Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Since you aren't going to post in this thread again I guess that means we will never get to see the evidence you promised. Oh well, thanks for playing.

You can still look forward for the one or the other chinese wall of text in the debate thread i guess.. although he even said he probably can't hold himself back and will come back here to spank us with more novels and misrepresentations of our alleged world views.

An ad hom is an attack on a person that serves to divert attention away from their arguments by pointing out non-relevent character traits. Since I'm tackling, head on, an issue at the crux of your argument, your postulate that I am guilty of this is ridiculous.

wiki[/url]"]The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

@Bryan
Can you justify your own belief rationally and/or empirically? Would be great if you do so before you expect us to respect or even accept it for ourselves. Before you do that, i take it as plain moronic and ignorant to attack atheism and claim it to be damaging and irrational and whatnot. (Your) Theism MUST be justified in order to deem atheism wrong, not the other way round, but i am quite sure you know that.
In case you don't, let me put it this way.. Let's say there is some invisible, intangible duck (you can call it Fred) which long time ago took Yahwe's flat circular disk (the Earth), formed it into a spherical figure with it's wings, kicked it to start the rotation around itself and around the Sun.
Some dude wrote a book where he explained it after Fred told him that he did it.

That is (in a way) exactly the same situation, there are Freddists who praise and worship Fred and Afreddists who say the Freddists are batshit crazy.
Are the Afreddists being irrational for not believing in Fred or do the Freddists actually have to prove it beyond doubt?</COLOR><i></i>

I am sure we both know who would have the burden of proof...

I hope others will agree that for now, we only want factual/cogent evidence for:
1) God
2) it has to be the Christian version of God.
(maybe also 3) that he/she/it inspired/guided the authors of the biblical collection of scriptures.)

important: you can't expect me to accept whatever you count as evidence, it must be observable, objective and well.. actually beyond reproach, nothing that would invoke my imagination and wishful thinking and require believing some people blindly no matter how trustworthy you think they are or anybody else thinks they are.

Do it here or in the debate thread, i really don't care where, as long as you finally do it.. you have been telling us for a whole while that you will show it.. claiming to be loaded with it, stuff never seen before.. so ground shaking and convincing that i should probably already order a golden cross chain and start looking for I <COLOR color="#FF0000">❤ Jesus pajamas.

Before you do that, quoting the Bible is merely annoying, appeal to authority and pointing us to say.. 700 pages long books from people who thought "one should believe just in case" etc.. is boring to say the least.
Also saying that the Bible did so much good for mankind *cough*BULLSHIT*cough* does nothing to prove God's existence, and neither do the incoherent and contradicting verses in there.

In short, prove Yahweh's existence without "feel good stuff" and "what ifs" and without bringing other religions or anything else into the equation.. We want your god, not his bestseller and irrelevant novels and logical fallacies, just your God to be proven to exist for a start.

The stage is all yours as far as i am concerned.

 

[Laurens]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I don't think you read what I wrote carefully.
A) Biblically, there IS no hell right now at all. Hell is only a very temporary thing for a short to permanently end sin and it happens after the end of the world. There also is no immortal soul right now (except a few like Elijah who never died and Moses who was resurrected and a few at Jesus' resurrection.
B) There is no eternal hell. PERIOD. The lake of fire is the 2nd death, not eternal burning, etc. This is explained above..and it's a strange act for God since he has no pleasure in causing any suffering or death. But, the alternative is eternal abuse by human beings of each other. So, in mercy to the universe and the world and future beings, God ends sin in the lake of fire.
C) Hell is not torture. It's main purpose is to END evil, abuse, etc. and those who insist on holding on to things that degrade human beings.
D) Satanists are on record celebrating that they have been able to deceive Christians into teaching the immortal soul/eternal hell doctrines. This is another reason why it's important to question and challenge traditions, not just in science, not just in politics and history, but also in religion.

Sorry to go back to a post from pages ago, but it was aimed at me so I figured I would respond.

A. Where does it say in the Bible that hell is a temporary thing? Here's some verses that contradict that view:

Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake, some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence. But the wise will shine like the brightness of the heavenly expanse. And those bringing many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever.

And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

How do those verses fit into your assertion that the Bible does not claim that hell is eternal?

B. There is no hell PERIOD. However if we are talking about the claims that the Bible makes about hell, the verse from Matthew quite clearly states eternal punishment. If the Bible says anywhere that hell is not eternal then it just goes to show how contradictory and ridiculous the whole damn book is.

