A simple challenge for atheists

[Norman Humann]

No, you have seen the undeniable life-changing effect that belief in God has on people in real life.

Good point. But you cannot say conclusively that God is not communicating with that changed person in some way.

Just as you can't say conclusively that he is. What's your point?

[FatAndFaithless]

No, you have seen the undeniable life-changing effect that belief in God has on people in real life.

Good point. But you cannot say conclusively that God is not communicating with that changed person in some way.

Goddamn man, when are you going to see that "not being able to prove me wrong" has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's true. You're making a claim, and have to justify it. So far, you've done nothing but provide arguments from ignorance, quote mine authors, ignore most of the points brought against you, and blatantly (perhaps intentionally) misunderstand history.

[dyresand]

Except god is asshole who loves to watch the world burn and his chosen people get lifted away from the madness of it all.

Just as I would want to distance myself from idiot statements from Christians, I would think that most atheists would want to distance themselves from statements like that.

Except well its true... look at what god does in the bible he saves only 1 family and has them work painstakingly for years to build a ark and save animals and then has them ride out a global flood. I mean i don't believe in god and clearly god is not good because out of those billions he killed in the bible he could have just not done any of that at all because that is wrong morally wrong.

[SteveII]

"How about other miracles from other religions" is a hard thing to pin down and answer. Please suggest a miracle or two from another religion so we can discuss.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that any miracles from any other religions that are attributed to their God actually happened?

Or do you believe a) only Christian miracle claims have occurred, or
b) those miracles occurred but are due to the influence/intervention of the Christian god, and were misinterpreted by the adherents of the other religion, or maybe
c) Satan deceived them.

Can you give an example of a miracle from another religion?

[Dystopia]

"How about other miracles from other religions" is a hard thing to pin down and answer. Please suggest a miracle or two from another religion so we can discuss.

Let me ask you this. Do you think that any miracles from any other religions that are attributed to their God actually happened?

Or do you believe a) only Christian miracle claims have occurred, or
b) those miracles occurred but are due to the influence/intervention of the Christian god, and were misinterpreted by the adherents of the other religion, or maybe
c) Satan deceived them.

This is a question worthy of reply; I really want to see Steve answer this, it's interesting because Christians don't talk much about other religion's miracles.

[Norman Humann]

Let me ask you this. Do you think that any miracles from any other religions that are attributed to their God actually happened?

Or do you believe a) only Christian miracle claims have occurred, or
b) those miracles occurred but are due to the influence/intervention of the Christian god, and were misinterpreted by the adherents of the other religion, or maybe
c) Satan deceived them.

Can you give an example of a miracle from another religion?

Anything that happened in the OT? Because it's part of the Jewish Holy Book?

[FatAndFaithless]

Let me ask you this. Do you think that any miracles from any other religions that are attributed to their God actually happened?

Or do you believe a) only Christian miracle claims have occurred, or
b) those miracles occurred but are due to the influence/intervention of the Christian god, and were misinterpreted by the adherents of the other religion, or maybe
c) Satan deceived them.

Can you give an example of a miracle from another religion?

Here's a good list of miracles claimed to be performed by Mohammed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_of_Muhammad

Take your pick.

[SteelCurtain]

So let's recap. Going over the traditional philosophical arguments of the existence of God with this group is unproductive because the answers are either 1) prove it and/or 2) claims that "we don't know so therefore God" are not proof.

Good so far. When one makes an assertion, it is incumbent upon that person to provide satisfactory evidence for that assertion. Also, claims that "we don't know so therefore anything" are not proof. Do you not see it as odd that you have to ascribe to mental gymnastics in order to come to the final conclusion that your belief has met your own unlofty goal of simply not being irrational?

This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

Once again, does it not strike you as odd that your particular god, omnipotent being that he is, can do no better than many times debunked philosophical arguments? If this is the one true religion as you claim it is, then why not make it obvious? Why rely on brain games which attempt to prove a deity's existence, not specifically his?

