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?

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 4:06 pm

double post - removed.

no evidence no belief · Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:06 pm

JohnA wrote:
no evidence no belief wrote: Hey guys, my thread seems to have degraded back into silliness and name calling. I don't want to have it shut down, so can you please all stick to the topic, and try to keep it friendly and civilized?

If you are a theist, and believe you have some evidence for any supernatural claim, can you please present it, so we can discuss it?

JohnA, Denmark and other atheists: For the purposes of this thread which is aimed at discussion with theists, can we please agree to disagree on the nuances of the terminology we use to describe the fact that there is no evidence/no valid evidence for the supernatural?

I will open another thread where we can discuss the epistemology of evidence, where we can continue the debate we've been having over the last couple of days, ok?
No evidence no belief,

The premise of the OP question (Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?) is incorrect. Because:
1) It is against and contradicts religious dogma/doctrine of faith/core principles
2) It is in direct conflict with literature and application of 'evidence'
3) It is in direct conflict with literature and use of 'faith'

I pointed the above out, but you reject this. I am not sure why, only you know why.

Hi JohnA, I address your concern above in this thread.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:24 pm

no evidence no belief wrote:
JohnA wrote:
no evidence no belief wrote: Hey guys, my thread seems to have degraded back into silliness and name calling. I don't want to have it shut down, so can you please all stick to the topic, and try to keep it friendly and civilized?

If you are a theist, and believe you have some evidence for any supernatural claim, can you please present it, so we can discuss it?

JohnA, Denmark and other atheists: For the purposes of this thread which is aimed at discussion with theists, can we please agree to disagree on the nuances of the terminology we use to describe the fact that there is no evidence/no valid evidence for the supernatural?

I will open another thread where we can discuss the epistemology of evidence, where we can continue the debate we've been having over the last couple of days, ok?
No evidence no belief,

The premise of the OP question (Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?) is incorrect. Because:
1) It is against and contradicts religious dogma/doctrine of faith/core principles
2) It is in direct conflict with literature and application of 'evidence'
3) It is in direct conflict with literature and use of 'faith'

I pointed the above out, but you reject this. I am not sure why, only you know why.
Hi JohnA, I address your concern above in this thread.

Actually, that post is from McCulloch, directed at you.

In fact, McCulloch uses the exact same information (he copied Wikipedia without stating the source). Think he may appended some of his own writings as well.... (but there is still evidence to be considered - does not mean it is evidence for the assertion, since the assertion is not "proved yet")
Another fact (I am not sure if you read my post or conveniently preferred to ignore it) is that I addressed and explained what McCulloch referenced (the Wikipedia bit): - see point 8)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 723#612723

Therefore, I have to agree that McCulloch is correct. And it is still open why you refuse to acknowledge or understand McCulloch's reply, which is also completely in line with my explanation.

Besides, that only addresses point 2 of my previous post, not point 1 or 3. And you have not shown point 2 false, In fact, you just reject McCulloch's reply and mine for some reason.

Am sorry, but your premise of the OP question is still flawed. Do not hold this against me, this is NOT personal (at least not from my side, I can not speak for you, I can only ask not to make it personal).

Edit:
If you wanted to eliminate this erroneous use of "evidence" in the OP, it could have stated:

Let's cut to the chase. Do you have information/data/facts/anything else to submit as "presented" evidence in support for your assertion your god/supernatural/etc. exists?

Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is in support of your assertion - show/argue that.
Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is falsifiable (able to be shown false, therefore testable/observable*) - show/argue that.

This presented evidence can then be evaluated, and If shown to be falsifiable and in support the assertion, then it would be classified as "approved" evidence.

* that does not only applies to scientific information/data/facts/anything else, it applies in general (and you could ask for this since they need to meet your skepticism). But I would argue that the assertion that a god/god/supernatural exists(s) is indeed a scientific assertion (claim) anyway.

