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?

[cnorman18]

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

You describe your own post here quite accurately. Thanks!

Now let us dissect and refute this exercise in ducking and dodging, line-by-line and sentence-by-sentence.

I do not debate fideists or creationists.

I am neither, as the old members here know. If you think you can show otherwise, feel free.

(Of course, it's much easier to just claim without evidence that you already have, isn't it?)

Nor will I surrender to a warped debate style...

Asking simple, direct, and on-point questions is a "warped debate style"?

Let me guess: You're too high-and-mighty and above-it-all to answer THAT simple question too... Or have you already done it?

...or surrender my critical faculties. I refuse. Why should I?

When and where have I ever asked you to do that?

Oh, I forgot already. You don't answer simple, direct and on-point questions about your own statements. That's a "warped debate style."

Additionally, I have answered all questions...

A plain old falsehood.

I say you haven't, even after repeated demands to do so.

If you could have shown where I said the things you claim, you would have; you've ATTEMPTED to do so several times, but EACH of those attempts have been conclusively refuted EVERY TIME, starting with your ludicrous conflation of "beliefs" and "REQUIRED beliefs" (which you apparently stand by, even as we speak). You have never explained your various other false claims and blatant misstatements, either; once again, if you could have, you would have.

Another plain, simple question that you will no doubt refuse to answer:

Why would you refuse to prove me a liar and a fool, if you could actually do it?

No, no, don't tell me; you already have, right? Even though doing so AGAIN, in response to these simple, direct and pertinent questions, would HIGHLIGHT your brilliance and integrity?

...but when I am not being treated the same, or even offered acknowledgment of the fact that I have answered the questions...

Why would ANYONE "acknowledge" something that is patently FALSE? Why would you demand that anyone would?

...then why play. Why engage at all when you saw these broken promises that shows written words has been shown conclusively untrustworthy.

Why not?

Why not PROVE this "untrustworthiness" that you CLAIM? Why not PROVE that your statements are true and coherent?

And now the outright namecalling, smoke-blowing and OBSCURANTISM begins....

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.

ALL of which, of course, is nothing but an elaborate exercise in NAMECALLING -- MORE unsubstantiated claims and thinly-veiled insults, offered as EXCUSES for REFUSING TO ANSWER ten simple, direct questions that are ALL directly pertinent to this discussion.

If you could have answered ANY of these questions, you would have -- gleefully doing a victory dance as you posted the quotations from my posts and posturing as wise and eloquent as you explained and proved the truth of your other unfounded claims. If you could have done ANY of that, you'd have done it in a heartbeat and celebrated your victory after having done so.

Instead, you merely -- and pathetically, and transparently -- claim, without a shred of evidence or a leg to stand on, that you have already done those things, when, as is clear to everyone here, you have NOT. Similarly, if you could PROVE that you've already done these things, you would have, and rubbed my nose in it while you did it.

Refusing to answer simple, direct questions; falsely claiming to have already done so, without proof or evidence of any kind that your claim is true... Now if THAT isn't a "warped debating style," I'd like to know what one looks like.

My own conclusion -- and, I suspect, that of anyone who's reading these exchanges -- is that you CAN'T answer these simple, direct and on-point questions, and are frantically repeating your unfounded accusations and claims in a desperate effort to conceal and distract from the plain fact that YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS.

Your OWN "debating style" consists of stuffing words into the mouths of others while refusing to acknowledge or engage the things they HAVE said, and then claiming victory and superiority while denigrating their integrity and thinking abilities -- all of which tactics and habits you have demonstrated in these exchanges with me.

On balance, I think we're done here.

Or not. If -- I say IF -- you can come up with anything better, go for it. I'll be watching. Otherwise -- I can no longer be bothered refuting your clumsy and obvious prevarications -- and OBSCURANTISM.

Thanks for playing. Have a nice day.

(Phffft.)

[Jax Agnesson]

[quote="cnorman18...I like butter pecan ice cream better than chocolate -- nor does that mean that I think chocolate is "wrong." [/quote]
But chocolate ice-cream is wrong. It just is! Don't you see that?

[cnorman18]

...I like butter pecan ice cream better than chocolate -- nor does that mean that I think chocolate is "wrong."

But chocolate ice-cream is wrong. It just is! Don't you see that?

Sure, but my wife likes it. What's a fellow to do?

She's a DARK chocolate girl, which is even MORE wrong. But then, I like WHITE chocolate, which she thinks is an abomination. Enh.

