The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[Statler Waldorf]

^ Listen, you're a Bible man. If you can prove from the Bible that you're a true christian by passing the Mark 16:17-18 confirmation test, we take your word for it without argument.

Mark 16:9-20 is not original and therefore is not inspired. Nice try though.

If you bothered to read the damn link I posted, you'd realize that, that is not the only find all.

I did look at your links.

Ffs even look at archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx is considered by most to be a type of bird based on phylogenic comparisons and not a feathered dinosaur.

Or how how about Sciurumimus albersdoerferi
And here is Anchiornis huxleyi
Or Sinornithosaurus millenii
or Sinocalliopteryx gigas

It just happens to be that Sinosauropteryx is in the spotlight right now do to that debate.

Feduccia cautions against using such fossils as evidence for feathered dinosaurs in his article, “Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence” published in the Journal of Morphology. He points out that all of these fossils come from a similar region of China known for fossil hoaxes. The fossils are never authenticated by any Western scientists so accepting them upon face value is not wise.

Wow, stat really got called out on the feather thing

Hardly. It’s just shocking how little evidence you will accept when it supposedly supports something you want to be true. I am not sure why it’s surprising, I should know better by now.

That's not the only thing he gets called out on. You should hear him carry on about Noah's Ark.

Yes, I refuted every one of your silly objections to that account. You’re welcome.

You're not very good at this game.

Doesn’t seem to stop me from winning at it.

The Bible would be evidence of people writing a religious text, not of there being a god.

Why?

What, is the Quran evidence of Allah?

Nope because it is self-contradictory.

Is the Book of Mormon evidence of there being those elusive Golden Plates?

Nope, it is self-contradictory as well. Do you have anything actually analogous?

Yes, you'll get laughed at because it's a silly tactic.

That’s still a fallacious appeal to consequence. As long as I am right I do not care what the consequences are.

You are trying to convince us atheists that there is a god, are you not?

No.

The fallacy was correctly identified by Esquilax, and it still stands.

No it was not and no it does not.

You just like that he presumed creation instead of considering other possibilities or taking the honest route by saying, "I don't know enough to say anything for certain."

No, you just disliked the fact he preferred creation causing you to desperately toss out the names of fallacies you clearly do not understand hoping that they will stick. That was not even close to a fallacious appeal to incredulity.

It proves that it's possible in natural conditions.

How does doing something in the laboratory prove it can happen outside of the laboratory?

Even if we don't know the original conditions of the earth when RNA first came about, we know that if there's another condition where it can, then the sky is the limit on a number of other possibilities.

Atheists really do live by faith.

I can see why you would think that, but the claim that Whateverist was questioning was still a positive one.

“RNA cannot spontaneously generate” is a negative claim.

Orangebox positively claimed that he thinks it cannot spontaneously exist.

How?

If he's so certain of this, then the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Yes, and that’s you. He is not claiming that RNA can spontaneously generate, that is all yours.

If I were to say, "I know there is no god," even though the assertion is about a negative, the claim is still positive, and I would be obliged to provide evidence of god's nonexistence or shut up.

Atheists claim that all of the time.

A lot has been mentioned. Do you have anything specific that you need addressed?

I think my question was clear, so can you or can you not?

Also, who told you that denying the existence of god has anything to do with questioning all things?

Whateverist in Post #69

That's fine. Even in the face of insurmountable evidence, it is your prerogative to deny the facts and go about thinking the same way you always have.

Insurmountable evidence? You have evidence that God does not exist? I am not even sure how that is possible. Please present said evidence.

You're absolutely right that we can't appeal to your "theistic conceptual scheme" because we atheists love evidence. It's our figurative cross to bear.

Such hubris. Your conceptual scheme undermines the use of evidence because it cannot account for regularities in Nature.

The only problem here is that you believe his reasoning was circular, but it's not surprising that you would try to find such a flaw, even if there was none to begin with.

Appealing to your senses to justify the reliability of your senses is not circular? Appealing to your memory in order to justify the reliability of your memory is not circular? I think you need to learn your terms.

After all, we're sitting here on this thread trying to call Christians out on their own circular reasoning with the Bible. Are you sure the reason you're projecting your own insecurities isn't because you feel threatened by all this?