C. Unbelievers go to hell, it doesn't matter how morally righteous you are, you could spend your entire life helping feed starving children and you'd be punished for believing in the wrong God, or worse doubting God's existence. On the other hand, you could rape and murder children, and if you get 'saved' you will not be punished whatsoever in the afterlife. This is a complete and utter mockery of justice. It's completely immoral and ridiculous.

D. You could do with challenging some traditions in your religion mate believe me. Like the one about Genesis being literally true, or the whole Bible being inerrant...

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

One more thing - the Bible, or anything in the Bible, or anything derived from ideas that follow from anything in the Bible - none of those count as evidence.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

One more thing - the Bible, or anything in the Bible, or anything derived from ideas that follow from anything in the Bible - none of those count as evidence.

Sure the Bible counts as evidence... just not good or reliable evidence of any God. It also can't count as evidence for its own absolute veracity; just because it claims to be true doesn't make it so. But as anthropological evidence about Hebrew and Christian culture, the Bible is certainly useful when placed in the context of all the other historical evidence.

I mean, if you were doing an investigation into the history of circumcision, the Bible might be a useful source. Gross, but useful. :lol:

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

One more thing - the Bible, or anything in the Bible, or anything derived from ideas that follow from anything in the Bible - none of those count as evidence.

Sure the Bible counts as evidence... just not good or reliable evidence of any God. It also can't count as evidence for its own absolute veracity; just because it claims to be true doesn't make it so. But as anthropological evidence about Hebrew and Christian culture, the Bible is certainly useful when placed in the context of all the other historical evidence.

I mean, if you were doing an investigation into the history of circumcision, the Bible might be a useful source. Gross, but useful. :lol:

I meant, evidence for the subject at hand here

Unless anthropological evidence is relevant here (which I don't think is).

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I meant, evidence for the subject at hand here

Unless anthropological evidence is relevant here (which I don't think is).

I'm just heading off the inevitable whine about how it isn't fair to dismiss the Bible out of hand, or that we accept that ancient writings are evidence of some things and not others.

I mean, the Egyptian pyramids are evidence for all sorts of things about the wealth and power of the pharaohs, royal lineages, that sort of thing. It doesn't prove the existence of the gods they worshiped. And of course there's no support for or objection to the acceptance of Egyptian supernatural claims that cannot be applied to Christianity as well.

 

[nudger1964]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

the only thing i can think of that would be sufficient evidence for me would be that when i die, i burn in hell for eternity...but i wont know for sure until the end of eternity
(that allah of course, just to keep Bryan (v) happy)

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Laurens,
I really don't have time to post much here at present, but my post before explained this issue of hell already. You seem not to have read it. Go back and do that.
A) In English the word forever and eternity are used to refer BOTH to things that have no end and to situations that do. People use the terms in these ways ALL the time in real life, but somehow amputate rational thinking when they see the terms in the Bible and forget that it has both meanings. EX:
"That test took forever". "The car engine took an eternity to fix."

It's the same in Greek and Greek linguists all agree on this. The Greek word "aion" in the Bible refers to things which end over 50+ times. If you look at Revelation 20:9,10, 14 you will see terms that appear to be polar opposites in just those 3 verses. John was clearly not irrational. So, the only logical explanation is that he was using the words in ways which are acceptable in his culture and that eternal punishment, etc. mean that the the punishment continued until death and it's effects were eternal, but not the actual burning.

This is a basic part of all human language. If you can't use the same reason that enables you to distinguish between vocabulary words in English with the Bible, then it's you who has prejudice and are refusing to us basic common sense and wasting the brain God gave you. God is not going to remove all difficulties. That's precisely what gives you the chance to use your mind and thinking critically.

B) Life and science all have contradictions. You are under the illusion that contradictions always mean something is in error. WRONG. Light is a wave and a particle. Using your reasoning, I should just throw away all science because oh horror of horrors, I have found a contradiction and so all science must be false. That's EXACTLY the stupid reasoning atheists use with the Bible. There is not a particle of reason in that argument and most others that atheists use. They detach themselves from reality in order to criticize the Bible since it involves discipline which could give them many more benefits in life. They just don't like the discipline involved.