I'm okay with people having different tastes, even in religion -- until they begin trying to limit or restrain OTHER people's rights to believe or practice differently, or trying to force their religious agendas into public policy. Fundamentalist Christians think I'm going to Hell because I left the Christian Church and became a Jew. I don't agree, but I'm perfectly OK with them thinking and believing that -- as long as they'll just let me go to Hell in peace!

[alive]

Its been months since I've been on this thread...Has evidence been established?

Their irrefutable faith dogma says there is no evidence.
Some atheists and theists reject this dogma for some strange reason.
Do you think that a faith based belief can yield any evidence?
If so, how is that logical?

I have faith and 100% belief that a faith based belief will only provide evidence only of their belief...

[alive]

Its been months since I've been on this thread...Has evidence been established?

nope

Except for random ramblings of various sorts, we've had Goose claiming that a putrefied brain-dead, heart-dead, maggot-infested carcass of a carpenter, with blood fully clotted in its veins and failed liver, kidneys, lungs, etc, after decomposing in the middle-eastern heat for 3 days, came back to life and then flew into the sky like Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer.

His evidence for this: He claims that some people wrote down that they saw it happen.

That's on hell of a Carpenter... Mine screwed up our Kitchen Cabinets...

[Jax Agnesson]

...I like butter pecan ice cream better than chocolate -- nor does that mean that I think chocolate is "wrong."

But chocolate ice-cream is wrong. It just is! Don't you see that?

Sure, but my wife likes it. What's a fellow to do?

She's a DARK chocolate girl, which is even MORE wrong. But then, I like WHITE chocolate, which she thinks is an abomination. Enh.

I'm okay with people having different tastes, even in religion -- until they begin trying to limit or restrain OTHER people's rights to believe or practice differently, or trying to force their religious agendas into public policy. Fundamentalist Christians think I'm going to Hell because I left the Christian Church and became a Jew. I don't agree, but I'm perfectly OK with them thinking and believing that -- as long as they'll just let me go to Hell in peace!

You can borrow my handcart for the journey if you like. Don't bother posting it back, I'll come down for it.
PS. The chocolate preference in our household is precisely the opposite of yours. Maybe we're Reform?

[cnorman18]

...I like butter pecan ice cream better than chocolate -- nor does that mean that I think chocolate is "wrong."

But chocolate ice-cream is wrong. It just is! Don't you see that?

Sure, but my wife likes it. What's a fellow to do?

She's a DARK chocolate girl, which is even MORE wrong. But then, I like WHITE chocolate, which she thinks is an abomination. Enh.

I'm okay with people having different tastes, even in religion -- until they begin trying to limit or restrain OTHER people's rights to believe or practice differently, or trying to force their religious agendas into public policy. Fundamentalist Christians think I'm going to Hell because I left the Christian Church and became a Jew. I don't agree, but I'm perfectly OK with them thinking and believing that -- as long as they'll just let me go to Hell in peace!

You can borrow my handcart for the journey if you like. Don't bother posting it back, I'll come down for it.
PS. The chocolate preference in our household is precisely the opposite of yours. Maybe we're Reform?

I thought it was a "handbasket," and I already have some of those.

Nah. ANY kind of chocolate is any kind of Jewish, like chicken fat, salt and carbs.

[otseng]

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

Nor will I surrender to a warped debate style, or surrender my critical faculties.

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.

Moderator Warning


Please be civil and respectful in your posts.

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.

[no evidence no belief]

guys, some of you have strayed into territory that is tangentially related to the OP at best, and completely irrelevant at worse.

Can you all please make an effort to stick to the question asked: If you believe you have evidence for any supernatural belief, please present it, so that we can discuss it.

Thank you.

[Danmark]

guys, some of you have strayed into territory that is tangentially related to the OP at best, and completely irrelevant at worse.

Can you all please make an effort to stick to the question asked: If you believe you have evidence for any supernatural belief, please present it, so that we can discuss it.

Thank you.

I think it is fair to say that the book of Mark is the earliest and most reliable of the gospels. It ends abruptly with the report that Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James entered the tomb to find a 'young man' in a white robe. The man makes the claim that Jesus has risen, citing the emptiness of the tomb. That is hardly evidence of a miraculous event. There are no later reports in Mark of Jesus sightings; no mention of the ascension. These admissions were so glaring to those who wanted to assert a risen Christ and a divine being, that the anonymous forgery, 16:9"20 was added later.

This singular fact, of the added verses is very significant, perhaps definitively so, that there was no resurrection and certainly no ascension. It's as if after reported Elvis sightings, believed by his dearest fans, resulted in the doctoring of earlier news reports. If we are expected to take the 'Gospels' as 'gospel,' then we need to treat later additions as not only suspect in themselves, but as casting grave doubt [pun intended] on the entire process of New Testament authorship and 'reports.'