Strong Atheism starts from faith

[theVOID]

You're going into bullshit territory VOID. Answer your question why? You seem to want to change subject entirely.

1) false assumption
2) based on Q1 so void
3) ditto
4) ditto

Back to the actual question... how do you conclude that there should be evidence for God?

Response to 1):

THEN PROVIDE YOUR LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND SHOW THE REASONING BEING USED TO REACH YOUR CONCLUSION.


2) There are many claims made by many believers that manifest in reality in a way that would be measurable, for example:

If prayer works then it's effect will be measurable and would give strong suggestive evidence to support the idea of God, you would actually have a falsifiable hypothesis! That's things religions need more of.

A test has been done with a large sample size to test just this. The study was run by both Christian and secular scientists a few years ago, to test if their was a positive correlation between prayer and recovery greater than that of the control group's placebo.

All of the people in the test were devout believers, regular church attendees and all had the same type of diabetes, there were several hundred of them split into 2 groups, one group was prayed for and one group was not.

The prayers were conducted by faith healers from various traditions with many testimonies recommending them, they were all very well known. They prayed for the first group only, each healer said a prayer for each patient, then the whole group prayed for the patients one at a time. The second group got given a show, they were put through the same process with hired fakes doing the prayer - this is the control group.

The tests happened twice a month for 6 months.

Over the course of the study and in the 18 months following the tests, they were all regularly monitored to see if there was any change in the bodies natural insulin levels as well as other factors related to the disease.

There was no difference between the two groups, the results were on average lower than expected deviation by chance, and it was a negative deviation.

It was good science testing an actual falsifiable hypothesis, the tests failed but at least it was done, ad it was only one of many very similar studies that has been done and failed.

[fr0d0]

Everything in faith is covered by the non verifiable clause VOID. The prayer test was a clear abandonment of all logic pertaining to the subject tested. Do you really think, in all honesty, that God would ever be proven? I can't believe that you do, I have too much respect for your intellectual prowess.

[Rhizomorph13]

Ahh, apple polishing, much better than any REAL argumentation. Again you prove you have no stable concept of God.

[chatpilot]

fr0d0 said: "Everything in faith is covered by the non verifiable clause VOID. "

Translation: Nothing I say about the god I believe in can be proven, you just have to believe it. "The non verifiable clause"? Lol fr0d0 you shock me sometimes but I must admit that was a good one.

[Edwardo Piet]

---

Asking for evidence of something that requires that there be no evidence seems like utter stupidity to me. Please explain to me how it isn't.

What's really fucking retarded is the fact you continuously contradict yourself on this matter.

Sometimes it's "No evidence" other times it's "no empirical" or "no corroborative" evidence.

Do you have evidence OF ANY KIND or not?

Because if you don't then you're believing on no rational logical or reasonable reason whatsoever, and that's as delusional a basis of belief of any kind as it completely, totally, utterly and absolutely fucking gets.

EvF

---

Use your brain for a change Evie instead of your typing fingers... you may eventually work something out.

I'll treat the ignorance from you (by not dealing with my - I think completely valid - points) as,

1. Failing to admit that you contradict yourself in that you are inconsistent in your claim that there can be 'no evidence'
2. Because you are inconsistent you regularly go about claiming there can be 'no evidence' on one hand and yet feel free to give what you think of as 'reasoning' or arguments for God on the other hand (a contradiction because if they were valid they would be evidence).
3. You have once again failed to explain why you shift between 'no evidence' and 'no empirical evidence' (which is it?).
4. Importantly, you have failed to respond when I asked you: Do you have evidence OF ANY KIND or not?
5. You have failed to explain how Faith can ever trump evidence when it comes to rationality, especially considering you cherry-pick out having faith only for things you wish to have faith on (e.g. "God"), when this would require evidence in order for you to have any valid reason for it to be a valid exception, right?

So: Again, Do you have evidence OF ANY KIND or not? And please do explain why you cherry pick out having Faith in God in particular, and how you justify having faith at all AND cherry picking what you have faith in.