C) Your point C is absolute fiction of the worst order, a straw man of gigantic proportions. You obviously know NOTHING about what Christianity is. NOT HING. PERIOD. I'll deal with this in my next post in the debate. God doesn't judge people on what they don't know. He doesn't save people because they said some magic words or any rot like that. Why can't atheists take the time to say ANYTHING honestly about what Christianity ACTUALLY is???? I haven't met even ONE atheist who is able to define it correctly. In this and a host of other areas, atheism is yet again built on fallacies and straw men of the worst order and making people very stupid about what God actually says about salvation. For a clue. Look at Acts 17:21-30 and what God says about winking at ignorance of people. Read Matthew 25 about what God says about those in the church who are doing wrong. There will be many people from many backgrounds in heaven, including some who never knew the name of Jesus, probably even a few atheists. It will basically be people who seek and follow the truth that God brings to their attention and who do not reject truth as they become aware of it.

But, there will not be any liars in heaven. What you said in point C is an outrageous lie of the highest order that has nothing to do with the Bible. But, it may not be you who is the liar, maybe you just believed a lying atheist website or something. It's very difficult to find any atheist site that has much of anything honest to say about what the Bible actually teaches. However some of the blame is also due to certain Christians who followed Greek philosophy and imposed that philosophy on Christian doctrine, creating this demonic eternal hell idea. See http://www.helltruth.com for more on this and I"ll post a link to some lengthy articles in detail on this in the debate soon.

D) I've challenged my traditions ENORMOUSLY, more than almost all atheists have. But, I've studied the evidence in GREAT depth on both sides, something hardly any atheists have done and this is an indisputable fact. There's a reason why many of the greatest defenders in history were atheist scientists, historians, lawyers, etc. They followed the evidence where it led.

The problem for me is that it is certifiably insane and 100% irrational to give up something that has 1000s of lines of evidence with literally billions of confirmations that has astronomical benefits in this life(this is a fact about Christianity) for atheism which asserts that it is rational, but has no evidence (meaning it can't be rational), is demeaning to life, has caused immeasurable harm to life, to science and to rational thinking and is based almost entirely on fallacies. It just makes absolutely no rational sense to give up any view with lots of evidence for something with less evidence. That's what atheism is asking people to do. But, it is anti-science, anti-rational and anti-life to do that. Sorry, but I'm not ever, ever, ever, ever going to give up 1000s of lines of confirmed evidence in favor of something that has little or NOTHING. I don't care what topic it is, doing this can NEVER EVER be rational.

Atheism is the most anti-rational philosophy on the planet that I am aware of because it asks people to reject and dismiss evidence and choose to follow no evidence and tries to stack the deck by claiming that evidence isn't evidence and constantly tries to keep people from even knowing about the evidence. This violates all academic standards of integrity, yet atheism constantly does this. It is just dumbfounding to see people blindly agreeing that this is somehow rational. Sorry, but that's the antithesis of rationality. PERIOD. And this demonic irrational philosophy harms atheists enormously in THIS life and also for the next (note that I have atheist friends and I care about them and all who have so much potential and some who are admirable and moral and honest. Please always understand that there is a huge difference between individuals and the philosophy of atheism. The philosophy of atheism is the most irrational and anti-science and anti-life concept I know of in the world. And I've been listening to the best atheists for 1000s of hours, LITERALLY. They just don't use common sense or rational thinking at all. But, in many cases they can't because it's been withheld from them as you are already seeing in my debate, but there's MUCH more. We've hardly begun to scratch the surface yet, even of the pragmatic evidence alone. But, there is evidence in a very wide variety of fields.).

The main reason most people and most atheist have no clue about the evidence is precisely because of
--methodological naturalism
--perversions of the separation of church and state
--pastors not being experts in science or history

and certain others. The quality of life you have on earth now depends on you knowing and following evidence. Don't stay ignorant of the evidence for God. Keep reading the debate I'm having and checking links. It will cost you many years of life here on this planet and much lost happiness, success and far more than that in THIS life if you if you don't check and follow the evidence.
All the best to you (and please understand that your ignorance of Christianity does NOT mean you are stupid. I've been ignorant and lied to about certain things as well and even Einstein couldn't make right decisions if he were deprived of evidence. Depriving people of information as atheism irrefutably does as much as it can is the very antithesis of rationality. This practice alone should damn atheism as an irrational philosophy),
Bryan

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

More dotoree stupidity, that's really going to advance our knowledge... if by "advance" you mean "set us back several steps, because reading that much concentrated idiocy causes a result close to a minor concussion."