Threatened by what? Blatant hypocrisy? Not in the least.

I am honestly telling you that I don't believe the Bible to be the words of anything but men.

Is that a positive claim?

Nothing in my words or actions should indicate otherwise (but I would be remiss if I didn't ask you to show me where I might have indicated it so that I can apologize for any such mistake).

By assuming there are regularities in nature that will continue into the future; more precisely by claiming that we can reason from specific instances to general claims. This would not be possible without the God of scripture existing and yet you seem to believe this is possible.

As you have interpreted it to mean that we already accept your god, neither I nor anyone else can take said belief away from you.

It’s pretty clear.

The only problem that I see is when you tell us this doctrine of yours as a knowledge claim instead of as an article of faith.

If someone who knows everything and who cannot lie tells you something then it’s not faith, it’s knowledge.

You declare, "You already know the word to be true." Telling us that is going to make us a little mad because we don't feel that way, nor can we possibly, physically think that if we are indeed atheists.

I did not declare that, scripture did. There’s no reason to get upset, if you know I am wrong that is. I am just not going to disbelief scripture based upon what a couple atheists tell me. It’d be like if your dad told you never to play cards with gypsies because they’ll deceive you and you go and play cards with them because they told you that your dad was wrong. Seems rather foolish.

If you were to instead tell us, "I believe that you already know it to be true," our mutual understanding could be greatly enhanced. The former remark is meant to be incendiary, even if you don't think so (or do you?).

It was not meant to be incendiary at all. I am not on here to push people’s buttons.

And that's a non-analogy.

Why?

We have demonstrable proof that those were created.

Are you really going to argue that if we did not have such proof we’d have to conclude that Windows 8 is the result of natural processes or the expansion from a singularity 13.7 Billion years ago? Seriously?
I’ve never met the creator(s) of Windows 8 and yet I can infer that they exist from the product they created.

I hate to say it, but this one has got to be one of the most absurd, intellectually vapid replies that I have ever seen from you.

Then I am doing pretty well because I raised an excellent point.

However, I did notice that Lemon got back to you with photographic evidence of the fossils from whence these artists get their information.

Which I easily refuted. Not only this, but not a single one of those fossils allegedly proving dinosaurs had feathers were of an Oviraptor so my point still stands. An artist drawing feathers on a dinosaur proves nothing. If you think that it does then you are even worse off than I thought.

You can now shove your own picture up your arse.

Classy.

Hell he mays as well tried to support the claim sauropods dragged their tails.

On the contrary, you’d have to claim that since some artists draw them with their tails that way.

In truth the discovery that many small and medium sized therapods had feathers is basically his lizard with bird features. It is a painfully obvious link between birds and dinosaurs.

What! How? This is one of the worst non-sequiturs I have ever seen on here. If organisms possessing homologous structures from two other groups of organisms proves the first organism is a transitional form then you’ve got some serious problems!

“It is a painfully obvious link between Mammals and Birds.”

The Bible is evidence of God in the same way that the Lord of the Rings is evidence of Sauron

How unoriginal. God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy.

When cross-examined by archaeology/history it turns out to be horseshit. This is a bad sign.

So you are trying to argue against something known through deduction by pointing to something we know through induction alone. That makes a lot of sense.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Wow. That's a long post.
Cue "did not read" gif...

[Statler Waldorf]

Wow. That's a long post.
Cue "did not read" gif...

Well, after taking the time and effort to address every single one of everyone’s points I should hope that they display the intellectual integrity and courtesy to at least read it. I am not holding my breath though, there really may be something to the stereotype of the lazy atheist.

[WesOlsen]

God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy.

Huge LOL

[Jacob(smooth)]

Wow. That's a long post.
Cue "did not read" gif...

Well, after taking the time and effort to address every single one of everyone’s points I should hope that they display the intellectual integrity and courtesy to at least read it. I am not holding my breath though, there really may be something to the stereotype of the lazy atheist.

Well, people surprise me every day.

[Minimalist]

So you are trying to argue against something known through deduction by pointing to something we know through induction alone. That makes a lot of sense.

Waldork you fucking asshole, you have proven time after time that you don't know shit about anything except ancient mythology and that is about as useful as a pair of balls on a cow.

Kindly stick your fucking bible up your ass along with your head and your god.