But the problem with the above is that it ignores FAITH, and the Religious Dogma - points 1 and 3 mentioned above. So the theist needs to argue that his faith and dogma is wrong, which ironically then means the theist is not auguring for his god, but for some other undefined (maybe Judaism g-d that seems to be excused from the burden of proof by magic, obscurantism and incoherence).

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 5:58 pm

Hmmm. Concealing your "reply" at the end of a response to another poster... "Clever," I suppose.

Let's examine it.

JohnA wrote: ....

On a side note.
There are some here that seem to reject the fact that Jewish people (following the Judaism religion or not, i.e. Jews and religious leaders in Judaism), share a core of principles. It may not be defined as dogma or doctrine, but it fits into that description and indeed the core principles exist.

Pretending, once again, that I said that there are "no beliefs" in Judaism, when I very clearly said that there are no "REQUIRED beliefs" -- and proved it with links to several reputable sources.

No attempt to justify or support this deliberate blurring of very clear statements in order to put words in my mouth.

That to me is an insult to all the Jews, and it makes it worse that a Judaism follower makes such incoherent claims that infer no suck core principles exist.

Repeating that deliberate distortion and misstatement of everything I've said, and now using that deception to claim "insult to all the Jews" -- while not mentioning your own statements that Judaism is a "patently false religion," that "religion poisons everything," and that you "despise all religion," as if those are NOT insults to Jews.

This Judaism follower claims a "true version of Judaism"...

Yet another blatant falsehood; I have never claimed any such thing.

...but has not lived up to his burden of proof.

Ignoring, predictably, my question of why a person who makes no supernatural claims has a "burden of proof."

In fact he denies having an affiliation with it, it seems, only when it does not suit his beliefs.

Another clumsy and obvious self-serving falsehood. I am not Orthodox, but that does not mean I deny that I am a Jew.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail.

Alleged, and repeatedly, but never demonstrated. Only claimed.

One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

Nonsense. My posts are much clearer than your own, which I have repeated addressed directly, analyzed, and proven to be inaccurate at best and deliberately deceptive at worst -- without a word of counterargument from you, only repeated unsupported claims.

I assume that you have reported my posts. Tell me, what "uncivility" did you allege? And what was the response?

To me honest...

No comment on THAT remark.

... I can not make out what he is arguing at all, it's all over the place. Nothing new I suppose.

Correction: You PRETEND. I've made myself clear, over and over, but you still claim that I have said things that I have never said, without any smallest attempt to prove your claims or to refute my OWN points about YOUR posts. Seems you do that a LOT around here, from what I've seen. It's a clumsy tactic, and it's fooling no one.

The same user seems to deny these 3 points...

That I have said things I've never said, and for which you have offered no proof or evidence -- only insisting against all hope and common sense that no one will see through your blatant misrepresentations of what I've clearly said?

I do, indeed, deny these phony so-called "points," because they are, simply put, egregiously false.

...offering, it seems, that Jews have no core principles...

The same old obvious misrepresentation, repeated yet again. Hopeless, and still you cling to it as if no one can see it.

...to signal that, it seems, the OP question is also flawed when it comes it to Judaism.

At last, an accurate statement.

As I said in my very first post to this interminable thread: "The gross oversimplification of "religion" as "supernatural belief" makes no more sense than characterizing "political convictions" as "the uncritical swallowing of partisan propaganda." That both of those characterizations are often wholly accurate does not mean that they ALWAYS are. This logical fallacy even has a formal name: a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, or "destroying the exception."

Simply put, there are varieties of religious expression that require no evidence, since they make no supernatural claims. That does not, of course, apply to all Jews or to all expressions of Judaism; but to pretend that it applies to NONE of them is simply inaccurate, and when insisted upon in the face of so much evidence that there ARE such varieties of religion, it may very will shade over into dishonesty -- or at best, mere argument for argument's sake in an obstinate refusal to actually engage.