---

I've been around this tree with Evie quite a lot of times VOID... that he can't muster up a grain of intelligence to apply to what we've said to each other is down to him. I'm doing him no favours thinking for him.. he has to start thinking for himself at some point. I'm not going to explain the difference to him yet again when he didn't fucking get it the last 50 times I took the trouble to tell him. There's stubborn then there's ignorance.

---

You see I disagree here. The way I see it, you never give me a straight answer, or if you do - you contradict yourself many times later making me have to ask again to try and find out what you really think.

[...]Back to the actual question... how do you conclude that there should be evidence for God?

There is no 'should' because the decisions we make are based on our own values and I know of no evidence of any objective values. It's simply that, at least in my opinion, it is pretty much the definition of irrationality to believe something without evidence, and especially when you're making that thing you believe without evidence an exception (cherry picking it out) - without any valid evidence to do that. The way a rational belief is decided upon is by evidence in any other case so why do you make an exception with God, etc? Without evidence for a reason to make it an exception, isn't it insane to make it an exception? Why ever make an exception when evidence is how a belief is to be rational?

[...] It was an appropriate answer. Given a statement I don't agree with, how do i answer one way or another? I can't. VOID is avoiding the question at hand.

It wasn't a statement... it was a question. You've done this before with me, I've asked a question and you've replied saying it's a baseless assertion or whatever. Not quite the same is when I say you make a baseless assertion when you actually make an assertion, a proper statement, without backing it up at all in anyway - I don't do it when you ask questions.

Are you doing this on purpose? Are you deliberately being awkward? (Once again, don't be blind to question marks, I'm asking you not telling you).

EvF

[tackattack]

Evasion really is all you get from the religious. Give up now theVOID. He just wants to stay in his little puny sand box.

I'll take the exception to this broad sweeping statement. Too much banter to follow.. what's the question being avoided?

[theVOID]

Evasion really is all you get from the religious. Give up now theVOID. He just wants to stay in his little puny sand box.

I'll take the exception to this broad sweeping statement. Too much banter to follow.. what's the question being avoided?

Literally the 7th question i have posited directly to fr0d0 in this thread that has been totally ignored by that spineless runt, too much of a coward to admit he can't answer my simple questions. Fr0d0 doesn't believe in God for any intelligible reason, just because he's a little baby that needs his sky daddy. Completely spineless.

[fr0d0]

[Thoughtless bullshit]

---

Literally the 7th question i have posited directly to fr0d0 in this thread that has been totally ignored by that spineless runt, too much of a coward to admit he can't answer my simple questions. Fr0d0 doesn't believe in God for any intelligible reason, just because he's a little baby that needs his sky daddy. Completely spineless.

I answered you EXACTLY above. That you're too much of a fucktard to understand possibly defines you.

[theVOID]

Everything in faith is covered by the non verifiable clause VOID. The prayer test was a clear abandonment of all logic pertaining to the subject tested. Do you really think, in all honesty, that God would ever be proven? I can't believe that you do, I have too much respect for your intellectual prowess.

Do i think God will be proven? No, he doesn't exist. Do i think there would be evidence for him if he did exist? Yes.

I asked you once before why god requires that there is absolutely no evidence for his existence and how you know this to be true. but you completely ignored them so i will post them again:

1) Why does God require and thus ensure that there is no evidence for his existence?

2) How do you know your answer to 1) to be true?

---

I answered you EXACTLY above. That you're too much of a fucktard to understand possibly defines you.

You didn't give me an answer, just dodge and spin.

Do you or do you not have any empirical or logical evidence for the existence of god?

If yes, present it.

[fr0d0]

Do i think God will be proven? No, he doesn't exist. Do i think there would be evidence for him if he did exist? Yes.

How fucked up is that pair of statements! LMAO

It's like logic just exploded.

1) Why does God require and thus ensure that there is no evidence for his existence?

I wouldn't know why, not being God.

2) How do you know your answer to 1) to be true?

How do I know I'm not God? If I knew then I'd think I'd know.

Do you or do you not have any empirical or logical evidence for the existence of god?

Nothing verifiable, so nothing to share.