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?

[Clownboat]

once again, atheists look at the lack of evidence and state there is no reason to think any of the known god concepts exists.

Right, agreed. They believe that reason is qualified to deliver a meaningful answer to the god question.

Ad nausea... Some may actually believe this, but until you can show that you must believe this in order to be an atheist, "I think" you are painting with too broad of a brush.

And that's why they focus on the evidence.

As opposed to what? What do you propose we do with evidence. Not focus on it?

This is the exact same challenge as, where is the evidence that holy books are qualified to deliver a meaningful answer to the god question?

Here is where I think you are leading yourself astray. Religions have Holy Books that they follow, so until you prove that atheists MUST view humans reason in the light you claim, this challenge is not the same.

We have two groups. One group uses holy books as it's authority. The other group uses reason as it's authority.

If a person uses a Holy Book, they are not using human reason? I don't see how this follows, so I don't see how we have two groups. Still looks like one group of people to me and both are using human reason. This does not mean that they MUST believe that human reason can answer the god questions though.

I'm suggesting that intellectual honesty and the process of reason requires us to challenge BOTH authorities, not just one.

Please show that both are actual authorities.

Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.

You're assuming that evidence, ie. human reason, is useful and relevant to this particular question. Where is the evidence of such a power?

Gah! Where did he assume this? Even if he does assume this, which maybe he does, that does not change his statement, which was:
Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.

If you disagree, please explain how contemplating that pink unicorns are the creators of this universe might be useful. Once that is done, we can then start on the never ending list of non-evidenced things that we must now contemplate.

Just don't use your human reasoning to do so.

You, me, a fundie, we all use our human reason because it's all we've got.

Yes, we use our reason. This in no way whatsoever proves that our reason is qualified to answer some particular question.

I agree with you, human reasoning may not be qualified to answer some questions. Please move on.

Billions of people read holy books, and have for thousands of years. This in no way proves that holy books are qualified to answer these questions.

Once again, this seems to be a statement you are interjecting into the discussion. I don't see where anyone made a claim about this either.

[Philbert]

Ad nausea... Some may actually believe this, but until you can show that you must believe this in order to be an atheist, "I think" you are painting with too broad of a brush.

Please show us the atheist, particularly an outspoken one, who does not believe that their human reason is qualified to address the question and deliver a meaningful answer.

Like the thread says, show us the evidence.

As opposed to what? What do you propose we do with evidence. Not focus on it?

Focusing on evidence, or lack thereof, arises from the belief that the evidence is relevant and useful.

Where is the evidence that evidence developed by human beings can meaningfully comment upon questions of this scale?

Religions have Holy Books that they follow,

Religions have holy books, and the religious routinely ignore any part of them they aren't interested in.

so until you prove that atheists MUST view humans reason in the light you claim, this challenge is not the same.

It's not that they must, but simply that they already do. Atheists believe reason is relevant to the question at hand. It's the simplest thing.

If a person uses a Holy Book, they are not using human reason? I don't see how this follows, so I don't see how we have two groups. Still looks like one group of people to me and both are using human reason.

Ok, fair enough, sorta. Are you saying there is no difference between faith and reason?

Please show that both are actual authorities.

My point is that neither holy books OR human reason are qualified authorities. Or more precisely, there is no credible evidence that they are.

Lacking such evidence, there's no reason to believe in the qualifications of either, for this particular set of ultimate question.

Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.

Isn't contemplating about supernatural possibilities exactly what the author of that quote is doing?

Look closely at the quote again. See the first three words. That's his or her chosen authority. Without any evidence = human reason.

If you disagree, please explain how contemplating that pink unicorns are the creators of this universe might be useful.

If you wish, I can convincingly demonstrate that the invisible pink unicorn exists, right in your own house. No kidding, start a new thread if you want the reasoning.

Once that is done, we can then start on the never ending list of non-evidenced things that we must now contemplate.

I agree with you, human reasoning may not be qualified to answer some questions. Please move on.

I'll move on when we've set atheism aside, and declared it a logical flaw. Ready for that? If yes, we can move on to how one might approach these topics if we've seen that both theism and atheism are both faith based belief systems.

Once again, this seems to be a statement you are interjecting into the discussion. I don't see where anyone made a claim about this either.

There's lots of back and forth going on here, and it can get confusing, agreed. But my comments was a direct response to another posters comment. All saved in print above in the thread for anyone to review.

[Dantalion]

if you wish, I can convincingly demonstrate that the invisible pink unicorn exists, right in your own house. No kidding, start a new thread if you want the reasoning.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=23405

thread created

[Clownboat]

Ad nausea... Some may actually believe this, but until you can show that you must believe this in order to be an atheist, "I think" you are painting with too broad of a brush.

Please show us the atheist, particularly an outspoken one, who does not believe that their human reason is qualified to address the question and deliver a meaningful answer.

Like the thread says, show us the evidence.