 

[Inferno]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

B) Life and science all have contradictions. You are under the illusion that contradictions always mean something is in error. WRONG. Light is a wave and a particle. Using your reasoning, I should just throw away all science because oh horror of horrors, I have found a contradiction and so all science must be false. That's EXACTLY the stupid reasoning atheists use with the Bible. There is not a particle of reason in that argument and most others that atheists use. They detach themselves from reality in order to criticize the Bible since it involves discipline which could give them many more benefits in life. They just don't like the discipline involved.

Nope sorry, that's a DUALITY, not a CONTRADICTION. Notice the difference?
Duality: Being two things at once that don't contradict each other. You know, they're complementary.
Contradiction: Two things that are mutually exclusive, like being fast and slow at the same time.

Light has both properties of a wave (such as amplitude, etc.) and of a particle (such as slowing in different mediums).

If however there is a clear contradiction (such as who came first to the tomb on Sunday morning after Jesus had just arisen? a. one woman (John 20:1) b. two women (Matt. 28:1) c. three women (Mark 16:1) d. more than three women (Luke 23:55-56; 24:1,10)
And so on.

I don't care about the discipline in the Bible, I subject myself to enough discipline of my own accord. The reason I criticize the Bible is because it's immoral, incoherent and wrong.

Why can't atheists take the time to say ANYTHING honestly about what Christianity ACTUALLY is???? I haven't met even ONE atheist who is able to define it correctly. In this and a host of other areas, atheism is yet again built on fallacies and straw men of the worst order and making people very stupid about what God actually says about salvation.

That's funny, then how come atheists know more about scripture (and a variety of different scripture such as Muslim, Christian and Buddhist one at that!) than most religious people?

Is it possible that you're engaging in wishful thinking, confirmation bias and projection?

Furthermore if you say this, then your comment on Pascal's Wager in the debate thread is a moot point.

There's a reason why many of the greatest defenders in history were atheist scientists, historians, lawyers, etc. They followed the evidence where it led.

I'm sure that was a typo on your part and you meant to say "Christian" but for once you're correct.

atheism which asserts that it is rational, but has no evidence (meaning it can't be rational), is demeaning to life, has caused immeasurable harm to life, to science and to rational thinking and is based almost entirely on fallacies.

I've already covered this point in the debate thread but I must ask again: Do you have any evidence whatsoever? Because I have already provided evidence that you're wrong about this.

Atheism is the most anti-rational philosophy on the planet that I am aware of because it asks people to reject and dismiss evidence and choose to follow no evidence and tries to stack the deck by claiming that evidence isn't evidence and constantly tries to keep people from even knowing about the evidence.

Uh, what? You have yet to provide evidence for this but then again, we've already stacked the deck and dismissed your evidence.
OR!!! And here's a wild though! Maybe, just maybe, you're wrong? But wait, that can't be because you've already challenged your traditions so many times so you can't be wrong. Still funny though that you can't even give a definition of evolution that any scientist would accept. Hm, must mean the scientists definition is wrong.

The main reason most people and most atheist have no clue about the evidence is precisely because of
--methodological naturalism
--perversions of the separation of church and state
--pastors not being experts in science or history

So the problems are:
1) Science
2) Secularism
3) Pastors

As explained, science wouldn't work without Methodological Naturalism.
How exactly is secularism a bad thing? Even Jesus said that you should pray at home and not be a hypocrite. Jesus was the ultimate secularist.
As for Pastors, I agree. They are experts in that which is unknown and which can't be known.

 

[nudger1964]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

well i think what he is trying to say is that if you would only allow your pastor brainwash you into believing the unbelievable, and throw away the need for futile emprical verification, you would see the evidence as clearly as he does.
i think thats what hes saying, but dont want to straw man him

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

well i think what he is trying to say is that if you would only allow your pastor brainwash you into believing the unbelievable, and throw away the need for futile emprical verification, you would see the evidence as clearly as he does.
i think thats what hes saying, but dont want to straw man him

Well, he's really only doing two things: Lying, and trying to redefine the meanings of words so that you are forced to accept his lies as true by definition.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

When you say "PERIOD", it still doesn't mean that you're right.. just by the way.
Oh and.. "perversions of the separation of church and state" do you want to claim that all other religions have to submit to your teachings and rules? We are past holy wars thankfully.. that is not going to happen.
Or do you want the regimes to be a huge soup of all religious nutjobs who will vote on what goes through as a law?
You know what.. keep your mythical nonsense in the churches and at home, the world has seen enough of it already.

