Atheists don't realize asking for evidence of God is a strawman

[The Grand Nudger]

You know....we could probably have a riotously fun and still informative thread on the subject of internal logic, of sense in the context of senselessness.

You know the kind of neighbor, that sort of rambles..and nails cabbage patch dolls to trees and seran wraps his basset hound to keep him from getting dirty?

Internal logic. One of my most persistent male role models was a guy like that./..and people can say what they will about the guy..but he had a -beautiful- chriscraft wooden speedboat and the largest collection of stolen and smuggled mayan artifacts I've ever seen. So he must have been doing something right.

[Rhondazvous]

You do not get to tell people to fuck off, specially if they replied to you within the forum rules.

Also, here's what min posted:

Hey asshole.  Either your silly god is real or it isn't.  If it is, produce evidence of it.  If it isn't, fuck the two of you.

Totally disrespectful but I still only responded this:

Read the OP Min. It's just a thought exercise.

---

Your "argument" fails at the first premise, and then manages to reach a conclusion that is not only false in it;s own right....it doesn't follow anyway.

Why do you think it fails?:

Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

False
adjective
1. not true
2. misleading
3. made to look like or resemble other than what it is

Fits the bill to me.

[LastPoet]

Uh...do I wanna know what "bae" means?

I am too lazy to google that. Been a while since I heard the term. Whatever it is, being a 'bae' makes pool give you the benefit of the doubt. It's an english slang term.

[Jackalope]

Or, how about if someone claims Superman exists, and tells me the evidence can be found in Superman #1.

What does the claimaint have to do to make a convincing case that their claim is true?

All I'm saying is context matters. When you say "superman exists" in what context do you mean? If you mean in a comic book context then all you have to do is scream "help me superman" and jump out of a window or top of a building or something and you'll get the proof you want. But if you're just telling me "superman exists" there is no context there, when a Christian says "God exists" he means that in a religious context and we know that within that context he is right.

(emphasis mine)

I have consistently been talking about existential claims about reality.

If your "religious context" is not connected with reality, then I'm really not sure what to tell you.

"God exists" is an existential claim. Existential claims are concerned with reality. Outside *that* context "exists" is meaningless, and therefore the italicized is not only *not* true, it's not even coherent.

[Jackalope]

Your argument fails because we're not asking for scientific evidence. We're asking for any evidence at all. Something no theist has been able to provide.

You're kidding right? For starters go look up "Biblical archeology", after that look up some of MK's threads, some are not scientific but it makes sense within the context of his religion....

For starters, you can provide a specific example, otherwise you're pissing in the wind. It's your goddamn claim, you do the goddamn legwork.

[Mister Agenda]

I've already explained the strawman to you many many times. If you still don't get it look at the conversation I had with MA above.

That conversation with me in which you displayed a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes a straw man fallacy?

---

Being a 'religious work' doesn't exempt it from providing evidence for its claims.

This is true. Make a small change and it becomes false:

Being a 'religious work' doesn't exempt it from providing scientific evidence for its claims.

Because guess what either a work has to be a scientific work or it has to claim that it is a scientific work and it can withstand scientific scrutiny in order to subject it to scientific scrutiny.

No, it only needs to contain claims that can be subjected to verification by examining the evidence. Harry Potter does not claim to be a scientific work, but if for some reason you thought the events described were real, you could go about investigating whether there's corroborating evidence. If one of the books said a cargo ship called the Prince Willy docked in London on Sep 14th, 1986; and that it was reported in the London Times because it was carrying an unusual cargo of 18 kangaroos, you could check to see if that story was really in the LT. If you find that it's there, congratulations, you just found evidence that something in Harry Potter novels really happened. And if it didn't you found evidence that one thing in it didn't happen. Either way, you haven't proven anything about the veracity of the rest of the novels. Rowling could pack them full of true facts, and it would have no bearing on whether the fantastical parts are true. And still would not make it a 'scientific work'.

Any work that makes claims can have those claims examined. This rule that 'it has to be a scientific work' seems to be completely made up for this discussion, apparently for the sole purpose of evading the burden of proof.

---

So my argument is this:

* Only scientific works or works that claim that they can withstand scientific scrutiny can be subject to scientific scrutiny.

* Bible doesn't claim it's a scientific work nor does it claim that it can withstand scientific scrutiny.

* So if someone asks for scientific evidence for God it also carries a implicit claim that Bible has claimed it is a scientific work or that it can withstand scientific scrutiny. This implicit claim is what I called the straw.

1. That's not true.
2. That is true.
3. Since 1 is not true, 3 does not follow.

[Aegon]

Uh...do I wanna know what "bae" means?

Just millennial whipper snapper slang for "babe" I like to use it ironically, but like most things I say or do ironically, it gradually becomes less and less ironic...

[The Grand Nudger]

1. That's not true.
2. That is true.
3. Since 1 is not true, 3 does not follow.

3 doesn't follow even if 1 were true.  That's what made the entire argument -less- than wrong. Simply dumb.

[Amarok]

Need i mention that the claim. That religious claims can not be held up to science is simply not true.

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.ca/2007/0...tural.html

[Whateverist]

How do you tell the difference, if not with evidence that one is true and not the other?

...Bible is a religious work lol that's literally what it is..

Reading it literally is where you make your mistake.