Jewish people has give all of us so many things, and for someone (one of their own via conversion) to put the Jews down is not on, it's derogatory.

And calling Judaism a "patently false religion" that "poisons everything" along with all other religions -- ISN'T "derogatory"?

You have failed to address these 3 points. In fact, you are insisting, it seems, to deny they even exist.

Yes, I have; because they don't. You've made them all up and tried to stuff them into my mouth, and you clearly can't or won't respond to my posts in any substantive way, I would guess because that phony and deceptive tactic is all you have -- and I'm not sitting still for it.

That is, in my opinion, why you are not getting any response: the premise of the OP question is patently flawed.

Oh, but I AM getting a response; I've gotten several, each repeating the same old distortions and phony accusations; and I'll keep answering them as long as you keep trying to misrepresent and misstate the things I have said, without ever attempting to address any of them as I have presented them -- and as long as you do not retract your patently false claims, to wit: that I "condemn" and "reject" science, that I hold that my "version" of my religion is the only true one and that all others are false, that I have posted anything "derogatory" of anything, that I have attempted to "paint science, religion and atheism as the same, and so on, and so on.

You seem to have backed away from all those claims now. Do you REALLY want to discuss points that have not been addressed on this thread? I'm ready. Start with those.

I'm not even hinting any more that I won't respond to your feeble attempts to defend your distortions and falsehoods. I WILL be responding, and pointing out exactly what you're doing, as long as you keep coming back with these ludicrous attempts to put words into my mouth without any attempt to deal with the things I've actually said.

"Beliefs." "REQUIRED beliefs." Not the same thing. Everybody here can see that, except, apparently, you -- or so you would have us believe.

Carry on; I'll be here. I'm not letting you get away with this, no matter where you try to "sell" it.

no evidence no belief · Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:31 pm

JohnA wrote: If you wanted to eliminate this erroneous use of "evidence" in the OP, it could have stated:

Let's cut to the chase. Do you have information/data/facts/anything else to submit as "presented" evidence in support for your assertion your god/supernatural/etc. exists?

Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is in support of your assertion - show/argue that.
Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is falsifiable (able to be shown false, therefore testable/observable) - show/argue that.

This presented evidence can then be evaluated, and If shown to be falsifiable and in support of the assertion, then it would be classified as "approved" evidence.

I wholeheartedly accept this wording.

Everybody, please consider the wording of my OP amended as per JohnA's idea above.

From now, instead of saying "personal testimony counts as evidence of a claim", I will say "personal testimony counts as presented evidence of a claim", and instead of saying "personal testimony is evidence which fails to meet the burden of proof for supernatural claims", I will say "personal testimony is not approved evidence for supernatural claims".

JohnA wrote:But the problem with the above is that it ignores FAITH, and the Religious Dogma - points 1 and 3 mentioned above.

Well, I think we're coming to the same idea from different angles.

You see, many Christian apologists do claim that there is evidence for their beliefs. By asking them to present this "evidence" and demonstrating to them that it is not actually evidence, I finally make them realize that which you obviously understood all along: That their belief is based on faith.

I agree with you 100% that there is no "approved evidence" for talking donkeys, zombie invasions, etc, and belief in such things is based exclusively on faith. It's not me you have to convince of this, it's the theists who misguidedly claim there is "approved evidence" for their beliefs.

All I am doing is asking people to present the evidence, so we can evaluate it and determine if we can approve this evidence.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 6:37 pm

Hmmm.

There is no dogma/doctrines, but there are core principles

Core principles can not be classified as dogma/doctrine because obscurantism and incoherence is on offer

He speaks for all Judaism when it suits his beliefs, but only for his version of it when it does not suit his beliefs. If he did not have the belief that his version is the true version, then why was he indoctrinated into his version Judaism, and not the orthodox version or any other one? Why even Judaism in general, he clearly rejected Christianity, so his version of Judaism MUST be the true version.

