written on our hearts (Romans 1: 18).

---

This proves that you are good at lying.

Fuck off and go play in traffic. You come to an atheist forum, admitting that your sole intent is to "convert" us, you have the balls to tell others here what they think and/or feel, assert your opinions that your piece of shit god exists, without any shred of proof (which you still have yet to supply) and then have the audacity to demand we provide your proof for you?  You're nothing more than a festering boil on the ass of humanity, who does nothing more than troll and spread ignorance.

No, sweet cheeks, I'm not lying. You are the liar. Show some tangible proof via the scientific method, you know, the kind thats been tested, for the existence of any god.

I'll wait.

More lying.

[Mister Agenda]

Bolded mine.  Okay, you're wrong.  That's not what the Big Bang Theory is.  You're either ignorant of its actual meaning (which could be remedied by 20 seconds on google) or you're being dishonest.  Either way, I don't think people should waste their time with this.

You just I am wrong, but you haven't said Why I am wrong?

Since you are too intellectually lazy and incurious to read a Wikipedia article on the topic: The Big Bang or Initial Expansion describes what happened when the previous state of affairs, a hot, dense, energetic, compressed universe; suddenly started expanding and eventually formed the universe we find ourselves in. The theory doesn't describe why the universe expanded, how long it was in its previous state; whether a moment or an eternity or in-between; but what it does describe is based on astronomical observations and it has been confirmed by finding additional phenomena that the theory predicted we would find if it's true. It's not a theory of ultimate origin. We do not have the physics to describe with certainty what preceded the 'Big Bang'. We have plausible hypotheses, almost too many of them, and as yet no way to confirm which, if any of them, are true. The BBT doesn't try explain what you seem to think it does.

[Edward John]

You just I am wrong, but you haven't said Why I am wrong?

..Are you serious?  Your summary of the Big Bang Theory is not what the Big Bang Theory says.  You're just flat wrong.

Again, You just said I am wrong, but you haven't said Why I am wrong?