When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[athrock]

Fucking dolt. I already handed you your ass on this in the other thread. I'll repeat the argument anyway.

I've noticed that when people make statements like the one above, what they're really saying is something like, "Well, I already gave this my best shot, and I'm satisfied with what I had to say, so I can't believe you weren't convinced."

Usually, when someone has REALLY had their ass handed to them, they know it. So, maybe your previous argument wasn't as impressive as you seem to think.

Evidence for QM exists regardless of any individual's ignorance. The evidence is made available and is repeatable for any and all to see and participate in if they so choose. The same cannot be said for supposed evidence for god. If there was one shred of evidence it would be made known immediately for all to see. The fact that instead of demonstrating said evidence you choose to say that we are too blind to see suggests you have absolutely nothing.

I think this type of thinking does a tremendous disservice to the atheist community.

First, can you give some examples of evidence for ANY historical event that is repeatable, Cato?

I'll wait.

No?

Because history isn't repeatable, is it?

So, while the theists can argue for any number of events that have occurred in history providing evidence for the existence of god, they aren't repeatable. The argument requires convincing reasons to believe that the event actually occurred and that it does point to god (rather than a naturally occurring phenomenon), but that's not unusual. People argue for their beliefs all the time.

Second, there are other forms of evidence cited by believers which you would also reject simply because it's not empirical evidence. Does that mean that it's not evidence?

Simply repeating "There's no evidence" over and over and over and over...oh, wait...I already used that visual...perpetuates the FALSE idea that there isn't any legitimate evidence for the existence of a higher power, and this is a *VERY BAD THING* because it lulls the captivethinkers into believing that they don't have to WORK to prove theists wrong.

Seriously, there are a lot of folks in this forum who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag, but hey, "There's no evidence" so they go skipping along their merry way.

Taking down theism is going to take a lot more effort than some are obviously making.

There is also no such thing as theistic evidence. You've got nothing but bullshit arguments that setup some type of ignorant quandary in which to insert your notion of god. It's ridiculous, it's not evidence. You cannot define or argue your deity into existence.

You cannot define the term "evidence" to suit your own needs, either.

The word "fact" is defined as a piece of information that is used as evidence.
The word "evidence" is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Therefore, evidence is defined as the piece(s) of information that are used to indicate whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Do theists have pieces of information that may prove their beliefs true or value?

That's for each man and woman in the jury to decide.

---

Let's nip one thing in the bud before we get too far off the beaten track. When atheists say we have seen no evidence of this stuff you're selling, what we mean and what we should be saying is we have seen no credible evidence. It's a common misspeaking, I've been guilty of it myself. Lots of things can be given as evidence, but not everything stands up to scrutiny; and whatever remains doesn't actually evidence the thing it's intended to. After all that, you need multiple points of consistent, converging evidence before you can draw a safe conclusion.

Now, this is better. Words mean things and choosing them carefully is important in discussion of this nature.

Now, the word "credible" means "able to be believed, convincing" and "capable of persuading people that something will happen". There's nothing in those definitions about the number or percentage of people that must be affected. Surely, 100% effectiveness is not required, is it?

Hmmm...what does this say about the evidence that theists offer in support of their views? Well, clearly their "evidence" has persuaded or convinced some people that god exists...a lot of people, in fact.  So, by that measure, the evidence for the existence of God IS credible, isn't it?

I guess what I'm driving at is that there is some evidence offered by believers that appears credible. Consequently, atheists need to do more than wish it away if they want to succeed in the marketplace of ideas. 

Just out of curiosity, have you ever seen the movie "Twelve Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda?