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?

[Sonofason]

Um, just a guess, Sonofason -- but by any chance, did you mean to write, "Well, of course I am not"? That would clear this up nicely.

By the way, I am not a "doctor" of anything. I was tempted to say "I just play one on the Internet," but that joke might have been misunderstood. I've never claimed to hold a doctorate.

Well, thanks for the heads up. It doesn't take much for people to be deceived and come to false conclusions. Nevertheless, I did mean what I said. I am quite qualified to determine what evidence is. I made no mistake in my comment that was directed to Goat. He does not understand what evidence is. He excludes every piece of evidence a Christian can put forth, and for what? To shut down the discussion? To win? No - personal testimony is evidence. The Bible and the words written in it are evidence. The Gospels are evidence. It's all evidence. And we all get to determine for ourselves whether or not the evidence has been convincing or not. Even my own personal experiences of God are evidence. If it is not evidence for you, it is nevertheless evidence for me. And then my testimony of my experience is evidence for you. And then you get to determine if my testimony is convincing or not. If not, so be it.

[Danmark]

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

Um... The obvious question...

Are you?

Well of course I am. But when people start tossing out evidences that they don't particularly like, then I know that they are not qualified to determine what evidence is.

Please explain why you are more qualified, or qualified at all to determine:

... what is and what is not evidence?
... that religious literature is not evidence?
... whether or not religious dogma is evidence?
... if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence?
... what is and what is not independently verifiable?

It is a very bold and self serving statement to claim you are qualified and even a greater claim to assert you are more qualified than Dr. Norman.

What is your basis for these claims?

Dear Danmark
Sonofason had written:

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

And then Goat wrote:

Well, that is the statement of belief. That is what you believe, and you have been conditioned to see your experiences as.

However, what is NOT presented is, you know, evidence.

Is there anything you can 'present' that is not religious literature, dogma, propaganda, or 'personal testimony' that can not be independently verified?

And then Sonofason wrote to Goat:

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

And then cnorman18 wrote:

Um... The obvious question...

Are you?

To which Sonofason responded:

Well of course I am. But when people start tossing out evidences that they don't particularly like, then I know that they are not qualified to determine what evidence is.

To which for some reason YOU wrote:

It is a very bold and self serving statement to claim you are qualified and even a greater claim to assert you are more qualified than Dr. Norman.

Please now show where I made a self serving statement claiming in any way whatsoever that I am more qualified than cnorman18. I think you should pay better attention to what's going on here.
Wake up.

OK. Fine. You wrote:
"Well of course I am. But when people start tossing out evidences that they don't particularly like, then I know that they are not qualified to determine what evidence is."
It is a very bold and self serving statement to claim you are qualified and even a greater claim to assert you are more qualified than Professor Goat. How are you more qualified than anyone?

[Goat]

Um, just a guess, Sonofason -- but by any chance, did you mean to write, "Well, of course I am not"? That would clear this up nicely.

By the way, I am not a "doctor" of anything. I was tempted to say "I just play one on the Internet," but that joke might have been misunderstood. I've never claimed to hold a doctorate.

Well, thanks for the heads up. It doesn't take much for people to be deceived and come to false conclusions. Nevertheless, I did mean what I said. I am quite qualified to determine what evidence is. I made no mistake in my comment that was directed to Goat. He does not understand what evidence is. He excludes every piece of evidence a Christian can put forth, and for what? To shut down the discussion? To win? No - personal testimony is evidence. The Bible and the words written in it are evidence. The Gospels are evidence. It's all evidence. And we all get to determine for ourselves whether or not the evidence has been convincing or not. Even my own personal experiences of God are evidence. If it is not evidence for you, it is nevertheless evidence for me. And then my testimony of my experience is evidence for you. And then you get to determine if my testimony is convincing or not. If not, so be it.

The Gospels fall under the category of religious dogma and propaganda. It is evidence, but it is not evidence of the validity of their claims. It is evidence of religious belief, not evidence of the validity of that belief.

It appears that your 'evidence' falls under the categories of religious dogma/propaganda/speculation, and subjective experience that you can not show anybody else.. nor can you explain WHY it's how you interpret it... or show how your experience can be independently verified.

[Wootah]

Please now show where I made a self serving statement claiming in any way whatsoever that I am more qualified than cnorman18. I think you should pay better attention to what's going on here.
Wake up.

Moderator Warning


Sonofason - you are under probation and still write stuff like this.

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.

[assisigirl]

Star, another dazzling performance from you Post 2159

assisigirl wrote:
Has anyone seen NENB around, or NEBE, as I affectionately call him (NoEvidenceBringEvidence)

Nebe's question from assisigirl


What did you know about Balaam's Donkey, before you included it in your OP.
(nothing/something/a lot/wrote a book about it, what?)

Is this what you're referring to?
(this is followed by a Star link to the numbers passage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
assisigirl: How can you answer a question that is specific to another person?
Why would you?
NEBE launched his 'evidence' crusade here with great gusto and all I want him to do is answer a simple question and provide evidence. You are obviously still smarting from having had your nose rubbed in it previously and are now meddling and masquerading as 'your brother's keeper'. Nice One!