Learn something..if that's possible...about archaeology and then get back to me.

[Lemonvariable72]

Actually thank you Waldorf the platypus denotes the reptilian ancestry of mammals quite aptly. Unfortunately it takes more then feature to denote a transitional form. Hence there is only one Dinosaur fossils considered a transitional form between birds and dinosaurs (archaeopteryx). So the platypus actually denotes a command ancestry between mammals and reptiles in much the same way the feathered dinosaurs above denote a common ancestry between birds and dinosaurs.

[WesOlsen]

Mark 16:9-20 is not original and therefore is not inspired. Nice try though.

and

God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy

Last time I checked the bible was penned by a bunch of scribes commissioned by Jewish tribal elders, and a bunch of Jesus cheerleaders. I didn't realise god authored the whole thing. Either way, it's not objective history.

Archaeopteryx is considered by most to be a type of bird based on phylogenic comparisons and not a feathered dinosaur.

No, it's an early bird that is considered by most to be a transitional species between feathered dinosaurs and early birds.

Feduccia cautions against using such fossils as evidence for feathered dinosaurs in his article, “Do feathered dinosaurs exist? Testing the hypothesis on neontological and paleontological evidence” published in the Journal of Morphology. He points out that all of these fossils come from a similar region of China known for fossil hoaxes. The fossils are never authenticated by any Western scientists so accepting them upon face value is not wise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuvuuia_deserti - Here's some western scientists knocking around in Mongolia with a feathered dinosaur

Hardly. It’s just shocking how little evidence you will accept when it supposedly supports something you want to be true. I am not sure why it’s surprising, I should know better by now.

Waldorf, are we to take it that you value evidence despite your wildy inconsistent standards? A piece of religious propaganda (which most historians view with rational skepticism) constitutes direct evidence of authorship from god himself, for you.

The Bible would be evidence of people writing a religious text, not of there being a god.

Why?

Pen to paper (ink to parchment?) there are no known examples of any other written works coming in to being unless directly penned by human hands on to a suitable surface. If you've found some evidence to the contrary then by all means feel free to share it with us.

What, is the Quran evidence of Allah?

Is the Book of Mormon evidence of there being those elusive Golden Plates?

Nope because it is self-contradictory.

Can you just remind us all who was present at the tomb of Jesus when it was found empty, and whether or not a giant flying and talking cross came whizzing out of the tomb?

That’s still a fallacious appeal to consequence. As long as I am right I do not care what the consequences are.

Just as well you're not right then

How does doing something in the laboratory prove it can happen outside of the laboratory?

If you can replicate natural conditions in a laboratory setting then it's not incorrect to posit that such a reaction could take place outside of the artifical lab setting. Even if you can't replicate entirely the predicted natural conditions, you can show that a process can take place given certain conditions which means that they may be able to take place under other conditions as well. A chemistry/physics framework is handy for predicting such potential. It's a far more developed theoretical framework than your god of the gaps theory, which can't be replicated, tested, measured or limited under any conditions, laboratory or otherwise.

Even if we don't know the original conditions of the earth when RNA first came about, we know that if there's another condition where it can, then the sky is the limit on a number of other possibilities.

Atheists really do live by faith.

No comparison whatsoever, certainty in a number of given variables conforming to a certain pattern given the correct environment and sufficient time is not faith, it's a statistical likelihood, especially when we can accurately whittle the number of known ingredients down quite well. This in no way compares to faith in a deity which is based on completely insufficient evidence, no theoretical framework and no mathematics. If christians could even agree on any number of variables you could try making a start, but as it is you can't even reach your own consensus. You know nothing about RNA.

Yes, and that’s you. He is not claiming that RNA can spontaneously generate, that is all yours.

There is more evidence for RNA forming under natural conditions, as stated above, than there is for an ill-defined deity creating matter where there was formerly no matter. Scientistis are constantly meeting their burden to progress and demonstrate. Christians on the other hand..........

Insurmountable evidence? You have evidence that God does not exist? I am not even sure how that is possible. Please present said evidence.

We have evidence that a great number of processes take place in spite of god, not because of him, this at least cuts a magic god finger out of many equations if nothing else....

Appealing to your senses to justify the reliability of your senses is not circular? Appealing to your memory in order to justify the reliability of your memory is not circular? I think you need to learn your terms.

