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

no evidence no belief · Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:19 am

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?

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:10 am

Then to finish off this crap of a post, apparently you think people have answered the god question!
Please provide evidence that the god question has been answered.
I was not aware!

I've been saying exactly the opposite in clear language in about my last 100 or more posts. I refer you to my prior posts should you have additional questions.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:14 am

instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote: Literally, every scenario that I know of in the real world about how a person arrived at their specific god concept has been a result of indoctrination (speaking about children obviously).

And how exactly does this disprove something?
This was not meant to disprove anything. Remember? We were talking about how children are indoctrinated into religious beliefs and Santa beliefs.

Please back up your claim that if God existed, people would come to know his word without reading the Bible.
That is not a claim that I have made.
More importantly, if there was a god, how is it that you are jumping to the conclusion that this god would use the Christian Bible. Seems awfully presumptuous to me.

woodpen · Post by **woodpen** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:14 am

woodpen wrote:
A Troubled Man wrote:
Philbert wrote: 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.

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.
Red herring. The alleged claims to authority of reason have no bearing on the answers to any questions posed to an atheist or theist by use of the process of reason, faith or otherwise.
The god question.
God is a claim made by men.
Question answered.

[center]The god question.
God is a claim made by men.
Question answered[/center]

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 1:13 pm

Philbert wrote:
Then to finish off this crap of a post, apparently you think people have answered the god question!
Please provide evidence that the god question has been answered.
I was not aware!
I've been saying exactly the opposite in clear language in about my last 100 or more posts. I refer you to my prior posts should you have additional questions.

Please clarify your position.
Have people answered the god question or not?
I ask, because I am not aware of an answer to the god question, yet you keep implying that people have answered it. You even accusing me of having an answer to the god question.

"you yourself appeared to have used reason to answer the god question."

Then, next you claim you are saying exactly the opposite.

Philbert · Post by **Philbert** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 3:17 pm

Please clarify your position.

If you really do wish to know my perspective, please read any of my last 100 or more posts on the topic. Thank you.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:31 pm

Clownboat wrote:
And how exactly does this disprove something?
This was not meant to disprove anything. Remember? We were talking about how children are indoctrinated into religious beliefs and Santa beliefs.

Fair enough, I never disputed this anyway. Children are certainly indoctrinated to believe in both God and Santa Claus. However, you haven't shown that an inner experience of God is a result of such indoctrination.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 5:04 pm

instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
And how exactly does this disprove something?
This was not meant to disprove anything. Remember? We were talking about how children are indoctrinated into religious beliefs and Santa beliefs.
Fair enough, I never disputed this anyway. Children are certainly indoctrinated to believe in both God and Santa Claus. However, you haven't shown that an inner experience of God is a result of such indoctrination.

Why would I show that? What is a god experience anyway?

All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination. I am open to changing my conclusion, but you would have to supply me with something else to observe (like a child experiencing a god they have never heard about).

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 6:54 am

Clownboat wrote: All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination.

Non sequitur, your observation is consistent with your conclusion, but does not substantiate it at all.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:17 pm

instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote: All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination.
Non sequitur, your observation is consistent with your conclusion, but does not substantiate it at all.

It does as far as I am concerned, but only because I personally know of hundreds of these scenarios and not one that shows otherwise.

Again, I am open to any evidence you have to suggest I am wrong here.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 3:32 pm

Clownboat wrote:
instantc wrote:
Clownboat wrote: All I can point to is that children know of god's due to being told about them. I don't know of any experience where a child experienced a god that they previously did not know about.

Due to this observation, I can conclude that god experiences seem to be a result of indoctrination.
Non sequitur, your observation is consistent with your conclusion, but does not substantiate it at all.
It does as far as I am concerned, but only because I personally know of hundreds of these scenarios and not one that shows otherwise.

Again, I am open to any evidence you have to suggest I am wrong here.

Let me get this right now, your claim 'god experiences are a result of indoctrination' is substantiated by 'no-one has showed otherwise'. Do atheists have a monopoly of shifting the burden of proof?

I am open to any evidence to suggest that you are right, unfortunately you haven't provided any, just the claim.