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?

[no evidence no belief]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

[no evidence no belief]

It's not just about demonstrating that it's all just a fairy tale, for me. It's also about demonstrating that it's a horrible fairy tale.

Can you help us understand why you find it logical to invest so much time in to a horrible fairy tale?

Because people have been butchering, and raping, and enslaving each others on the basis of fairy tales such as Christianity, Islam, Stalinism, Nazism for thousands of years.

Blind faith in dogmatic edicts that seek to suppress critical thinking and attempt to instill obedience in self-appointed authority figures cause tremendous suffering, and it is thus the moral duty of every human being to do his part to eradicate this scourge on humanity by educating his peers on the superiority of critical thinking and skepticism over dogma and obedience.

It seems that in order for your own involvement in this process to be logical and productive you would have to demonstrate that you are somehow persuading specific individuals to renounce the horrible fairy tale.

Could you provide evidence that such specific individuals exist please?

Yup. Most European countries which were almost completely religious up to just a few decades ago are overwhelmingly atheist now. Even in less developed countries like America, non-believers are the fastest growing minority.

If you can not provide us with such evidence, a list of names of those persuaded, why should we believe in the fairy tale that what you are doing is in any way logical?

Well, I've provided you with specific data that completely destroys your argument (what a surprise!), but additionally I'd like to say this: For me, convincing people that a book that recommends stoning to death the victims of rape is evil, is not a matter of calculus about logicality. For me it's a moral imperative.

Humanity would be better off without the Pauls and Stalins and Mohammeds and Bin Ladens and Hitlers and Kim Jung Ils of the world.

The world would be a better place without humans claiming to be superhumans - or to speak on behalf of superhumans -and gullible people believing them and committing genocide and other atrocities on that basis.

Therefore, even if skepticism and critical thinking weren't thankfully on the rise, even if it didn't look like we're slowly but surely winning against the forces of ignorance, I would still feel morally compelled to explain to you that DONKEYS DON'T TALK AND ZOMBIES DON'T RAISE FROM THE DEAD.

[Philbert]

You've completely dodged my question.

Where is the specific evidence that your speeches on this forum have converted a single Christian from Christianity to atheism? Answer the question please.

If you can not provide such evidence, why should we believe in the existence of a meaningful purpose in your activity here?

If you can not provide such evidence, why shouldn't we believe instead that you are lost in a fantasy of meaningful purpose and inflated self importance?

If it will help you find the courage I will admit there is zero chance I will convert you out of this fantasy, and thus my typing is as pointless and irrational as yours.

The only way to make this rational is for us to emerge from the fantasy of meaningful purpose, and accept that what all of us are doing here is nothing more impressive than using each other as foils for jerking off our own egos.

Adamant forum atheists like to talk about facing the hard facts of reality etc etc blah, blah, blah. How about we do some of that together?

[no evidence no belief]

Saul of Tarsus declared that women should be silent, that homosexuality is an abomination, that everyone should hand over a chunk of their hard-earned to him, and so on and on, page after tedious page. And his declarations supposedly derive authority from his being a disciple of Jesus, who supposedly gets his authority from being God.

And Stalin and Mao, leaders of explicitly atheist regimes, slaughtered millions of their own citizens.

Ah ah ah!

Look everybody!

He went for the "Stalin was an atheist" argument!

I call it! I saw it first! I get to debunk it!

Lol! I'm so excited! I hadn't seen one of these in years! I thought we'd run out of people who would wish to humiliate themselves like this!

Philbert: Stalinism is a religion. Stalinism is a dogmatic creed, held by millions of russians at the time, that Stalin was a Demi-God, that he was more than a mere human, and that blind obedience to him was indisputably always right.

Are you saying that the problem was that the people ruled by Stalin analyzed the evidence too critically? That they applied too much evidence-based rationality to the question of whether they should obey Stalin? That they questioned his authority too much? That they had too much access to a scientific education and to the concept of critical thinking?

Stalinism was a movement of suppression of skeptical inquiry, an attempt to brianwash people into blindly accepting complete authority of their leader, just like any other totalitarian religious movement, from Catholicism and the Inquisition, to Islam and its Fatwahs, to Scientology and its intimidation tactics.