[assisigirl]

Listen Star, Danmark, cnorman18, etc, etc,

Does this seem like an unreasonable request in the context of the 'swagger' displayed in the OP.

The only evidence I need are links to Forum Posts by you that display any knowledge of the afore mentioned quadruped. If you have many posts regarding this beast of burden, then three links will do to posts that pre-date the OP.
If your answer is D'oh, then no links necessary

He either knew something or nothing about what he wanted evidence for and if his position was one of total ignorance, proven by a lack of acceptable evidence, as dictated by me then, So be it. Simples


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhWlAKdlQp4

[JohnA]

"The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them;
but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming."
(Psalm 37:12-13)

"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you." (Proverb;1:24-27)

There's a time to laugh and a time to cry. (Ecclesiastes 3:4)

As I say, this is not a 'Christian' idea. It seems to strike directly against the more frequent message of Jesus, about compassion, love, honoring the prodigal son, the Beatitudes, leaving the ninety and nine to find the lost sheep. . . .

I realize one can cherry pick verses, even in the New Testament, that can show a different aspect of His message, but isn't the central theme of Jesus more like
I say unto you that likewise more joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.

Luke 15:7

I believe it hurts your argument when you take verses out of context. Let's start at the beginning, shall we?

Luke 15 verse 1-2
"Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them."

Is it your impression that these Pharisees are in need of salvation? Clearly, in their own eyes, they are not in need of anything that Jesus had to offer. Shall they be saved? Lol, I think not. They don't need Jesus.

So who are the "ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance"? I suggest they are people who believe they don't need Jesus.

Rather than undermine my argument, your selection of Luke 15:1-2 enhances it. This is yet another example of Jesus seeking out the lost sheep, as he 'receives and dines with sinners.' I think it both sad and poor scriptural interpretation to look for the evil in the Pharisees instead of seeing the joy of salvation and assurance that Jesus reaches out to sinners. I see Christianity as a shield against darkness and fear, rather than as a sword wielded to destroy. But I confess that this latter approach is the one that gets the most negative attention and drives many away from the Faith.

I'm sorry friend, there is no righteous person in this entire world that is not in need of the redemption offered through Christ.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Romans 3:23-26)

All have sinned.
All come short.
No one is righteous.

Excuse me guys, could you save your Dungeons & Dragons lore for the Comicon convention?

This is a thread about evidence. I don't need to hear about how Barbarians have more healthpoints, Dwarves have more resistance to magic or Elves have more Agility.

I don't need to hear how the powerful "Jesus Power Up" that allows adventurers into the "Magical Kingdom of Heaven" is only available by casting a "Repentance Spell".

I don't care about lore, theology or any other discussion of fiction.

We are here to talk evidence. I had taken the liberty to take a quick tangent to ask you to apologize for saying that you laugh at fellow human beings being tortured. Weather you choose to apologize or not is your prerogative, but certainly this gives you no excuse to set off on a huge tangent to discuss the details and inner workings of the fairy tales you believe in.

But there is no evidence. So why keep on asking?
Why do you reject the definition of faith?

[JohnA]

At least your religion does not promote:
Genitalia mutilation - how on earth can anyone sane person approve of this.
War - Making claims for land based on claims by a being that is not a being with the 1st Jew Avraham that lived some 175 years. ..
Racism - refusal to accept non Jews even when their wife and son is a Jew. Thinking one race is above others by ethical blood when in fact ALL living things are related.
Dishonestly - saying you answered when you did not. Comparing religion to taste of chocolate or ice scream.
Fideism - redefining g-d as undefined when the Torah does define the deity as the exact opposite - both claims based on zero evidence (faith), and weak attempt to avoid the burden of proof. Not to mention defining the Jewish ethnic race into existence via no evidence - we are all the same, why discriminate.

How ridiculous.

Ridiculous, indeed.

One wonders: Are these remarks -- out of the blue in the middle of a debate with another member on an entirely unrelated subject -- about the Jewish religion, or about me? This member himself seems rather unclear on that question.

The first two points are clearly about Judaism -- but they were never once mentioned in any of my exchanges with this member.

With the third point, he begins talking about our conversation -- though he alleges (predictably) that I made a statement that I never made.

The next point is clearly directed at me only (as astonishingly unjustified and incredible as it may be), and has nothing whatever to do with the Jewish religion.

The final point is (also predictably) a confused mishmash; It includes things that I have actually said (though distorted), things I NEVER said but which he has repeatedly attempted to put in my mouth, and more things unrelated to our exchanges and not previously mentioned.

I find it ironic above all that this member makes an allegation, to wit, saying you answered when you did not, of which HE has been repeatedly, inarguably and conclusively proven guilty.

Whatever he says, I will not be engaging this member again. I have learned, through bitter experience, that it is pointless and nothing more than an exercise in frustration and futile effort.

