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

[FatAndFaithless]

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!

Well, he DOES claim to be a former atheist, so maybe we should be easier on him.  It may have been a brain injury or something that made him convert and now to spout nonsense.

To be fair, he was spouting nonsense long before he converted.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

But you were derailing your own thread by changing the subject to one where have to yet again explain the theory of evolution by natursl selection.

I wasn't detailing at all. They said that unless there is evidence or proof they won't believe anything, I pointed out a situation where they believe something despite lack of evidence. My point was that new evidences are being found each day so we can't just disregard something because it is not up to the level we want it to be.

[Jackalope]

It matters not one bit if it claims to make scientific claims, pool. It makes existential claims about reality. Existential claims about reality require the same sort of evidence that scientific claims do, (e.g. empirical evidence from which inferences can be made).

You yourself asserted that there is evidence to be found in archaeology, which is precisely the sort of evidence that is being referenced here. You refute your own claim, dumbass.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

No one is claiming the bible is a scientific text. That's your strawman.

I'm not saying you actually say that Bible is a scientific text. I'm saying it's a soft claim you make when you demand scientific evidence from a religious text that never claimed it was scientific and never claimed it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

I wrote a TLDR read it and you'll get a better idea:

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]

Well then prove it, but sure, I'll do it again and again until you're hoarse for screaming "nuh uh!".

Already did.

Name one situation where subjecting something that doesn't claim it is a scientific work or doesn't claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny to scientific scrutiny is acceptable?

If you're going to simply reassert yourself when presented with one example that completely discredits the premise, why should I expect that to change when I got around to the hundredth example, the thousandth..the millionth?  

Fact of the matter is, it only takes one, and you've been provided with it. Magic book qualifies as a second example...and it;s what you're bickering about to begin with, so you have that too. Do you need 98 more? 998? 999998?

That's a bad analogy because unless someone makes a scientific claim that arsenic laced jelly beans cure cancer and claims that their claim can withstand scientific scrutiny nobody will even bother to do a scientific research to show that they are wrong.

Who says they made a scientific claim?  They made a claim in advertising..they might even explicitly state in fine print that the claim has not been subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever and is not based upon any specific trial or research data.  They often do, for legal reasons.  Nevertheless, the claim is subject to scientific scrutiny because it's the kind of claim that science can test, can weigh in on.

If on the flip side some group of researchers just decided to create evidence for why "arsenic laced jelly beans cure cancer" is wrong without anyone ever making such a claim it would be meaningless. Likewise, nowhere in the Bible it claims it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny so it's a claim that they haven't made, if a group of people decided to show that Bible isn't scientifically correct then it just doesn't make any sense because that claim was not made in the first place.

It doesn't matter that the authors of the bible don't claim it to be a scientific treatise..and this..Pool..is the silliest meta argument I've ever heard.  How would they make such a claim..they didn't know what science was.  They did, however, make a mountain of claims subject to scientific scrutiny. The kinds of claims that science can test, can weigh in on. It has. They are false.

Your premise...Pool...is demonstrably unsound, and your conclusion does not follow from your premises regardless.  An argument can't be more flawed than that.  It fails every relevant criteria for an argument.

[Jackalope]

No one is claiming the bible is a scientific text.  That's your strawman.

I'm not saying you actually say that Bible is a scientific text. I'm saying it's a soft claim you make when you demand scientific evidence from a religious text that never claimed it was scientific and never claimed it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

I wrote a TLDR read it and you'll get a better idea:

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.

And your first premise is still unsound, as has been explained to you ad nauseum.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

To be fair, he was spouting nonsense long before he converted.

Don't look

---

God bless you, I'd appreciate if you stopped poking fun at me though.

---

[Cyberman]

It depends on whether or not you want to be perceived as the 'better' person and turn the other cheek.

No thanks, I don't want to be perceived as a better person. I'll respond to disrespect with disrespect and respect with respect.

Fair enough. Just bear in mind that you forfeit all right to complain about whatever treatment you attract.

[Ravenshire]

What in the above is supposed to be a strawman again?

The strawman is making a implicit claim that a religious work is a scientific work and asking for scientific evidence that is on the level with scientific works.

Actually, it you throwing out a strawman about the claims of others.

[FatAndFaithless]

To be fair, he was spouting nonsense long before he converted.

Don't look

---

God bless you, I'd appreciate if you stopped poking fun at me though.

---

Oh please, you've acted like an ass in this thread too, telling people to fuck off, calling them losers.  Shove the high horse up your ass.