Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[instantc]

I never said 'all religious experiences are result of childhood indoctrination and trickery.'
However childhood experience and indoctrination is an important factor not only for childhood decisions about belief, but in adult religious allegiance.

It's not at all difficult to 'back it up,' as you say. All you have to do is research the religious beliefs that are prominent in various countries. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

Scan the list under 'By proportion.'

It should come as no surprise there are 15 countries listed that have a Christian population ranging from 99% to 93.5% or that there are 17 countries that have a Muslim population ranging from 99.9% to 94%.

Doesn't look to me like there's much free choice going on. That childhood indoctrination is pretty powerful.

I noticed noone addressed this. How do the religious explain this?
What do they think is happening?

I've brought up this issue before. I do not recall any of our religious friends addressing these facts. Ignoring the obvious implications appears to be their best argument.

I think the above along with conflicts between different religious experiences make them useless as evidence or proof. However, this does nothing to disprove the content of any of these God claims, in claiming so one would be committing a genetic fallacy. The way in which one comes to believe a claim doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether or not the claim is true. Therefore the religious may look for evidence elsewhere and just ignore the above.

[instantc]

You and a handful of others, a loooooong time ago, ought to have been honest enough to simply say ,"No. I dont have any." Instead we get to pore over 90 pages of Calvinist-like rhetoric where questions become answers and obfuscation is king.

There's my contribution.

Did I claim to have evidence for anything? I think not, so great contribution, thank you very much! Looking forward to your next one.

I was debating whether or not an adult's report of speaking with God should be taken more seriously than a child's report of Santa Claus. It seems to me that the former requires either a psychological, sociological or a supernatural explanation, while for the latter the explanation is known and obvious.

Back in the days me and a friend of mine, both raised in non-religious families, went to the same confirmation camp. During the week my friend become religious and felt that God was talking to him, and I never had anything close to a supernatural experience. I don't think you could have told beforehand which one of us were to become religious in the near future, and yet there must be major psychological differences between us that caused his experiences.

[Ooberman]

So are either of you going to get around to presenting any evidence or do you prefer to attack the nature of the question's demands for another 90 pages?

I see this alllll the time.

Answering questions with more questions or assaulting the verbiage of them or arguing over why you feel the demands are unfair and in what way....

Admittedly I haven't read all 90 pages. Maybe 15 total but I'm still waiting to see the myriad proofs for your war god.

I've also been waiting to see evidence for the supernatural for a while. Do you have any or did you just want to make your presence known and participate without having anything to say?

Oh I could participate like you I suppose. If that means giving the OP evidence like it asked for 90 pages ago I guess it WOULDN'T be much like you though.

Maybe instead I'll just ask for more clarification on the difference between Santa Clause beliefs between children and adults? Or see if there's more room for clarity on the revived versus zombie dilemma?

You and a handful of others, a loooooong time ago, ought to have been honest enough to simply say ,"No. I dont have any." Instead we get to pore over 90 pages of Calvinist-like rhetoric where questions become answers and obfuscation is king.

I don't like the question! What's the definition of "is?" Zombies aren't the same as the resurrected! What do you MEAN "evidence?" You're using the wrong toolbox! That's out of context!

How about "I take these matters purely on faith, as is my right, but cannot provide compelling and persuasive evidence."

There's my contribution.

They WHY do you believe? You don't have a reason? It's based on Faith?

What is Faith, to you? Is it a reason for someone else to believe you? What about a Muslim's Faith?

This is a "debate" site, not a "testimony of faith" site.

Essentially, you have ceded the entire debate!

[instantc]

So are either of you going to get around to presenting any evidence or do you prefer to attack the nature of the question's demands for another 90 pages?

I see this alllll the time.

Answering questions with more questions or assaulting the verbiage of them or arguing over why you feel the demands are unfair and in what way....

Admittedly I haven't read all 90 pages. Maybe 15 total but I'm still waiting to see the myriad proofs for your war god.

I've also been waiting to see evidence for the supernatural for a while. Do you have any or did you just want to make your presence known and participate without having anything to say?

Oh I could participate like you I suppose. If that means giving the OP evidence like it asked for 90 pages ago I guess it WOULDN'T be much like you though.

Maybe instead I'll just ask for more clarification on the difference between Santa Clause beliefs between children and adults? Or see if there's more room for clarity on the revived versus zombie dilemma?

You and a handful of others, a loooooong time ago, ought to have been honest enough to simply say ,"No. I dont have any." Instead we get to pore over 90 pages of Calvinist-like rhetoric where questions become answers and obfuscation is king.

I don't like the question! What's the definition of "is?" Zombies aren't the same as the resurrected! What do you MEAN "evidence?" You're using the wrong toolbox! That's out of context!

How about "I take these matters purely on faith, as is my right, but cannot provide compelling and persuasive evidence."

There's my contribution.

They WHY do you believe? You don't have a reason? It's based on Faith?

What is Faith, to you? Is it a reason for someone else to believe you? What about a Muslim's Faith?

This is a "debate" site, not a "testimony of faith" site.

Essentially, you have ceded the entire debate!

I assume this was meant for me?