And just like any other dogmatic thought-suppression movement, it wanted to destroy competing religions. Stalin killed a bunch of Russian Orthodox priests, just like Christians went on crusades and killed a buncc of Muslims.


aaahhhhh that was so much fun!

Bye bye Philbert.

[Philbert]

Thank you for your emotional outburst. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me.

[instantc]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit. Obviously we thoroughly understand the mechanisms of the body and it's organs. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question whether organs work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended. The reason that it is very very unlikely is not because we understand how the mechanisms work, but because we have been around for quite some time and we have never observed them being suspended. That's why extraordinary evidence is required for the claim that a body was once brought back from the dead. Roundness of the earth is being observed at this moment, the claim that the earth is flat can be falsified at this instant, it's a whole different type of claim. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one.

[no evidence no belief]

You've completely dodged my question.

Where is the specific evidence that your speeches on this forum have converted a single Christian from Christianity to atheism? Answer the question please.

I admit that I don't have specific evidence that I personally deconverted a single specific theist on this specific forum.

I also don't have evidence that my individual vote ever changed who was going to be President.

Should I therefore not vote?

Skeptical inquiry, scientific education, rationality, seem to be growing movements in the developed world (and in America as well). I am doing my part.

Even if I don't deconvert a theist, and instead I just destroy his arguments so resoundingly that he rage-quits the forum and - even just for a few weeks - stops polluting other people's minds with absurdities about zombies and virgin births and the moral superiority of slavery, then I've done my part in the collective effort to elevate the IQ of humanity. If enough of us do this for enough time, pretty soon people are going to feel stupid when they declare they believe in talking donkeys.

It's a team effort. Even the players that don't get to score a touchdown, even the players who stay on the benches, heck, ever the cheering fans, all play a part in achieving victory.

[Danmark]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit. You are correct that we thoroughly understand the mechanisms of the body and it's organs. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question whether organs work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended. The reason that it is very very unlikely is not because we understand how the mechanisms work, but because we have been around for quite some time and we have never observed them being suspended. That's why extraordinary evidence is required for the claim that a body was once brought back from the dead. Roundness of the earth is being observed at this moment, the claim that the earth is flat can be falsified at this instant, it's a whole different type of claim. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one.

If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one. Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit.


Analogies are only illustrative. They are didactic tools. They are neither proof nor evidence. As such, they are not expected to be perfect. Goose's analogy of the assassination of Caesar to the resurrection of Christ is apt since both require historical evidence. He goes wrong when he ignores that one involves a special pleading of supernatural intervention and the other does not. NENB's analogy is apt in that a flat Earth and and the resurrection are both impossible without a suspension of what we know about scientific principles.

[instantc]

We don't know in the sense that we aren't 100% sure. We are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% sure the earth isn't flat.

And we are about 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% that resurrections are impossible.

The analogy between the resurrection 2000 years ago and flat earth is quite as inapt as the analogy between the resurrection and Ceasar's assassination. This is an awful argument, the impossibility of resurrection is inferred through a consistent observation of certain regularities, and roundness of the earth is being directly observed at this moment. If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments.

The first and second laws of thermodynamics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the Entropic principle and several other physical laws, are being observed at this moment as well, just like the roundness of the earth.

It is on the basis of these physical laws that we know that spontaneous reversal of denatured enzymes in a decomposing brain dead corpse is physically impossible.

With classic and quantum mechanics, just like with the roundness of the earth, it's not just that we infer conclusions from observation of certain regularities. It's that we fully understand the mechanism behind these regularities.

We don't just observe that the earth is round. We understand the shape of the earth really really really well. We know it's diameter, it's mass, it's mineral composition, its plate tectonics, the speed at which it moves around the sun, the degree of tilt on its own axis daily, the distance it is from the sun and all other solar system bodies at any given time, etc, etc, etc.

Similarly, we don't just observe that decomposing corpses don't come back to life. We have a profound and detailed understanding of the inner workings of the processes, from the macro level of an intimate medical understanding of organ functions and the irreversibility of processes, through to a full understanding of the biological and chemical impossibility of the reversal of basic chemical reactions, and all the way down to an understanding of physics so profound that we can split atoms, and which informs us conclusively that certain processes are irreversible on an energy level.