This is called shifting the burden of proof. Unless you are willing to retract your statement that in order to be an atheist, you MUST believe that human reason can answer the god question, I don't see a reason to. Do we really need to defend every non evidenced claim that you make? I sure hope not.

As opposed to what? What do you propose we do with evidence. Not focus on it?

Focusing on evidence, or lack thereof, arises from the belief that the evidence is relevant and useful.

Where is the evidence that evidence developed by human beings can meaningfully comment upon questions of this scale?

I see no such evidence. You are the only one making this claim. This is why I must view it as a straw man.

Religions have Holy Books that they follow,

Religions have holy books, and the religious routinely ignore any part of them they aren't interested in.

Ok.

so until you prove that atheists MUST view humans reason in the light you claim, this challenge is not the same.

It's not that they must, but simply that they already do. Atheists believe reason is relevant to the question at hand. It's the simplest thing.

Ahh, now reason is only relevant. At least it appears that we are getting somewhere.

If a person uses a Holy Book, they are not using human reason? I don't see how this follows, so I don't see how we have two groups. Still looks like one group of people to me and both are using human reason.

Ok, fair enough, sorta. Are you saying there is no difference between faith and reason?

Define faith and then reason for me please. We have all witnessed what you have done to the word "atheist" already.

Please show that both are actual authorities.

My point is that neither holy books OR human reason are qualified authorities. Or more precisely, there is no credible evidence that they are.

Agreed. Can we drop this now?

Lacking such evidence, there's no reason to believe in the qualifications of either, for this particular set of ultimate question.

No reason to believe in human reasoning whatsoever? I'm not sure I can go THAT far.

Without any evidence for the existence of the supernatural, contemplating about supernatural possibilities is meaningless, let alone make certainty claims about the nature of a divine being.

Isn't contemplating about supernatural possibilities exactly what the author of that quote is doing?

Look closely at the quote again. See the first three words. That's his or her chosen authority. Without any evidence = human reason.

Slippery slope. Next we need to contemplate if fairies created the universe, then unicorns, then........... Until there is a reason to contemplate said claim, we are just spinning our wheels. Do you disagree?

If you disagree, please explain how contemplating that pink unicorns are the creators of this universe might be useful.

If you wish, I can convincingly demonstrate that the invisible pink unicorn exists, right in your own house. No kidding, start a new thread if you want the reasoning.

I asked you to please explain how contemplating that pink unicorns are the creators of this universe would be useful.

I agree with you, human reasoning may not be qualified to answer some questions. Please move on.

I'll move on when we've set atheism aside, and declared it a logical flaw. Ready for that? If yes, we can move on to how one might approach these topics if we've seen that both theism and atheism are both faith based belief systems.

I reject your claim on what an atheist is.

[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?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

Kids don't have experiences of Santa, they have experiences of a man dressed as Santa. People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them.

I believe your indoctrination is showing.

Also, you are just wrong. My kids get presents from Santa every year. Just ask them!
(This is their experience, so to them, if we use the logic being presented, Santa is more reasonable).

Either way, whether we are talking about my children or your beliefs, it seems both are arrived at via indoctrination, not truth. It is dishonest on your part to make truth claims about telepathy without providing evidence for telepathy. Don't forget, you are talking to adults here.

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

[Dantalion]

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?

I'm sorry, what part of 'most important, it's confirmed by overwhelming repeatable, empirical, quantifiable, measurable, conclusive, objective data.'
did you manage to overlook ?

We seem to have communication problems again. I didn't say that Christianity is as plausible as square earth theory, did I now? I said that Christianity is more plausible than Santa Clause, as one standard by which an experience is more plausible than another is the number of people with analogous experiences.

Every experience is subjective in nature, there is no such thing as objective experience. Talking to God experiences are repeatable, many people have them on daily basis. Empirical? Who says that sensory experiences are more plausible than other kind of experiences?

Any other arguments?

So, once again, we can use your argument to show that Santa is more plausible.

To use your logic:
My kids have experiences of Santa every year and I dare say that not many people claim to have seen the Christian god. Therefore, Santa is more reasonable.

I am not actually making this argument, I just want you to understand why it fails.

Kids don't have experiences of Santa, they have experiences of a man dressed as Santa. People have experiences of an all-knowing person talking telepathically to them.

I believe your indoctrination is showing.

Also, you are just wrong. My kids get presents from Santa every year. Just ask them!
(This is their experience, so to them, if we use the logic being presented, Santa is more reasonable).

Either way, whether we are talking about my children or your beliefs, it seems both are arrived at via indoctrination, not truth. It is dishonest on your part to make truth claims about telepathy without providing evidence for telepathy. Don't forget, you are talking to adults here.

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

I can show it by mentioning the lack of anyone ever who demonstrably was able to convey details of the Christian God's message, nature and laws without first being confronted with Christianity or the Bible.

If God is revelation, then surely we can demonstrably show people who've never read the Bible nor ever heard of it's contents nor ever heard anything about Christianity suddenly being able to recite this revelation in an accurate fashion.

