Atheists don't realize asking for evidence of God is a strawman

[Rhondazvous]

Sometimes it's good to have a conversation with a non believer because you learn certain things from them and they learn certain things from you because you're both open minded and you both have a good conversation.

Other times some people are just close minded, they don't care about having a conversation, they're just there to show their "dominance" over you with comments that degrade virgin Mary, how you're too weak minded to be believing in "made up stories", or just to poke fun at you. Well, you can tell these assholes asking for evidence of God is silly according to their own standards. Why?

Because it's a strawman fallacy. How?

Only scientific textbooks needs to provide scientific evidence.

Nowhere in the Bible does it claim to be a scientific textbook, it's a religious textbook and it's called the Christian faith not the Christian science.

So when someone asks for scientific evidence they themselves are asserting that Bible is a scientific textbook(which it never claimed) and then asks for evidence(which it doesn't have to present).

So next time someone just wants to shut you down, you can do the same thing to them. Ask them to show where in the bible it claims to be a scientific textbook and then you'll give the scientific evidence.

The most obvious reply will be "So if Bible isn't scientific it isn't real is it lolololol". You can use the same trick atheists use(It's not that I DON'T believe in God or claim God doesn't exist, I just reject the claim). Just reply "I never claimed Bible isn't scientific, I just reject your claim that Bible is scientific because you didn't provide any evidence to back it up"

Obviously only use this against assholes that just want to mock and belittle you, having a discussion is always good but some people are just assholes that doesn't deserve a decent conversation and it also doesn't hurt to have a bigger arsenal.

No the bible does not claim to be a science book. It doesn’t even provide an unequivocal account of salvific requirements.

16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

Did Jesus tell the man there’s nothing he can do, that salvation is free to all who believe?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

But Paul disagrees

6 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Unless I’m mistaken, the rich man to whom Jesus was speaking in Matthew was made of flesh as were all Jews in the old dispensation, so when Paul says no flesh he precludes the idea that there’s a different requirement for Jews during the Old Testament. Yet Jesus told the man he could enter life by keeping the law.

So you and countless other Christians will stand before god trying to explain why you believed Paul knew more about salvation than Jesus did.

Science aside, to put one’s trust in a book that equivocates about the most basic thing, is a good way to set yourself up for disappointment.

[LadyForCamus]

I'd like to take this a step even further. If your position is, "I can believe anything I want based on faith alone,' then you arent even participating in a debate. What can't a person believe on faith? I can say, "I believe there is a dragon in my basement. I have no evidence, but I have faith, and that's enough for me." Who can argue with that? It's a non-starter.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I'd like to take this a step even further. If your position is, "I can believe anything I want based on faith alone,' then you arent even participating in a debate. What can't a person believe on faith? I can say, "I believe there is a dragon in my basement. I have no evidence, but I have faith, and that's enough for me." Who can argue with that? It's a non-starter.

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny. This implicit claim is what I called the straw.

I see your point but like I said it's just a gotcha. It's just in stock to use against someone that use a similar gotcha instead of engaging in a conversation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Let me try to put it as simply as I can.

This is me:

There I am, going about my normal day (for a given value of 'normal'), which for me contains zero gods. You are recommending new element, a new product that will totally change my life, with the miracle ingredient Goddo.

What can you offer me to get me to part with my money?

Higher purpose.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The real strawman here is saying that only scientific claims require evidence. Any positive claim requires evidence. While some claims may require a trivial amount of evidence, others have a much higher bar.

I'm not saying "only scientific claims require evidence" (it's part of what I'm saying but it's not the whole thing)
This a TLDR of my argument:

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny. This implicit claim is what I called the straw.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your "argument" fails at the first premise, and then manages to reach a conclusion that is not only false in it;s own right....it doesn't follow anyway.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

You do not get to tell people to fuck off, specially if they replied to you within the forum rules.

Also, here's what min posted:

Hey asshole. Either your silly god is real or it isn't. If it is, produce evidence of it. If it isn't, fuck the two of you.

Totally disrespectful but I still only responded this:

Read the OP Min. It's just a thought exercise.

---

Your "argument" fails at the first premise, and then manages to reach a conclusion that is not only false in it;s own right....it doesn't follow anyway.

Why do you think it fails?:

Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

[Angrboda]

I claim that pool the matey is a dumbass. Since it's not a scientific claim, I don't have to provide evidence that it's true. It just is true. STOP STRAWMANNING ME!!1!

[LadyForCamus]

Pardon me for being confused.  I'm not sure where the "gotcha" comes in?  We talk about a lack of scientific for god's existence all the time without ever mentioning the Bible, because the Bible isn't evidence, lol.  It seems you agree with us on this point?  

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

Well, no.  That is exactly what science does.  I think you have this backwards.  Science can, in fact, scrutinize the Bible, and make the determination that it isn't a scientific work.  We don't need the book itself to tell us that, lol.  

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

Sure.  Did someone tell you otherwise?

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

No, that doesn't follow.  The Bible has nothing to do with a discussion about scientific evidence for god, because it isn't scientific.  And, unless someone explicitly claims that it is, It's your strawman.

---

I'd like to take this a step even further.  If your position is, "I can believe anything I want based on faith alone,' then you arent even participating in a debate.  What can't a person believe on faith?  I can say, "I believe there is a dragon in my basement.  I have no evidence, but I have faith, and that's enough for me."  Who can argue with that?  It's a non-starter.

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny. This implicit claim is what I called the straw.

I see your point but like I said it's just a gotcha. It's just in stock to use against someone that use a similar gotcha instead of engaging in a conversation.

I've never once heard an atheist make the claim that the Bible is a scientific work, but okay.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I claim that pool the matey is a dumbass. Since it's not a scientific claim, I don't have to provide evidence that it's true. It just is true. STOP STRAWMANNING ME!!1!

Yeah yeah so funny 🙄
So if what you said is not based on a scientific context then what is it based on? In the case of Bible although it isn't based on a scientific context it is still based on a religious context(and my point is that you can criticize it from within that religious context just not within a scientific context because it never claimed that).