Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[TRANSPONDER]

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

Not everything is but believing one has received revelation from the Christian God most certainly is.

So then, what isn't based on faith or trust?

It's also a bit arrogant is it not? God speaks to me but not to you and it's your fault. Well not you and not me but you know.

To describe what I said (if that's what you are doing) as "arrogant" is to admit that you feel somehow excluded by what I said, well quote me and lets see if I excluded anyone, lets see if I implied I was special or privileged or better than anyone else, go on, quote what I said and support the accusation of "arrogance".

Of course, it does match the record of the Bible. We're dealing with a God who (according to the myth) practices favoritism. No reason to think that is gonna change anytime soon. I'm rather glad to not be chosen. I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.

You can't take care of yourself, you're going to die and there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.

Faith or trust in what indeed? "How do we know what we know?" is one of the Theist apologetic packages. Aside that if we don't know anything we certainly can't assume we know about a god. I know it seems to be a common human idea but that doesn't make it real. How do we Know?

I've said this before. Scientifically and logically evaluated evidence has the most work loaded into it to eliminate the bias that we may have. Religious apologetics don't do this; they celebrate Bias as validating Faith. This is why, if we have to have faith and trust in anything, what has been validated by the scientific method has a better claim to be something to rely on.

You did yourself and you case no favors by referring to death. Of course there's nothing that anyone can do about that other than take care how we drive, and try to stay healthy. How to conduct ourselves in life - whether to run our own affairs or 'let Jesus take the wheel'; which I doubt they do - they drive and then claim Jesus was steering.

[Inquirer]

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

Not everything is but believing one has received revelation from the Christian God most certainly is.

So then, what isn't based on faith or trust?

It's also a bit arrogant is it not? God speaks to me but not to you and it's your fault. Well not you and not me but you know.

To describe what I said (if that's what you are doing) as "arrogant" is to admit that you feel somehow excluded by what I said, well quote me and lets see if I excluded anyone, lets see if I implied I was special or privileged or better than anyone else, go on, quote what I said and support the accusation of "arrogance".

Of course, it does match the record of the Bible. We're dealing with a God who (according to the myth) practices favoritism. No reason to think that is gonna change anytime soon. I'm rather glad to not be chosen. I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.

You can't take care of yourself, you're going to die and there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.

Faith or trust in what indeed? "How do we know what we know?" is one of the Theist apologetic packages. Aside that if we don't know anything we certainly can't assume we know about a god. I know it seems to be a common human idea but that doesn't make it real. How do we Know?

I've said this before. Scientifically and logically evaluated evidence has the most work loaded into it to eliminate the bias that we may have. Religious apologetics don't do this; they celebrate Bias as validating Faith. This is why, if we have to have faith and trust in anything, what has been validated by the scientific method has a better claim to be something to rely on.

Science is fine when we respect its limitations, it is when people espouse the view that science and only science is a trustworthy route to knowledge that I tend to stop listening.

There are a billion different meanings to "religious" so I'm sure there are some people who fit the narrow mold you disapprove of.

You did yourself and you case no favors by referring to death. Of course there's nothing that anyone can do about that other than take care how we drive, and try to stay healthy. How to conduct ourselves in life - whether to run our own affairs or 'let Jesus take the wheel'; which I doubt they do - they drive and then claim Jesus was steering.

I stated a scientific fact, one cannot claim to be able to take care of oneself if one can do nothing about one's own eventual, unavoidable destruction.

[Clownboat]

There is no "default" if there is then its a personal choice for each of to decide for ourselves, some might assume God some might not, this a free choice not a rule to be imposed by others.

We were all born without any knowledge of god concepts. The default is therefore non-theism.
Once born, it is typical of many parents to bring their children up in the religion of their geography, but that doesn't change the default, it just shows a human tendancy when raising children. Religion being very much geographic does suggest humans being behind the said concepts and not a god though.

Tell me, how would you even begin to go about explaining something if you knew it could not be scientifically explained?

I would start with a description. Where would you start?

[Inquirer]

There is no "default" if there is then its a personal choice for each of to decide for ourselves, some might assume God some might not, this a free choice not a rule to be imposed by others.