Yet he refuses to tell us why his obvious true version of Judaism is better than any other Judaism versions, or any other religion, or their religious versions.

He knows them all, and by magic picked the true clean correct version of out thousands on offer.

He knows something I do not! Why not tell us, share this information, this knowledge. Or is it one of these that he knows when not asked, but do not know when asked?

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail.

Inferring someone has the intelligence of a 13-year old, are distorting the truth...but is now "clever"

One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

My atheist friend can not become a Jew, unless surrenders to these core principles (and some other non-existing laws, rules, or do they exist)?

No answer on that, hmm. Is that racism, discrimination or dare I say a form of Antisemitism (that makes no sense to me, so probably not)?

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. I can not make out what he is arguing at all, it's all over the place. Nothing new I suppose.

Proof belongs to math (logic) and math alone. Well, to whiskey if you know what I mean.
Asking for evidence for his assertions, hmmm. Not knowing what evidence is or how to process it

Stating he (or his true version of Judaism or Judaism in general - he has yet to decide that one) has no burden of proof. And it seems to me that is a direct rejection of the Torah and what other versions of Judaism pontificate. Why would that not be against the Jews that do not hold his view , or maybe that is too strong since his version of Judaism is cleanly the right version.

I stick to what Jew C Hitchens said about religion: it poisons everything. No response from him on that,

My 3 points and the OP false premise ref were not directed at him, yet he responded to it.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

Debating point for point or in his case sentence by sentence (missing the points completely) is to me, it seems, rather amateurish in respect to debate style.

Hence, I am not really sure what on earth he is selling here. It think he is selling fideism, but he has yet to give more information/data/facts before I can confirm that. It is in "pending" approval state...

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 7:04 pm

no evidence no belief wrote:
JohnA wrote: If you wanted to eliminate this erroneous use of "evidence" in the OP, it could have stated:

Let's cut to the chase. Do you have information/data/facts/anything else to submit as "presented" evidence in support for your assertion your god/supernatural/etc. exists?

Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is in support of your assertion - show/argue that.
Make sure that this information/data/facts/anything else is falsifiable (able to be shown false, therefore testable/observable) - show/argue that.

This presented evidence can then be evaluated, and If shown to be falsifiable and in support of the assertion, then it would be classified as "approved" evidence.
I wholeheartedly accept this wording.

Everybody, please consider the wording of my OP amended as per JohnA's idea above.

From now, instead of saying "personal testimony counts as evidence of a claim", I will say "personal testimony counts as presented evidence of a claim", and instead of saying "personal testimony is evidence which fails to meet the burden of proof for supernatural claims", I will say "personal testimony is not approved evidence for supernatural claims".

JohnA wrote:But the problem with the above is that it ignores FAITH, and the Religious Dogma - points 1 and 3 mentioned above.
Well, I think we're coming to the same idea from different angles.

You see, many Christian apologists do claim that there is evidence for their beliefs. By asking them to present this "evidence" and demonstrating to them that it is not actually evidence, I finally make them realize that which you obviously understood all along: That their belief is based on faith.

I agree with you 100% that there is no "approved evidence" for talking donkeys, zombie invasions, etc, and belief in such things is based exclusively on faith. It's not me you have to convince of this, it's the theists who misguidedly claim there is "approved evidence" for their beliefs.

All I am doing is asking people to present the evidence, so we can evaluate it and determine if we can approve this evidence.

Finally, sigh. Agreement on point 2.
I take that as an apology and retraction of your previous claims that I was "way off or incoherent or cancer or you're having a fascinating debate with some imaginary entity/friend or do not begrudge you the right to use your language or truly don't care about what you're saying or whatever". OK?