I am not a believer and I am not taking their side either. I find it lazy and unintelligent to compare God experiences to Santa Claus, and there's no further point I need to make. This kind of inapt analogies are not only meaningless provocation, but they also give believers a free pass card and make atheists look like idiots in public.

[no evidence no belief]

So are either of you going to get around to presenting any evidence or do you prefer to attack the nature of the question's demands for another 90 pages?

I see this alllll the time.

Answering questions with more questions or assaulting the verbiage of them or arguing over why you feel the demands are unfair and in what way....

Admittedly I haven't read all 90 pages. Maybe 15 total but I'm still waiting to see the myriad proofs for your war god.

I've also been waiting to see evidence for the supernatural for a while. Do you have any or did you just want to make your presence known and participate without having anything to say?

Oh I could participate like you I suppose. If that means giving the OP evidence like it asked for 90 pages ago I guess it WOULDN'T be much like you though.

Maybe instead I'll just ask for more clarification on the difference between Santa Clause beliefs between children and adults? Or see if there's more room for clarity on the revived versus zombie dilemma?

You and a handful of others, a loooooong time ago, ought to have been honest enough to simply say ,"No. I dont have any." Instead we get to pore over 90 pages of Calvinist-like rhetoric where questions become answers and obfuscation is king.

I don't like the question! What's the definition of "is?" Zombies aren't the same as the resurrected! What do you MEAN "evidence?" You're using the wrong toolbox! That's out of context!

How about "I take these matters purely on faith, as is my right, but cannot provide compelling and persuasive evidence."

There's my contribution.

They WHY do you believe? You don't have a reason? It's based on Faith?

What is Faith, to you? Is it a reason for someone else to believe you? What about a Muslim's Faith?

This is a "debate" site, not a "testimony of faith" site.

Essentially, you have ceded the entire debate!

I assume this was meant for me?

I am not a believer and I am not taking their side either. I find it lazy and unintelligent to compare God experiences to Santa Claus, and there's no further point I need to make. This kind of inapt analogies are not only meaningless provocation, but they also give believers a free pass card and make atheists look like idiots in public.

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to present one valid difference between the gullibility and absurdity of belief in the talking donkey of Numbers 22, the flying horse of the Koran, and the flying reindeer of the Santa mythology.

They all seem like fairy tales about animals with physically impossible powers.

Please explain clearly and concisely why belief in the talking donkey should merit more respect than belief in the flying horse or the flying reindeer.

Please explain clearly and concisely why belief that you hear the voice of God in your head should be taken more seriously than belief that you hear the voice of aliens in your head, or leprechauns, or fairies, or spiderman.

I will not give the religious a free pass, and let them done the mantle of respectability, if they can't provide a single good reason why their wacky beliefs are one iota more valid then the wacky beliefs of any resident of your local nut house.

[instantc]

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to present one valid difference between the gullibility and absurdity of belief in the talking donkey of Numbers 22, the flying horse of the Koran, and the flying reindeer of the Santa mythology.
.

You can play that rhetorical game with anything, can you show me here and now that any experience of anything has any more merit than another experience of something else?

But, keep your provocative and lazy analogies, present them in a public place and you'll be laughed off the stage by any reasonable audience.

[Goat]

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to present one valid difference between the gullibility and absurdity of belief in the talking donkey of Numbers 22, the flying horse of the Koran, and the flying reindeer of the Santa mythology.
.

You can play that rhetorical game with anything, can you show me here and now that any experience of anything has any more merit than another experience of something else?

But, keep your provocative and lazy analogies, present them in a public place and you'll be laughed off the stage by any reasonable audience.

There are things that can be experienced by multiple people at the same time, on a repeatably. Those are more merit that 'private' emotional reactions.

There are experiences we can examine the 'how and why' of those experiences. Then, there are experiences you can't show is anything more than an emotional reaction.

[Dantalion]

[Replying to post 925 by instantc]

So you say, but you have yet to provide actual argumentation as to why you think those analogies are lazy and not to be taken seriously.

the analogy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is strong, sound and well thought up.
It's not my problem people get on their high horses when it's presented.

If you think the santa clause, or invisible pink unicorn, or sauron, or zeus or whatever analogy is so ridiculous then surely you could come up with actual arguments backing up this claim.

[no evidence no belief]

You keep asserting that, but you have yet to present one valid difference between the gullibility and absurdity of belief in the talking donkey of Numbers 22, the flying horse of the Koran, and the flying reindeer of the Santa mythology.
.

You can play that rhetorical game with anything, can you show me here and now that any experience of anything has any more merit than another experience of something else?

But, keep your provocative and lazy analogies, present them in a public place and you'll be laughed off the stage by any reasonable audience.

Sure.

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

[instantc]

The experience that the earth is a globe, is more valid than the experience that the earth is flat.

This is because the experience that the earth is a globe is confirmed by billions of other analogous experiences, and most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.

Any other questions?

So you invoke the number of equivalent experiences as a justification.

Notice that there are millions of experiences of the Christian God and dare I say not that many people who claim to have seen a flying reindeer? Therefore, by your logic, the former experiences are more valid.

Any other attempted justifications?