I gave you the rather dramatic miraculous evidence witnessed by the early Christians. I gave you secular links as to the historicity of Jesus. I also pointed out that hearsay evidence is still evidence. I don't care if you don't think the evidence is strong enough. You cannot say there is no evidence. You can also provide a hundred links from people with opinions on the matter. I can provide a hundred more opinions too.

You did all this. You failed to respond adequately to the special pleading case that we are collectively making. Why is this amount of evidence convincing enough for the Bible and not for any other text ever? Your claim is that the eyewitnesses in the Bible are more reliable because of what they are reporting. So you are basing your ability to specially plead on the very thing you are claiming. Do you not see a problem with this?

I don't have to prove anything to you. I am only trying to avoid the claims that my beliefs are irrational. There is a very big difference between those two things.

Then why are you here? Okay, we get it. You believe your beliefs are rational. We don't. You haven't presented anything thusfar that would change that.

[Esquilax]

To tie the two threads together between the OT and revelation, you have to make a distinction based on the content of the revelation. Paul was NOT creating a new religion. He wrote letters explaining and fleshing out the framework of what Jesus already taught. He was instructed by the apostles and inspired by God to write his letters and preach his sermons. He did not impart new commandments, new systems, or new methods of atonement. Since Mohammad and Smith did, there is the distinction.

But surely you can see how irrelevant that distinction is? You're basically saying that Mohammad and Smith's testimonies can't be true because they aren't the kind of things that you think a god would inspire them to say. Well, who cares? The truth of a message is in no way impacted by how much it departs from orthodoxy; saying that Paul's experience was a small change, and Mohammad's experience was a big change is little more than an observance of scale, not of truth. So far you've thrown out a bunch of road blocks to this, but none of them actually address how you know that one message is true, and the other is false. All you've really managed is listing how the messages are different, and nobody was ever saying they were identical.

So let's recap. Going over the traditional philosophical arguments of the existence of God with this group is unproductive because the answers are either 1) prove it and/or 2) claims that "we don't know so therefore God" are not proof.

Well, yeah. Regarding point two, the reason "we don't know" statements are not evidence for god is that they aren't evidence at all, but more importantly they aren't positive evidence; they don't point specifically to your god, and so anybody with a magic claim could likewise use them as evidence for their claim. It's effectively a useless argument, because everyone could use it for any claim, equally as effectively.

This ignores that fact that the arguments are not meant to prove conclusively, but rather to assign a probability ranging from a) no way, b) more likely than not, or c) likely. You cannot claim 100% "no way" to any of them and support that conclusion.

And "you can't disprove it!" is not justification for claiming that it's true, nor does it make that belief rational. Dressing up your beliefs in unfalsifiable robes (for a given value of unfalsifiable, because I know from experience that theists like to bend over backwards to justify their beliefs by any means, rather than just discarding them) is nothing to be proud of. Once again, this is the type of argument that also works for a whole lot of obviously false claims- you cannot disprove the idea of, say, Boo the Giant Miniature Space Hamster, for example- and that's why it's useless.

I gave you the rather dramatic miraculous evidence witnessed by the early Christians.

All claims, made anonymously, and second hand at that, in sources also written by anonymous authors. So, effectively:"Some guy said that some other guys saw magic happening." Would that be convincing to you for any other claim?

I gave you secular links as to the historicity of Jesus.

Notably, none of those secular sources would believe in the divine claims Jesus made, so by your own argument wouldn't that also lead you to admit that Jesus was just a regular human? Or are those sources only to be believed up until the point where they start disagreeing with you?

I also pointed out that hearsay evidence is still evidence. I don't care if you don't think the evidence is strong enough. You cannot say there is no evidence.

So, if you were on trial for murder, facing life in prison, would you be okay with a procession of hearsay witnesses coming to the stand to testify against you? Would you feel that justice had been carried out if the judge sentenced you to life, on the basis that though the evidence against you was poor, we cannot say there is no evidence, and furthermore, that the defense had failed to disprove it conclusively? Would that be okay to you, being sentenced not because you were guilty, but because nobody could find you conclusively innocent?

And if not, why do you think arguments of that exact stripe should be any more convincing elsewhere?

[FatAndFaithless]