Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Jackalope]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Ahem.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Pardon my presumptuousness, but I'd reckoned that had you any evidence of your God's existence, you would have presented it for review.

So long as you refuse to present your evidence, I'm comfortable dismissing your point of view.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. You have signally failed to meet this burden, relying instead on ad homs and snide irrelevancies.

Please tell me you're more substantive than this. Please tell me I'm not wasting my time on an internet denizen with all the substance of cotton-candy ... and just as nutritious.

[robvalue]

Logical arguments are not evidence. They are only as true as their initial assumptions.

Textual accounts are evidence, just woefully insufficient evidence for a sceptic regarding the claims that are normally made.

Anecdotal accounts are also evidence, but again insufficient to a sceptic.

Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. They are simply unexplained.

[Delicate]

I need your help.

How does jumping from one assertion to another help your case?

Your "believing in a deity in the absence of evidence" is itself an unsupported assertion.

Not a single atheist has yet to show me where they have refuted any argument or evidence for God. And yet they believe, in blind faith, that there is no evidence.

This blind faith makes atheism look like a religion.

You haven't presented any evidence, remember?

I don't have to. I'm not looking to prove God's existence. I'm looking to find out if there's a single atheist here with a shred of rationality.

[Redbeard The Pink]

B

My apologies; I had assumed you were insightful enough the garner the inference laid before you.

My point, since you so obviously missed it, is that you matter on about evidence, all the.while believing in a deity in the absence of evidence.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding what I'm saying.

I need your help.

How does jumping from one assertion to another help your case?

Your "believing in a deity in the absence of evidence" is itself an unsupported assertion.

Not a single atheist has yet to show me where they have refuted any argument or evidence for God. And yet they believe, in blind faith, that there is no evidence.

This blind faith makes atheism look like a religion.

Pick something, bro. What evidence do you have?


Is it the Bible? Before you even bring that shit up, you're gonna have to give a good basis for which parts are literal and which parts are metaphorical (unless you're a biblical literalist, in which case you're much easier to nail down when it comes to refuting your bullshit).


"The Flood," for instance, couldn't have happened the way the Bible says it did unless Gaud was using significantly more magic than the actual story suggests.


The animals (and humans, for that matter) wouldn't have had the genetic diversity to speciate; the herbivores wouldn't have had anything to eat after everything being under water for a year; the carnivores wouldn't be able to eat anything without making something go extinct every time they did; all the sea life would die due to changes in water pressure, temperature, and salinity; if the waters reached above the highest mountain, everything in the boat would have frozen to death and/or suffocated at the thin-aired, bone-chilling altitude of 29,000 feet; if the boat were really sealed with pitch with only one opening at the top, the animals would have suffocated within days; the boat would have completely filled with poop within hours; the Ark is described as having dimensions significantly smaller than those of the Titanic, and yet it is said to hold significantly more live cargo and rations for said cargo for a full year.


So the Flood most likely didn't happen (at least not as written), which throws out biblical literalism right away and leaves the metaphor people to explain what message any all-loving Gaud could have possibly meant to convey by seeding his "word" with such a grim story that devalues human life in such a broad fashion, and (more importantly) what real sequence of events the Flood story could possibly be an allegory for.


What next? You want to play around with the Cosmological Argument? Everything has to have a cause, right? That means there has to be a causeless cause, and that causeless cause is most likely Gaud, right?


Wrong. If everything has to have a cause, then Gaud has to have a cause, meaning he raises questions and not explanations when submitted as the cause for something. If Gaud doesn't have to have a cause, then other things shouldn't necessarily require a cause, either, and so Gaud is not actually required to make things exist. If Gaud is the only thing that does not require a cause in order to exist, then that's special pleading.


Ooh, how about an argument from ignorance! You can't prove Gaud doesn't exist, so that means that out there, somewhere in the portion of reality we haven't discovered yet and know nothing about...maybe that's where Gaud is, right?


Wrong. First off, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the positive existence of something if that's what you're claiming. If you don't have evidence, there's no reason for us to believe you. Furthermore (and this is really the important part), if the thing you're describing lies in the realm of the undiscovered and the unknown, how can you then presume to tell me anything about its qualities as if you know anything about it? If you know things about it, it isn't undiscovered or unknown, and if it's not unknown then somebody should be able to produce evidence that justifies the claim of "knowledge."


Maybe you're more a Pascal's Wager kind of guy. After all, if you believe in Gaud and it turns out you're wrong, you really haven't missed out, but if you don't believe and it turns out you're wrong, you're completely fucked, right?


Wrong. First, this presents a false dichotomy. Your Gaud and No Gaud are not the only two options; somebody else's Gaud could be the right one, and if that's the case you're in every bit as much trouble as I am. Second, theists do in fact have things to lose if they're wrong. All the time and money spent chasing the afterlife is wasted, and presuming that "we'll all be together in heaven one day" might tend some people away from fully valuing and maintaining their earthly relationships while they have the chance to enjoy them, causing them to miss out on experiences and people until they're dead and the opportunity is gone.


We could keep going, but I hope you're getting the picture. You'll note that these are all common apologetics arguments and NOT straw-men, so don't even start with that shit. If I haven't hit on any of your favorite pieces of pretend evidence, please direct me and i'll be happy to take a bat to your stained glass windows (metaphorically speaking, of course).

[Delicate]

"Seriously Delicate, where are atoms? Why can't I see them?"

Ahem.

You're not looking at atoms there. You're looking at its orbital structure.

It's like the difference between looking at a dog, versus looking at the various behaviors of some entity and inferring that it's a dog. In other words, structural realism in science.

But this stuff is probably far above your head.

[Delicate]

Logical arguments are not evidence. They are only as true as their initial assumptions.

Textual accounts are evidence, just woefully insufficient evidence for a sceptic regarding the claims that are normally made.

Anecdotal accounts are also evidence, but again insufficient to a sceptic.

Unexplained phenomena are not evidence. They are simply unexplained.

Well, this is bullshit.

So-called "sceptics" are plenty happy to accept textual accounts in other cases. 

It's only skepticism because they have a problem with theism. At least have the integrity to admit that much.

[robvalue]

You'd better be more polite than this if you want to debate stuff from my website.

Textual accounts are not good enough evidence for extraordinary claims. They can be enough evidence for mundane claims. It depends on the claim. Theistic claims tend to be extraordinary.

[Ravenshire]

I'm looking to find out if there's a single atheist here with a shred of rationality.

No you're not. You're here to fling shit and stir the pot.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You haven't presented any evidence, remember?

I don't have to. I'm not looking to prove God's existence. I'm looking to find out if there's a single atheist here with a shred of rationality.

But that's not what you were arguing just a while ago. You were arguing that my point is irrational because I haven't addressed any "evidence". Do try to remember your own points.

You haven't presented any for me to address. Present your evidence, I will address it; but it isn't my job to construct your points for you, you'll have to do that work yourself.

One of the few New Atheist quotes you'll hear me repeat is from Hitchens: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." I don't care what you believe. But coming here and braying about irattional atheists without presenting your reasons for finding them irrational -- i.e., without presenting your evidence for review and critique -- is simply the act of someone who wishes to be taken at face value without any scrutiny.

Perhaps you've come to expect that treatment somewhere else, but that dog don't hunt here, bud. If you wish to charge me with rejecting reason, you'll have to lay out your line of reasoning.

Until then, you're just another internet asshole, plumping his breast and parading his foolishness.

Color me unimpressed.