Urgh, we've already gone over this one, different senses can corroborate an experience, external agents can also corrorborate an experience. If you want to transcend Solopsism entirely and posit that not even your own mind is certain, then this is all fine and dandy, but it completely whipes out anything you claim to be true, because the same rules would apply to your brain. In fact, given the content of your retorts, i'd say there is serious concern that your brain is indeed not functioning particularly well.

By assuming there are regularities in nature that will continue into the future; more precisely by claiming that we can reason from specific instances to general claims. This would not be possible without the God of scripture existing and yet you seem to believe this is possible.

What?

If someone who knows everything and who cannot lie tells you something then it’s not faith, it’s knowledge.

Something that you severely lack

I did not declare that, scripture did. There’s no reason to get upset, if you know I am wrong that is. I am just not going to disbelief scripture based upon what a couple atheists tell me. It’d be like if your dad told you never to play cards with gypsies because they’ll deceive you and you go and play cards with them because they told you that your dad was wrong. Seems rather foolish.

which scripture? They're all full of contradictions and ridiculous claims. Scripture was penned by humans.

Are you really going to argue that if we did not have such proof we’d have to conclude that Windows 8 is the result of natural processes or the expansion from a singularity 13.7 Billion years ago? Seriously?
I’ve never met the creator(s) of Windows 8 and yet I can infer that they exist from the product they created.

Oh god not this one again. We can infer that a computer program is written because we are saturated with external evidence for such processes. We are familiar with microsoft, we may even know someone who programs computers personally (a real personal relationship). If we're going to liken computer code to human code then these are not reasonable comparisons. DNA is not language because it does not follow a power law, it is cypher. There is no reason to suspect a human was programmed because we cannot witness the programming process, replicate it, modify it etc. Comparing Visual basic or C++ with human design is like comparing a goldfish to a turd.

Which I easily refuted. Not only this, but not a single one of those fossils allegedly proving dinosaurs had feathers were of an Oviraptor so my point still stands. An artist drawing feathers on a dinosaur proves nothing. If you think that it does then you are even worse off than I thought.

The presence (or lack of) of beta-Keratin helps when feathers are concerned. Besides what's wrong with an artist drawing a picture? It's just like a human writing some words, in a desert, for the purpose of consolidating tribal power..........idiot.

On the contrary, you’d have to claim that since some artists draw them with their tails that way.

Artists drawing, artists writing letters............all bollocks right?

What! How? This is one of the worst non-sequiturs I have ever seen on here. If organisms possessing homologous structures from two other groups of organisms proves the first organism is a transitional form then you’ve got some serious problems!

“It is a painfully obvious link between Mammals and Birds.”

It's a more rational proposition, especially when married with techniques from other branches of science (radiometric dating etc), than filling gaps with a magic man in the sky. Collossal LOL.

How unoriginal. God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy.

Sorry I have to keep coming back to this one. You have no consistent standards of evidence. This is beyond humiliating.

[là bạn điên]

How unoriginal. God is the author of the Bible so this is a fallacious analogy.

The bible has many authors, not one of them 'God'. So saying that the Bible proves the existence of God in the same way that the lord of the Rings proves the existence of Sauron is completely apt.

Unless of course you can prove that 'God' wrote the bible.

Oh and using the Bible as evidence that the Bible is true is just begging the Question.

[Bad Writer]

I was going to respond point by point, but I think Wes hit upon SW's refutations rather nicely.

Stat, if you hear the phrase "Laboratory-tested", do you immediately, every time jump to the conclusion that the results of said test are in some way unnatural?

You don't know with any amount of certainty that god authored the Bible because that is impossible to know without thinking that an invisible voice is telling you so; on the other hand, the evidence for human penmanship is not only likely, it is a knowable fact.

Something you read in the bible and adhere to is a belief and not something you know to be true. You may hold it as true, but it still boils down to belief in the real world. What's also true about the real world is that there's no evidence that we atheists already believe in a god, whether we know it subconsciously in our brains (or, as you tell us, in our hearts). The only evidence you point to for this rationality is a verse in your bible...and that's it. In that case, you SHOULD believe us when we tell you that we in no way believe in your god; we have more than one source to uphold our position than your single, questionable, biblical source.