One last thing.. secularism and atheism does NOTHING to keep back science and advancement, unlike religious bullies and ignorant fucktards who do that by default in order to stick to and promote their faith based teachings (aka idiocy)

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Inferno,
Please refrain from lying. Pragmatic evidence IS evidence whether you like it or not and ALL people use pragmatic evidence to determine truth in real life, ALL, including you and it's a major way that truth in science is determined as well. You may say it's not convincing to you. Fine. But, to say it's not evidence is an explicit falsehood. If you want to destroy science then you can claim that pragmatic evidence isn't evidence. The scientific method itself is accepted as valid based on pragmatic results alone since none of our 5 senses can detect it, etc. That you claim that I didn't list any evidence is an intentional falsehood on your part, sadly. I listed only a tiny bit of it and your post in the debate completely distorted the argument.

Certain individuals may be disciplined sometimes, but not even that will equal the results the Bible produces and while you may have a higher level of discipline, it is a fact that you will lose out in this life if you reject the Bible as millions in the past have. But, in general, which is what statistics are all about, many are not very disciplined and will lose out on far more benefits in this life. More than that, countless atheists HAVE already indisputably lost out on many benefits in life because of rejecting Christianity.

You categorically fail to understand Pascal's wager as all atheists do. I'll list several quotes from his Pensees in the debate soon, much of which I've read.

Yes, I know about duality/contradictions. Many scientists have spoken of this problem as a contradiction though. So, you need to educate them before telling me that it's only a duality. You could be right, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some cases where contradictory things are both right. Here's an interesting article on that.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/paradoxical-truth/

We need to deal with the issue of inspiration soon as well. The Bible nowhere claims that it is inerrant. This is another unbiblical tradition of some Christians like the eternal hell one and also harmful. It DOES claim that it's inspired, but not inerrant and there IS a difference. There are immoral things that happen in the Bible and wrong things, etc. God quite a few times spends a lot of time condemning the evil of those things. I know very well the argument you have made in your last post in the debate. It is not hard to refute and I will do so soon.

The Bible verses you listed do not say ONLY one woman, ONLY two women, etc. If friends come to a party at my house, I may not list all of them when talking to someone else. I may just mention that Bob came since we both know Bob and not talk about others. This is not a contradiction of any sort. Just a choice of what to emphasize.

No, methodological naturalism doesn't have anything to do with science and science worked perfectly fine without it for literally centuries. NOWHERE is it mentioned in the scientific method. NOWHERE. It's an a priori fallacy of the highest order. Using that same reasoning, I can prove that no atheists exist as you will see in my next debate post.

There's a reason why many of the greatest defenders in history were atheist scientists, historians, lawyers, etc. They followed the evidence where it led.

I'm sure that was a typo on your part and you meant to say "Christian" but for once you're correct.

atheism which asserts that it is rational, but has no evidence (meaning it can't be rational), is demeaning to life, has caused immeasurable harm to life, to science and to rational thinking and is based almost entirely on fallacies.

No, that most certainly was not a typo. Please stop misrepresenting me. Here's a VERY SHORT list of former atheists and/or former evolutionists who converted:
Dr. Walter Veith, Dr. Walter Brown (MIT), C.S. Lewis, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, Josh McDowell, Dr. Silvestru, Dr. Gerald Berman, Dr. Robert Carter, Dr. Terry Mortenson, Dr. Paul Nelson (Ph.D. in philosophy of science and evolutionary biology), Lee Strobel. A few more are here, but there are numerous more than on this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_converted_to_Christianity

Yes, it's STILL possible I could be wrong. Unlike atheists and methodological naturalists, I don't use a priori assertions and decide on conclusions and misrepresent evidence as not being evidence (we really need to go over Kuhn's ideas of using evidence to determine truth as well) and falsely malign evidence that points to concepts that are rivals of mine. I NEVER, and I emphasize NEVER rule out the possibility that I could be wrong on any topic. NEVER. However the most insane thing to do is to give up solid evidence, even if it were 10 lines of evidence, for something that has less or none. This is where atheism completely loses the rational contest and completely fails to follow the accepted standards of science. If you can show me something with more evidence in most areas than Christianity (we've only touched a TINY bit of pragmatic evidence and none in other areas so far), I swear I'll look into it seriously and there's a very high chance I would change to follow that. But, nothing even begins to compete with Christianity so far though. Nothing I know of even challenges Pascal's 700 page Penses written centuries ago, much of which directly deals with evidence of different kinds. And we have 100s of times more evidence now than Pascal had.