[instantc]

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

I can show it by mentioning the lack of anyone ever who demonstrably was able to convey details of the Christian God's message, nature and laws without first being confronted with Christianity or the Bible.

If God is revelation, then surely we can demonstrably show people who've never read the Bible nor ever heard of it's contents nor ever heard anything about Christianity suddenly being able to recite this revelation in an accurate fashion.

Or perhaps God doesn't reveal himself randomly to anyone, but only to those who know the revelation and look for him.

It may seem to you intuitionally that things would be different if God existed, but you are far away from showing what you asserted, namely that those experiences are for certainty a result of indoctrination.

[woodpen]

But the point I've been making all along is that you haven't shown that God experiences are a result of indoctrination, whereas Santa Claus experiences are undoubtedly a result of such indoctrination. That's the difference between them. You are making assertions that you haven't justified.

I can show it by mentioning the lack of anyone ever who demonstrably was able to convey details of the Christian God's message, nature and laws without first being confronted with Christianity or the Bible.

If God is revelation, then surely we can demonstrably show people who've never read the Bible nor ever heard of it's contents nor ever heard anything about Christianity suddenly being able to recite this revelation in an accurate fashion.

Or perhaps God doesn't reveal himself randomly to anyone, but only to those who know the revelation and look for him.

It may seem to you intuitionally that things would be different if God existed, but you are far away from showing what you asserted, namely that those experiences are for certainty a result of indoctrination.

Remove the BIBLE.
Now who or what is god?

[Philbert]

Please show us the atheist, particularly an outspoken one, who does not believe that their human reason is qualified to address the question and deliver a meaningful answer.

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

It's not shifting the burden of proof, as theists still bear the burden for their own assertions.

We're not shifting the burden of proof here, but instead applying a uniform standard to all participants in the conversation.

Theists assert various things, and I agree that they thus bear the burden for their assertions. Typically theists cite holy books as their chosen authority, and it's reasonable to challenge the qualifications of this authority to address the question at hand.

Atheists typically reference human reason as their chosen authority. Thus it is also reasonable to challenge the qualifications of that authority to address the question at hand. This is not shifting the burden, it is requiring all parties to bear the same burden.

I would agree with you that there are some atheists who do not based their lack of belief in gods on human reason. As example, babies, or primitive tribesmen deep in the Amazon who have never heard of god.

But the vast majority of time, when an atheist makes any kind of public statement on these topics, they are referencing human reason as their authority. They are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that human reason is qualified to address questions of this scale.

Just as the theists must demonstrate that holy books are qualified to provide answers to these questions, the atheist (the vast majority of them anyway) are required to demonstrate that their chosen authority, human reason, is qualified to provide answers to questions of this scale.

An equal burden placed on both parties.

This is a test that will help any atheist determine whether they are actually loyal to the processes of reason, or whether their atheism is really just another faith based belief system being used to create a flattering self identity.

[Dantalion]

Please show us the atheist, particularly an outspoken one, who does not believe that their human reason is qualified to address the question and deliver a meaningful answer.

This is called shifting the burden of proof.

It's not shifting the burden of proof, as theists still bear the burden for their own assertions.

We're not shifting the burden of proof here, but instead applying a uniform standard to all participants in the conversation.

Theists assert various things, and I agree that they thus bear the burden for their assertions. Typically theists cite holy books as their chosen authority, and it's reasonable to challenge the qualifications of this authority to address the question at hand.

Atheists typically reference human reason as their chosen authority. Thus it is also reasonable to challenge the qualifications of that authority to address the question at hand. This is not shifting the burden, it is requiring all parties to bear the same burden.

I would agree with you that there are some atheists who do not based their lack of belief in gods on human reason. As example, babies, or primitive tribesmen deep in the Amazon who have never heard of god.

But the vast majority of time, when an atheist makes any kind of public statement on these topics, they are referencing human reason as their authority. They are claiming, explicitly or implicitly, that human reason is qualified to address questions of this scale.

Just as the theists must demonstrate that holy books are qualified to provide answers to these questions, the atheist (the vast majority of them anyway) are required to demonstrate that their chosen authority, human reason, is qualified to provide answers to questions of this scale.

An equal burden placed on both parties.

This is a test that will help any atheist determine whether they are actually loyal to the processes of reason, or whether their atheism is really just another faith based belief system being used to create a flattering self identity.

Philosophical hogwash, and I'll tell you why.
For your position to hold, you've got to demonstrate there even is anything outside of human reason that can answer anything.

Human reason has given us everything we know.
If you want me to entertain the thought that human reason is not the only thing we have to address ANY questions (questions we pose using our reasoning in the first place), you have to give me something, an alternative, which we then can investigate.

You're beginning to sound a bit like Sye Ten Bruggencate here tbh.
'you're using reason to validate your reason so you're circular so bye bye'