We were all born without any knowledge of god concepts.

Is that a scientifically demonstrable claim or just something you believe?

The default is therefore non-theism.

Ditto.

Once born, it is typical of many parents to bring their children up in the religion of their geography, but that doesn't change the default, it just shows a human tendancy when raising children. Religion being very much geographic does suggest humans being behind the said concepts and not a god though.

Listen, if "the default" were really "no God" then there'd be no religion.

Tell me, how would you even begin to go about explaining something if you knew it could not be scientifically explained?

I would start with a description. Where would you start?

With premises.

[Clownboat]

I stated a scientific fact, one cannot claim to be able to take care of oneself if one can do nothing about one's own eventual, unavoidable destruction.

Your desperation to win a debate point is showing.

Son, can you get yourself on the bus today?
No momma, I can't because I'm going to die one day.

Son, can you make yourself a sandwich for lunch today?
No momma, I can't because I'm going to die one day.

Son, can you finish your education and get a job to support yourself and a family?
No momma, what's the point, I'm going to die one day anyway which clearly and scientifically shows that I can't take care of myself.

You're grounded son!

For me, I take care of myself and my family just fine, even though we will all die one day.

For anyone curious, here is the point that was dodged:
"Scientifically and logically evaluated evidence has the most work loaded into it to eliminate the bias that we may have. Religious apologetics don't do this; they celebrate Bias as validating Faith. This is why, if we have to have faith and trust in anything, what has been validated by the scientific method has a better claim to be something to rely on."

I wouldn't want to address this either if I was him.

[TRANSPONDER]

Assuming you have received some sort of <revelation of sorts>, how do you (know) this <revelation> came from the Christian God? Or wait, is everything reduced ultimately to being faith-based?

Not everything is but believing one has received revelation from the Christian God most certainly is.

So then, what isn't based on faith or trust?

It's also a bit arrogant is it not? God speaks to me but not to you and it's your fault. Well not you and not me but you know.

To describe what I said (if that's what you are doing) as "arrogant" is to admit that you feel somehow excluded by what I said, well quote me and lets see if I excluded anyone, lets see if I implied I was special or privileged or better than anyone else, go on, quote what I said and support the accusation of "arrogance".

Of course, it does match the record of the Bible. We're dealing with a God who (according to the myth) practices favoritism. No reason to think that is gonna change anytime soon. I'm rather glad to not be chosen. I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.

You can't take care of yourself, you're going to die and there's absolutely nothing you can do about that.

Faith or trust in what indeed? "How do we know what we know?" is one of the Theist apologetic packages. Aside that if we don't know anything we certainly can't assume we know about a god. I know it seems to be a common human idea but that doesn't make it real. How do we Know?

I've said this before. Scientifically and logically evaluated evidence has the most work loaded into it to eliminate the bias that we may have. Religious apologetics don't do this; they celebrate Bias as validating Faith. This is why, if we have to have faith and trust in anything, what has been validated by the scientific method has a better claim to be something to rely on.

Science is fine when we respect its limitations, it is when people espouse the view that science and only science is a trustworthy route to knowledge that I tend to stop listening.

There are a billion different meanings to "religious" so I'm sure there are some people who fit the narrow mold you disapprove of.

You did yourself and you case no favors by referring to death. Of course there's nothing that anyone can do about that other than take care how we drive, and try to stay healthy. How to conduct ourselves in life - whether to run our own affairs or 'let Jesus take the wheel'; which I doubt they do - they drive and then claim Jesus was steering.

I stated a scientific fact, one cannot claim to be able to take care of oneself if one can do nothing about one's own eventual, unavoidable destruction.

I'm not saying we don't base our opinion on information we trust. It has to be so, as we can't do our research ourselves. We trust science, which has the top record in validation. Theistic and religious claims don't. Try not to misrepresent what I post in future.