You do now get it. This makes me very very happy.
Am just not sure everyone (will not mention the person, but he is a type of atheist, but also denies he is, but knows there is no god; non-theist knows there is no god, but refuses to tell us how he knows it

) will agree to this. You are clearly going against his instructions, his unsolicited demand. Are you this cancer that he referred to, or was that me (because he can not answer my questions - or some unknown cognitive dissonance), or both of us, or some other user(s), or some fictional character that also has inadmissible evidence for its non-existence because it appeared to him and said so?

The other 2 points still remain.

Well, I think we're coming to the same idea from different angles.

There is no need to come to that conclusion, because it is already stated, it is KNOWLEDGE (justified true belief).
This KNOWLEDGE comes from the def of FAITH and in their Dogma. Furthermore, it is "confirmed" by science in that there is NO hypothesis for "god/gods/supernatural exists(s)" - which means there is NO evidence (not even "presented" evidence). There can no be as it would be in direct conflict with faith and their dogmas (and yes, there is not a single religion that I know of that does not offer faith/dogmas - atheism is not a religion besides not relying on faith at all). And that is why science do not even bother.
I first supported you, and then you rejected the def of faith (Post 1803 - and history). That is where it all went wrong. And now it seemd you agree with me, or is this still open?

Again, I think it is better to educate on what is FAITH, a faith based belief, than to humiliate. I think it is better to ask theists how faith can be rationalized. Some Religions (Catholicism, Judaism - or some versions of it) have tried.
My friend here that offers his "true version" of Judaism and rubbish all other Judaism/Religion/denominations in general is trying to do this by rejecting faith and the burden of proof. I find that utterly incoherent. Am not sure if you agree. But I think he actually is in more agreement that than disagreement with me re your OP question. Our Non-theist (he/she is not an atheist or a type of?) seems to agree with your original OP question, but also agree with my Jewish indoctrinated friend that rejects your original OP question. I remember our non-theist friend also disagreeing with you on the evidence thing as well- Post 1768. Ironic, don't you think?
Therefore, I am not really sure what on earth they are selling here. It think my Jewish indoctrinated friend is selling fideism to rationalize faith, but he has yet to give more information/data/facts before I can confirm that. Perhaps our non-theist friend is also selling that too because he knows god(s) do not exist (but there IS evidence), but can not tell us how he knows this. Post 1803 remains unanswered.

What do you think?
{Am asking because this is probably the first post in this thread from you that seems plausible (not ref my point 1 and 3 obviously)}

Post by **otseng** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 9:41 pm

JohnA wrote: Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. I can not make out what he is arguing at all, it's all over the place. Nothing new I suppose.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

Debating point for point or in his case sentence by sentence (missing the points completely) is to me, it seems, rather amateurish in respect to debate style.

Moderator Warning

These comments I do not find very civil.

There have been several moderator interventions lately in this thread. I am quite tempted to shut down this thread...

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

cnorman18 · Post by **cnorman18** » Thu Nov 14, 2013 10:09 pm

JohnA wrote: Hmmm.

There is no dogma/doctrines, but there are core principles.

When and where did I say that?

Core principles can not be classified as dogma/doctrine because obscurantism and incoherence is on offer.

YOU'RE using those terms. Not me -- and SAYING "incoherence" and "obscurantism" doesn't prove that they're really in evidence. Those are just claims -- or, more properly, cheap excuses for not actually responding to my arguments.

I'll be asking you a few SIMPLE, DIRECT QUESTIONS presently. Let's see if you can actually ANSWER any.

He speaks for all Judaism when it suits his beliefs, but only for his version of it when it does not suit his beliefs. If he did not have the belief that his version is the true version, then why was he indoctrinated into his version Judaism, and not the orthodox version or any other one? Why even Judaism in general, he clearly rejected Christianity, so his version of Judaism MUST be the true version.

All of which is mere smoke-blowing. Who says I was "indoctrinated" into anything? I CHOSE to follow Judaism. I've already explained that I hold no other religion, or branch of Judaism, to be "wrong." If you claim that's not true -- well, where is your evidence that you can read my mind?