I have given definitions of evolution that all scientists accept as well as universal common descent. We haven't gotten to that stage yet. But, we will. I am not sure about this, but I believe that you pointed to a definition of universal common descent months ago and I use that definition.
Evolution is defined as change over time (which creationists and Darwinians both agree on and creationists pioneered LONG before Darwin even existed).
Universal common descent claims that all life descended from a few cells or even one. This is the massive disagreement.

Bryan

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

atheism [...] has caused immeasurable harm to life

Aww, it seems that the pasting[1] Dotoree receives consistently across the internet is finally getting to him. All these nasty, dirty, sexy atheists and their insistence on reliable evidence...
These risible, (knowingly) unqualified remarks he spouts just show how despicable his character is. He knows exactly why people don't buy his folly... because if you scratch the surface, the hot air is released and his arguments deflate. He's attempted it time and time again under various guises (instantly recognisable by his 600 word sentences, Homeric attempts to warp my beautiful language to suit his petty, parochial beliefs, and total inability to state anything succinctly, even when asked nicely), yet has failed utterly each and every time.

Follower of Christ? Liar for Christ more like. Calling a spade pseud a spade pseud time, I think.

Also, fuck off [2]. I've only ever harmed egos.








1. By pasting, I mean:
Noun. A beating. E.g. "He gave me a right pasting when he realised it was me that spread that rumour."
2. Not literally.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

There is no pasting going on right now (but I sometimes do copy my rebuttals to other atheists and use them here since all atheists seem to go to the same guru or site or whatever to learn the same fallacies and there's nothing new..so it saves time which I greatly lack). Why do you need to lie toothandnail?

The amount I write is usually directly in proportion to the amount of fallacies people use. Reduce the misrepresentations and fallacies and double standards, and my writing amount will DRASTICALLY reduce (note that Inferno has been quite a bit better than most atheists at refraining from misrepresentation and fallacies and some of the length of the debate was not because of him but because of fallacies of readers..but natural methodological naturalism is one of the worst a priori fallacies in all history and there he has made major errors).

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Thomasdoubting,
Methodological naturalism, forced on science and other academic areas has blocked the advance of science more than almost anything else in history in certain areas...and kept people astronomically ignorant of facts and confirmations of numerous predictions of Bible science. As I have stated before, you can choose:
1) To follow the evidence WHEREVER IT LEADS (including supernatural if that's where it points) or
2) You can follow methodological naturalism.

There is not the slightest chance of doing both. PERIOD. They are mutually irreconcilable. This is rock solid and unchangeable fact. And even some atheists scientists are agreeing on this.

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

atheism [...] has caused immeasurable harm to life

I've only ever harmed egos.
--
Please try to read more carefully. I said atheisM which doesn't necessarily mean atheists. I have repeatedly and specifically said that there are moral atheists. But atheism indisputably harms and has harmed people a HUGE amount, esp. the atheists who follow it, and deprived them of much good in this life.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

dotree:
You're the one who worships a genocidal child-slaying maniac.

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

There is no pasting going on right now (but I sometimes do copy my rebuttals to other atheists and use them here since all atheists seem to go to the same guru or site or whatever to learn the same fallacies and there's nothing new..so it saves time which I greatly lack).

Lol, I knew it. Read the following, it's from the post you're responding to.

1. By pasting, I mean:
Noun. A beating. E.g. "He gave me a right pasting when he realised it was me that spread that rumour."

Why do you need to lie toothandnail?

Recycling jokes is only acceptable if it's still funny.

The amount I write is usually directly in proportion to the amount of fallacies people use. Reduce the misrepresentations and fallacies and double standards, and my writing amount will DRASTICALLY reduce (note that Inferno has been quite a bit better than most atheists at refraining from misrepresentation and fallacies and some of the length of the debate was not because of him but because of fallacies of readers..but natural methodological naturalism is one of the worst a priori fallacies in all history and there he has made major errors).

Your ADVERBS don't gain greater weight by CAPITALISING them.

Slandering atheists, generalising about atheists, accusing atheists in general of "immeasurable harm to life" does nothing to misrepresent, speaks nothing of double standards and isn't fallacious?

Let's add hypocritical to the (growing) list of things we can verifiably assert as your characteristics.