We never stop listening; we put all those faith -claims and unvalidated hypothesis in the pending -tray until science can validate them because (as I said) science has the best (I suspect the only) record of validating facts. We stop listening only when people keep bleating on about Faith - claims and undisrovables as though they proved something.Oh - and nobody is more aware of the limitation of science than a scientist..every scientists should know that...didn't you say you were one? In what field, I wonder?

You stated what you are pleased to call a 'scientific fact': we all die. I pointed out that it was irrelevant tby pointing out that the atheist in question takes care of himself IN LIFE, and lets death take care of itself. Your point was irrelevant and is still irrelevant. We all die, and we have finite lives.I suggests we don't waste ours in posting and rebutting irrelevancies.

[Inquirer]

I stated a scientific fact, one cannot claim to be able to take care of oneself if one can do nothing about one's own eventual, unavoidable destruction.

Your desperation to win a debate point is showing.

Son, can you get yourself on the bus today?
No momma, I can't because I'm going to die one day.

Son, can you make yourself a sandwich for lunch today?
No momma, I can't because I'm going to die one day.

Son, can you finish your education and get a job to support yourself and a family?
No momma, what's the point, I'm going to die one day anyway which clearly and scientifically shows that I can't take care of myself.

You're grounded son!

For me, I take care of myself and my family just fine, even though we will all die one day.

For anyone curious, here is the point that was dodged:
"Scientifically and logically evaluated evidence has the most work loaded into it to eliminate the bias that we may have. Religious apologetics don't do this; they celebrate Bias as validating Faith. This is why, if we have to have faith and trust in anything, what has been validated by the scientific method has a better claim to be something to rely on."

I wouldn't want to address this either if I was him.

A truly superb misrepresentation of what I actually wrote, ahh the power of paraphrasing, always useful when one is on the back foot in a debate.

Recall what Tcg wrote:

I'd hate to accept absurdities for the sake of comfort and having a big daddy god whose gonna take care of me. I can take care of myself.

The "daddy" promises eternal life, therefore with respect to life we cannot take care of ourselves, we do not have any power to avoid eternal death.

That's the actual context of what I said.

[Clownboat]

We were all born without any knowledge of god concepts.

Is that a scientifically demonstrable claim or just something you believe?

It is a true claim for everyone reading it. You're being silly. If I'm wrong about you being silly, please explain the god concept you had knowledge of at birth.

The default is therefore non-theism.

Ditto.

Yes, ditto. It is a claim that is true for everyone reading it. If my statement is wrong, explain how the gods could be the default when we are born without knowledge of any gods.
You're still being silly. Why?

Once born, it is typical of many parents to bring their children up in the religion of their geography, but that doesn't change the default, it just shows a human tendancy when raising children. Religion being very much geographic does suggest humans being behind the said concepts and not a god though.

Listen, if "the default" were really "no God" then there'd be no religion.

Your thinking is fair to naive for my liking.
Religions were created (not yours though, yours we will pretend is special so your emotions can stay out of it) in order to control the masses and to provide explanation and answers for the unknowns.

Surely you agree when this comes to religions that are not yours. If not, how do you explain all the other religions? Again, not yours, yours is special in this thought experiment.

[Inquirer]

We were all born without any knowledge of god concepts.

Is that a scientifically demonstrable claim or just something you believe?

It is a true claim for everyone reading it. You're being silly. If I'm wrong about you being silly, please explain the god concept you had knowledge of at birth.

So its fine to make up claims unsupported by any data or evidence and simply call people silly when they ask for it, OK I this was one of the main objections raised by atheists for claims made by theists, but never mind.

THEIST: "Everyone can see that God exists".

ATHEIST: "No, not without evidence, you don't have a shred of evidence".

THEIST: "It's a true claim for everyone reading it, you're being silly".

My work here is done.

[Clownboat]

A truly superb misrepresentation of what I actually wrote,

Copy/paste: "I stated a scientific fact, one cannot claim to be able to take care of oneself if one can do nothing about one's own eventual, unavoidable destruction." - Inquirer 2022, Post 142

I quoted and represented what you actually wrote. Hard to misrepresent when I'm using copy/paste. Are you now trying to claim that you didn't say what I copy/pasted you as saying?

Post 142 for anyone interested.