Yet he refuses to tell us why his obvious true version of Judaism is better than any other Judaism versions, or any other religion, or their religious versions.

It suits my taste. That's all I have to say, because that's the truth. I like the "version" I've chosen, and my choice no more demands any "proof" or "evidence" than the fact that I like butter pecan ice cream better than chocolate -- nor does that mean that I think chocolate is "wrong."

He knows them all, and by magic picked the true clean correct version of out thousands on offer.

And I said this where, exactly?

He knows something I do not! Why not tell us, share this information, this knowledge. Or is it one of these that he knows when not asked, but do not know when asked?

Descending into mere mean-spirited goading now, still basing it all on your falsifying my views and distorting my statements. Your favorite modus operandi.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail.

Prove it. Respond to my questions below.

If you can.

Inferring someone has the intelligence of a 13-year old, are distorting the truth...but is now "clever"

Never said that, either. Feel free to prove otherwise. And saying that hiding your response inside another was "clever" was OBVIOUSLY ironic.

One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

More unsubstantiated claims -- and STILL not a single example of my being "uncivil."

My atheist friend can not become a Jew, unless surrenders to these core principles (and some other non-existing laws, rules, or do they exist)? No answer on that, hmm.

Did you ASK anything? Those look like unsupported allegations to me, not questions.

Is that racism, discrimination or dare I say a form of Antisemitism (that makes no sense to me, so probably not)?

Beats me. You're playing this game in your head; I'm not.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. I can not make out what he is arguing at all, it's all over the place. Nothing new I suppose.

Repeating your unsubstantiated claims STiLL doesn't make them true. The fact that you DISAGREE with something doesn't make it "incoherent."

Proof belongs to math (logic) and math alone. Well, to whiskey if you know what I mean.

Oh, so you don't have to prove that anything you say has anything to do with reality? You can just make up things and claim I said them, and we're all supposed to accept it?

Asking for evidence for his assertions, hmmm. Not knowing what evidence is or how to process it

Now that's about as transparent as it gets. I'm asking for YOU to show that I've said ANY of the things you claim I've said. Not "evidence for my assertions" -- evidence that I ever MADE them. Funny how you seem not to understand that...

Stating he (or his true version of Judaism or Judaism in general - he has yet to decide that one) has no burden of proof.

Another blatant falsehood. I repeat:

"My beliefs dont require evidence, because I dont profess to know even if there IS a God, in any conventional sense, and I dont believe in the supernatural" (few Jews do -- we dont have faith healers and the like).

"I also said this: For those of us who make no supernatural claims, why should the question of evidence be important? Some Jews DO make such claims, and for them your questions are quite valid; but not all of us do.

Go ahead; ignore it again. There it is, in black and white. You've seen that three times now, and STILL have never had a single syllable to say about it -- except to misrepresent it to suit your own purposes, of course.

And it seems to me that is a direct rejection of the Torah and what other versions of Judaism pontificate. Why would that not be against the Jews that do not hold his view , or maybe that is too strong since his version of Judaism is cleanly the right version.

The sarcasm doesn't become you, since that is all nonsense. The Torah doesn't "pontificate" anything; it's a BOOK. Only people can "pontificate," like those who falsify others' statements and then arrogantly refuse to defend their blatantly false versions of what the other person said.

I stick to what Jew C Hitchens said about religion: it poisons everything. No response from him on that.

Of course I responded to that; I asked if that wasn't "insulting to Jews" and "derogatory." No answer to THOSE questions, I notice.

My 3 points and the OP false premise ref were not directed at him, yet he responded to it.

Really? Sure sounded like you were accusing me of not responding to your phony "points" -- just like you did immediately above that claim.

Incoherency galore; chasing your own tail. One can not respond to his post because it is riddled in incoherency, contradiction and is rather uncivil.

More unsubstantiated claims.

Debating point for point or in his case sentence by sentence (missing the points completely) is to me, it seems, rather amateurish in respect to debate style.

