Heads up advice for atheists.

[Chas]

No, it's not a misunderstanding. I understand perfectly that you believe without demonstrative evidence. I just find believing without evidence irrational and stupid.

I don't lack evidence. I just lack that evidence. My evidence resides in the realm of intellect. I find it odd that you think what you need your brain to deduce, you find irrational. Yet what you don't need your brain to deduce, you find rational. I suspect we'd have to go a long way back in evolutionary history to find an ape with as limited capabilities as yourself.

You have yet to produce any evidence. If you believe you can reason something into existing, then you are delusional.

---

Skirt around what issue?.

1 The fact that no religion owns science?
2. The fact no one has evidence for the existence of a god?
3. The fact humans mistake rights with credibility of a claim?

1. That's what I'm talking about. Redirecting the problem to a minority misunderstanding
2. Repeatable evidence is illogical - you will ignore this as you always do. Evidence there is, nonetheless.
3. What rights? What claim? See #2. I would hope you respect my right to believe what I rationalise to be true, even if you don't believe the same, rationalising what you believe to be true. I claim to believe in God, as do all other theists. Here's your other blind spot: we don't claim that God exists. We claim belief. Nobody can know.

I don't demand rights. You are at liberty to grant or deny them to me. I will oppose you if you limit my freedom. I grant you your rights, for without those rights you wouldn't be free to believe anything.

I'm with you on limiting religious intrusion on your rights, as I believe that makes religion impotent.

The only one skirting here is you. You not only don't have any evidence, you don't understand the concept of evidence.

[Brian37]

. Repeatable evidence is illogical -

Um bullshit. Drop a ball 1000 times off of a roof, every single time it will fall. That "repeatable evidence" is proof of gravity.

There is a huge difference between repeating a claim which religion does, and god believers do, and repeatedly testing data to insure quality control, which religion does not do.

I grant you your rights, for without those rights you wouldn't be free to believe anything.

You do not grant me anything. Under westernized governments the government protects everyone's rights. Once again no one is arguing about your legal right to make any claim you want, you know that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is when you say "I believe in a god". You can say that till the cows come home but that has nothing to do with proving the existence of that god like you can prove that gravity exist's.

You ARE confusing human rights with demonstrable testable evidence.

[fr0d0]

You have yet to produce any evidence. If you believe you can reason something into existing, then you are delusional.

Most hilarious statement ever

You obviously didn't understand what I just said. If, as your comrades are saying, reason is involved in making everything exist, then you're wrong. If, as I state, my belief can never produce certainty, only intellectual assent, then you're wrong.

[Chas]

You have yet to produce any evidence. If you believe you can reason something into existing, then you are delusional.

Most hilarious statement ever

You obviously didn't understand what I just said. If, as your comrades are saying, reason is involved in making everything exist, then you're wrong. If, as I state, my belief can never produce certainty, only intellectual assent, then you're wrong.

I am saying neither of those things.

I am saying that if you have evidence to support your belief, present it.

If you don't need evidence for your belief, then you have faith, not knowledge.

[fr0d0]

What is in dispute is when you say "I believe in a god". You can say that till the cows come home but that has nothing to do with proving the existence of that god like you can prove that gravity exist's.

I completely agree.



You're still skirting the issue. No believer I know thinks God is provable like gravity is provable. You're chasing a massive red herring.

---

If you don't need evidence for your belief, then you have faith, not knowledge.

False

I don't need evidence like there's evidence for gravity, because that sort of evidence isn't possible. The evidence I have supports my faith. Once more: no one has knowledge.

[Minimalist]

No believer I know thinks God is provable like gravity is provable.

Do you believe in Santa Claus then as well, Frods?

[Brian37]

What is in dispute is when you say "I believe in a god". You can say that till the cows come home but that has nothing to do with proving the existence of that god like you can prove that gravity exist's.

I completely agree.



You're still skirting the issue. No believer I know thinks God is provable like gravity is provable. You're chasing a massive red herring.

---

If you don't need evidence for your belief, then you have faith, not knowledge.

False

I don't need evidence like there's evidence for gravity, because that sort of evidence isn't possible. The evidence I have supports my faith. Once more: no one has knowledge.

Still not getting it.

"Evidence" to the layperson is what you employ. You swallow first looking for an excuse to cling to a position. That is not even remotely close to the way scientific method determines REAL evidence. The use of your logic is excuse making. The use of logic in science is a form of quality control.


No one has knowledge? Oh ok then why does your computer exist? Someone had to invent computers. But since no one has knowledge all this is our imagination, got it.

[Chas]

If you don't need evidence for your belief, then you have faith, not knowledge.

False

I don't need evidence like there's evidence for gravity, because that sort of evidence isn't possible.

How convenient for you.

The evidence I have supports my faith. Once more: no one has knowledge.

Once again. what is your evidence? I never claimed knowledge - I ask for evidence.

[fr0d0]

Your logic defeats itself Brian. Evidence of material objects is not possible of non material subjects. That is scientific fact.

"No one has knowledge of God" is what I was saying.

[abaris]

Your logic defeats itself Brian. Evidence of material objects is not possible of non material subjects. That is scientific fact.

"No one has knowledge of God" is what I was saying.

That's what everybody said - you have faith, not evidence.