What is the point of attempting to debate a member who

(1) consistently and repeatedly misstates and distorts his opponents statements and insists on repeatedly putting his own words in his opponents mouths, even after repeated and detailed explanations, arguments and corrections -- all of which are ignored without rebuttal (a clearly uncivil practice, which was duly reported);

(2) consistently refuses to answer simple, direct and on-point questions, merely claiming that he already has -- without providing evidence that he has, in fact, answered them or even reviewing his supposed answers (which qualifies as an unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(3) claims that the asking of simple, direct and on-point questions -- and, incredibly enough, responding to his posts point by point or in his case sentence by sentence -- is somehow a warped debating style, without defending that ludicrous claim or providing evidence for it of any kind (still another unsubstantiated claim);

(4) repeatedly claims incoherency and obscurantism in his opponent's posts, without explaining or providing evidence for such claims (another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(5) repeatedly accuses his opponent of being uncivil and derogatory, but without providing a single example of uncivil or derogatory remarks (yet another unsubstantiated claim, which was also reported);

(6) characterizes an opponent as both a creationist and a fideist, both falsehoods, and again without proving substantiation for those claims (yet another unsupported, and clearly uncivil, claim)

And, as they say, SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON.

It is particularly puzzling and mystifying that this same member has had the temerity to accuse others of trolling him.

As I say, I will no longer be engaging in conversation with this member. This post is not intended to be such an attempt; it is a warning to other members, and a public highlighting of this members (by now well-known and oft-reported) practices and habits on this forum for other members -- and for the moderators.

It has now been established that blatant and conscious [obvious characterization deleted] is not formally against the rules of this forum, and that all one may do in response to it is to point it out and show that the questionable statements are, in fact, false; and that I have done, and not for the first time.

I make no comments on moderator actions, and prescribe none. I said what I have said and no more.

I would add this: it's a great tragedy, but the difference between this member's execrable and deplorable style of "debate" -- that is, distorting the arguments of opponents, putting words into their mouths, refusing to acknowledge or respond to substantive arguments, hurling false accusations, and so on -- and the debating style of other, less objectionable members, is only one of degree. This sort of thing, in blatant, full-throated [characterization deleted] form or in "lite" form, seems to be what passes for "debate" around here now. That's discounting and ignoring the various religious fanatics, preachers, judgment-passers, and arrogant speakers for God that abound all around us.

Too bad.

(I apologize for once again participating in an offtopic discussion, but I see nowhere else to place these eminently necessary remarks.)

My mouth actually dropped when I first saw the remarks that you are referring to here. You found them in a comment, I believe, that was addressed to me. At the time, I saw no viable explanation as to why this remark was directed to me. I still don't, which of course is why I have determined to not respond to his post at all. But I appreciate your comment here, and I certainly agree with what you have said concerning said poster. Thanks for shedding some light on that which I consider a depraved debating style.

I agree. What a different prospective on the supernatural indeed.
He completely forgot to address any of the points but did a fantastic job at trussing insults.
You should thank him, or his religion, or the Judaism that he now rejects for your religion. All the roots of faults come from that false Judaism or his fake version of it. He will not answer my questions because he can not. Religion has answers that may not be questioned. I have questions that may nor be answered. Religion came to the Internet to die while science is ironing out the wrinkle of ignorance still be trying to stifle reality.

[JohnA]

I'm sorry, but you are not qualified to determine what is and what is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine that religious literature is not evidence.
You are not qualified to determine whether or not religious dogma is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence.
You are not qualified to determine what is and what is not independently verifiable.

Um... The obvious question...

Are you?

Well of course I am. But when people start tossing out evidences that they don't particularly like, then I know that they are not qualified to determine what evidence is.

Please explain why you are more qualified, or qualified at all to determine:

... what is and what is not evidence?
... that religious literature is not evidence?
... whether or not religious dogma is evidence?
... if propaganda, or personal testimony is evidence?
... what is and what is not independently verifiable?

It is a very bold and self serving statement to claim you are qualified and even a greater claim to assert you are more qualified than Dr. Norman.

What is your basis for these claims?

It's Ok. We already know your are not qualified to talk about evidence. We have changed the question is the OP. Did you miss that? You were shown wrong. Deal with it. You have no idea what evidence is. So please do not advice people that already agreed that there is no evidence for his god. Please read some epistemology and start defending your illogical claim that there is inadmissible evidence for a non-existent god because the god appeared to you and said he is not a god.
Please start adding something here and do not humiliate users.

[WinePusher]

Wow, this thread has degenerated into a bunch of incoherent, inflammatory ranting and really shows that this forum has a huge troll problem. It sucks how this forum (which used to be a great place for intelligent and thought provoking discussions) has turned into a haven for trolls.

As a Christian, I would say that there is evidence for my supernatural beliefs but this evidence is inconclusive. The evidence available does not, and probably never will, prove Christianity to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the evidence available does establish that these supernatural beliefs are reasonable, warranted and logical.

For example, if I claimed that the 49ers will win the superbowl I would cite evidence such as player stats, scores, league history, etc to support my claim. The evidence available does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the 49ers will win with absolute certainty. The evidence simply shows that there are good reasons to believe that the 49ers will win, and that believing in the 49ers is not completely far fetched and irrational.