You only get to claim that if you RESPOND to my points, which you here admit that you have read; and since you understand that they are point-by-point and sentence-by-sentence responses to your own posts, you thereby admit that they are NOT "incoherent" -- another word of which you don't seem to know the definition.

Hence, I am not really sure what on earth he is selling here. It think he is selling fideism, but he has yet to give more information/data/facts before I can confirm that. It is in "pending" approval state...

Enough of that smoke-blowing. Let's see if you can answer some SIMPLE, DIRECT QUESTIONS:

(1) When and where did I say that Judaism "has no beliefs," without the qualifier "REQUIRED"? Give the quote.

(2) When and where did I say that Judaism, or my own interpretation of it if you like, is "best" and that all others are "wrong"? Give the quote. (As opposed to your mindreading claim that I MUST have MEANT that, by the mere fact that I made a choice about which you know nothing.)

(3) What have I said that is "derogatory," according to the definition I posted from Merriam-Webster? (as opposed to your unsubstantiated and unexampled CLAIM that I have done so.) While you're at it, where and when and exactly WHAT did I say that was "uncivil"?

(4) Where and when did I say, or indicate, that I "condemn" or "reject" science? (As opposed to another mindreading claim that I somehow "must" reject science because I hold a "supernatural" belief -- which I don't.)

(5) Where and when, and in precisely what exact words, was my "attempt to paint science, religion and atheism as the "same""?

(6) Is calling Judaism a "patently false religion" that "poisons everything" not "derogatory"? If not, why not?

(7) Can you explain how the "central authority" over the Jewish community can be the people of the Jewish community?

(8) Can you explain how "an atheist can never become a Jew" when there are Jewish Atheists in every branch of Judaism as well as an entire branch of the Jewish religion that is explicitly atheist? (And, sorry, but the ALLEGED existence of your friend who supposedly makes that claim does NOT trump the multiple sources I've given, nor the EXISTENCE of an entire branch of Judaism.)

(9) Can you explain how simply noting that such a denomination of Judaism exists is somehow "redefining atheism"?

And finally:

(10) Can you explain what the "burden of proof" is for a person who makes no supernatural claims?

There; ten questions, clear, simple and eminently "coherent." You don't need to do any research at all beyond this thread and your own thoughts; just show where I said the things that you have repeatedly claimed that I have (1 through 5), and explain, justify or provide evidence for the things YOU have said that I've listed here (6 though 10) -- and note that ALL of those, 6-10, are direct quotes, which is more than YOU'VE ever offered for your claims about MY posts.

You've made a lot of claims on this thread, about what I have supposedly said and on several other matters. Can you back them up?

Let's see what you've got -- or if you're just going to blow more smoke, posting another string of unsubstantiated claims while offering NOTHING but your own twisted distortions of things I've said -- and more ducks and dodges about the other claims you've made.

It's a simple challenge that will reveal much; you will answer these direct questions directly -- or you WON'T. The result should be pretty conclusive. Everyone here will see what you post. Let's see what you've got.

JohnA · Post by **JohnA** » Fri Nov 15, 2013 1:05 am

Nothing new here. Just the same old; more information/facts/data littered in obscurantism - as expected, as predicted.

I do not debate fideists or creationists.
Nor will I surrender to a warped debate style, or surrender my critical faculties. I refuse. Why should I?
Additionally, I have answered all questions, but when I am not being treated the same, or even offered acknowledgment of the fact that I have answered the questions, then why play. Why engage at all when you saw these broken promises that shows written words has been shown conclusively untrustworthy.
One can explain it, but can't make another understand it. This is what happens when someone adopts another authority's belief/faith/fideism/principles. The filter of reason has been installed so long that it is impossible for the authority or adopter to realize it is broken. These filters let the rubbish get through, masquerading it as reality when in fact it's just faulty beliefs, completely uninformed by reality.