Ask, Seek, Knock

[John V]

It's fine to have different standards of evidence/ knowledge / epistemology, but do you think Atheists who have a standard different then yours deserve to be condemned to eternal punishment just because of that?

Are they to be condemned to the "lake of fire" simply due to not having the same standards of evidence that a Christian does?

I disagree with the "just because" and "simply due to."

---

Some would say that evidence that can't be shared with others isn't evidence at all.

Maybe. The key word is "some," indicating you agree that different people have different ideas about evidence.

[Mystic]

I disagree with the "just because" and "simply due to."

Ok both Christians and Atheist sin. Both are "unworthy" of heaven. Both need to be saved by belief in Jesus Christ. Do I got this right so far?

So what makes an Atheist not believe in Jesus Christ if not having a different standard of evidence?

It's not sin that makes them go to hell, because Christians sin as well.

[Darkstar]

Some would say that evidence that can't be shared with others isn't evidence at all.

Maybe. The key word is "some," indicating you agree that different people have different ideas about evidence.

Yeah, and some people, like neo-nazis, think Hitler was a hero. Care to discuss the validity of their opinions in an objective manner?
Different people may have different levels for what evidence they accept, but there is a safe range in which one can usually draw correct conclusions from evidence and you seem to be past it on the credulous end.

[John V]

Yeah, and some people, like neo-nazis, think Hitler was a hero. Care to discuss the validity of their opinions in an objective manner?

Don't you lose at this point? What's the name of that rule?

Different people may have different levels for what evidence they accept, but there is a safe range in which one can usually draw correct conclusions from evidence and you seem to be past it on the credulous end.

Your opinion is noted. Considering the ubiquity of religion across time and cultures, I draw the conclusion that it's a minority opinion.

[Anomalocaris]

While arguments from ignorance are invalid, they sometimes may a strong case regardless.

It may be false, but it is true, huh? You got any better ones?

---

The only absolute thing about this argument is that it's a false dichotomy. People can and do have differing standards of evidence. I don't expect you to accept Christianity. However, that does not imply that it's unreasonable for anyone to accept it.

Yes, it does. The fact that you have made bullshit your standard for evidence because you sought a to justify christianity does not mean bullshit thereby becomes an acceptable standard for evidence, for anything, including christianity, nor does that mean the outcome you sought to gain with your "standard of evidence" therefore gains any credibility.

It is that absolute.

[Minimalist]

all of these "points" just to mask the fact that you have an incomplete Written Roman Record (say that 5 times fast.) and that you are simly argueing from a position of faith...

No, dummy. We are not ignoring it at all. You are trying to bake a cake on a monkey's ass by suggesting that all of the documents which did talk about your godboy were destroyed. This is absurd because it was xtians who largely determined which documents were copied and also xtians who did the destruction of ancient literature because it did not support their fucking religion.

For once in your life try to use your head for something more than a hat rack.

[Mystic]

While arguments from ignorance are invalid, they sometimes may a strong case regardless.

It may be false, but it is true, huh? You got any better ones?

Well I gave the example of the problem of evil. The problem of evil basically is assuming "there is no possible explanation" of (a) "benevolent" purpose(s) behind suffering/evil in the world.

Now it's easy to simply say, well that's an argument from ignorance, because for all we know, there are reasons we're unaware of.

But in reality, even though it's invalid argument backed up by no evidence, it makes a strong case. It's not a concrete 100% case.

It's a case that put's the Theist on defense. Now the same is true of "design" in biology. Before Theists made a strong case of a Creator. And people acknowledge it was a strong case. But once a person came up with the explanation of evolution, it was no longer a strong case. Now you have to prove evolution is not possible, to argue from design in biology. In other words the tables are turned.

It's invalid argument and not something to rely on, but is not unusual that because we cannot think of an explanation except one, that one explanation is the only explanation, or at least, seems to be the most probable.

In case of the problem of evil, a lot of people conclude the best explanation is that there is no God. However, it is an argument from ignorance.

[John V]

Yes, it does. The fact that you have made bullshit your standard for evidence because you sought a to justify christianity does not mean bullshit thereby becomes an acceptable standard for evidence, for anything, including christianity, nor does that mean the outcome you sought to gain with your "standard of evidence" therefore gains any credibility.

Your opinion is noted. On the flip side, the fact that you have decreed my standards to be bullshit does not make them so.

[Darkstar]

Different people may have different levels for what evidence they accept, but there is a safe range in which one can usually draw correct conclusions from evidence and you seem to be past it on the credulous end.

Your opinion is noted. Considering the ubiquity of religion across time and cultures, I draw the conclusion that it's a minority opinion.

Argument ad populum.

So, again, if your standards of evidence allow you to accept Yahweh, then why don't you accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What makes him less valid? (Other than the fact that everone knows it is supposed to be a parody)

[John V]

Argument ad populum.

It's not an argument, just an observation. The argument is simply that he hasn't supported his decrees.