If you wish to have a debate on whether our understanding of classical thermodynamics is any less firm than our understanding of earth's shape, that's a debate I'd be delighted to have. Before we do, I'd require you to answer a few basic questions about biology, chemistry and physics to make sure you'd be able to keep up with the subject matter. I don't want the debate to transform into me giving you a free lecture on middle school level science.

Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit. You are correct that we thoroughly understand the mechanisms of the body and it's organs. Thorough understanding does nothing to answer the question whether organs work in accordance with these laws 100% of the time, or whether on a single occasion in the ancient history the laws have been suspended. The reason that it is very very unlikely is not because we understand how the mechanisms work, but because we have been around for quite some time and we have never observed them being suspended. That's why extraordinary evidence is required for the claim that a body was once brought back from the dead. Roundness of the earth is being observed at this moment, the claim that the earth is flat can be falsified at this instant, it's a whole different type of claim. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one.

If you want people to take you seriously, make serious arguments. You are making a horrible analogy, that's all, and that might be the reason why people here tend to stop replying to your posts after reading the first one. Let me explain what you are doing wrong here, just to help you out a bit.


Analogies are only illustrative. They are didactic tools. They are neither proof nor evidence. As such, they are not expected to be perfect. Goose's analogy of the assassination of Caesar to the resurrection of Christ is apt since both require historical evidence. He goes wrong when he ignores that one involves a special pleading of supernatural intervention and the other does not.

Granted, both analogies illustrate a valid point. However, both of these guys used their analogies as a justification, which validates my criticism, doesn't it?

Goose explicitly demands that if one grants Ceasar's assassination, he should also grant the resurrection, this is where my criticism steps in.

NENB at least seemed to implicitly suggest that the flat earth and the resurrection would be comparable in terms of standard of evidence. If it was offered just as an illustration, then I'll have to take back my criticism.

NENB's analogy is apt in that a flat Earth and and the resurrection are both impossible without a suspension of what we know about scientific principles.

Except that the latter would just mean that the laws of nature are not as consistent as we thought they are, while the former can be falsified at this instant by a direct observation. There is no valid comparison here, is there?

[Jax Agnesson]

Saul of Tarsus declared that women should be silent, that homosexuality is an abomination, that everyone should hand over a chunk of their hard-earned to him, and so on and on, page after tedious page. And his declarations supposedly derive authority from his being a disciple of Jesus, who supposedly gets his authority from being God.

And Stalin and Mao, leaders of explicitly atheist regimes, slaughtered millions of their own citizens. And rather more recently than Saul of Tarsus did his thing. Do you by chance have evidence of leaders of explicitly Christian regimes slaughtering millions of their own citizens any time in recent memory, or any time at all?

Do you by chance have any reason for suspecting that I have anything other than utter loathing for Stalin or Mao? Christians have great reverence for Saul and Jesus. What do Mao or Stalin have to do with the fact that I think Saul's followers do not have the right to impose their prejudices and superstitions onto the rest of us? I think Stalin's preachings are contemptible too. So what's your point?

These days there are very powerful economic/political forces at work, trying to legislate us all into obeying this primitive bile, trying to get claptrap taught to our children as science and history, trying to prevent women claiming the right to determine their control over their own bodies. This is social and moral poison, and it's being spread in the name of this ludicrous 'god'.

I don't disagree that there are conservative religion based political forces within western culture.

I do disagree that any poster here possesses the power to talk those people out of their beliefs, unless you can provide evidence of having done that. Could we have the list of converts please? Where is the evidence?

I'm not sure it makes sense for you to be demanding such evidence, Phil.
Here's the sequence of events from my POV.
Philbert makes an observation: people have been debating the existence of God for yonks, and have concluded precisely nothing verifiable.
Perfectly sound observation, Phil!
Philbert draws a conclusion from his observation: further debate about the existence of god is unlikely to produce verifiable conclusions in the future.
Perfectly sound conclusion, Phil.
Philbert discovers that there exists an internet site dedicated to precisely the sort of activity that Philbert considers a waste of time.
Phil joins this site, tries to explain that everyone is wasting their time, apparently with the expectation that anyone who realises this activity is a waste of time will stop debating Christianity and Religion, and therefore will presumably have no further reason for frequenting the site.
Phil himself does not leave the site.
Phil doesn't understand why people keep making points if there is no evidence that they have any effect.

Any chance of a rationalisation, Phil?