What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?
Before someone comes at it with the approach of "It is simply the lack of a belief in the existence of a god, gods or the supernatural."
Remember what Pvblivs said:
Only when they are trying to transform it dishonestly into a catch-all category. Any definition that tries to portray infants, who cannot possibly make a decision on the matter, as atheists is dishonest. In all fairness, anyone trying to portray infants as Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu is equally dishonest. An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods.
Atheists will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong. And seriously, what would be your response if Christians started redefining "Christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the Bible is fiction"?
Atheist--1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny god, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god"
Atheism--1587, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without god".
Also there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side.
A youtuber said "Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Buddhism and Jediism fall under the atheist category."
Atheists will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat's not a slip up at all. If you knew what "atheist" meant, you'd know that already.
Strong atheism - a belief in the non-existence of god/s
ReplyDeleteWeak atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of god/s
(Even the FAQ at www.strongatheism.net clarifies these definitions.)
There is a slight, but important, difference between the two. A strong atheist would indeed need to present evidence for their position. As a weak atheist, I don't need to. Just like you don't need to provide evidence for why you lack a belief in the existence of fairies or hobgoblins.
As I've said before though, call me an agnostic if you like. Who cares? Definitions such as these are easily moulded to suit a particular argument by someone who wants to tar everyone with the same brush.
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteSo you admit there are denominations of Atheism. Thanks for the honesty that Atheism is also a religion.
But look at what is says,
"Atheism (also called “weak atheism”) is a lack of belief in the existence of a god or gods."
In other words, they are trying to say that strong atheism is NEVER recognized as atheism. So by default they are trying to separate themselves with having to show evidence for their beliefs and claim neutrality, and as I pointed out, there is no neutrality in worldviews.
So you admit that your worldview is a complete cop out?
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteTo further that thought, anyone that claims metaphysical naturalism posits strong atheism then because they define Strong atheism as the position that should affirm the non-existence of a god or gods.
Most atheists here, besides the fringe group Raelians, are strong atheists.
Rhiggs,
ReplyDeleteThird point about strong atheism website.
The entire argument is a General Definition Fallacy because they are out to show that Atheism is actually “weak atheism” which is not true and cannot be taken seriously because of the many points that have been made.
Moving on
Atheists do not make any claims. Atheism is a response to the claim that god exists. Is bald a hair color or being a non-stamp collector a hobby? The burden of proof lies on the theist...and you know that. But it's okay to lie for Jesus, right?
ReplyDelete"Also there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview. You have picked a side."
ReplyDeleteLogically, if there is no such thing as neutrality to a worldview, all worldviews make decisions on all topics. According to your worldview, how much rain will London get on the 5th of September 2013? You may think the question silly, but it makes a point. There is such a thing as neutrality in worldviews. It is also the case that someone can be undecided on whether there exists a god. My point in the passage you have elected to quote is that such a person is not an atheist, well that and christians do not have a monopoly on using dishonesty to defend their position.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>According to your worldview, how much rain will London get on the 5th of September 2013?
According to my worldview I cannot determine when the rain will come because God has not allowed me to have any sort of clairvoyance.
You are right though, worldviews is the starting point and address EVERYTHING and every subject. There is no neutrality. Your worldview determines what you will believe about God. I am convinced that, since worldviews are so much a part of someones life, it would take the miracle of God alone to change ones worldview. He certainly changed mine in a very dramatic way.
Stupid,
ReplyDelete>>Atheists do not make any claims.
O'rly?
Don't be stupid. When you are ready for an honest conversation please return with a more understanding of your worldview.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"According to my worldview I cannot determine when the rain will come..."
According to my worldview I cannot determine whether or not there is a god because, if he exists, he hasn't shown himself.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteOh I see where you are going with that now.
>>[H]e hasn't shown himself
Actually intellectually that is dishonest. The Creator has revealed Himself (Psalm 19) and you chose not to believe it much like I choose not to believe in the god of Islam.
My worldview does not trust that the god of Islam is the God of the Universe.
If you were to say,
'My worldview does not trust that the God of universe is Jesus Christ',
then I would be more likely to accept that.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know why my post has been deleted but anyway...
I didn’t admit that there are denominations of atheism or that atheism is a religion. Can you indicate where I ever 'admitted' that? It is dishonest of you to twist my words. We have been over this ad nauseum and if you want to go down that road again I’m not interested.
I linked to the strong atheism website to show that they also separate atheism into a ‘belief’ or a ‘lack of belief’. I don’t subscribe to strong atheism so your rant about it is irrelevant to me. I find it irrational to positively affirm the non-existence of god/s. This is impossible to know for sure as a god can be inserted into any version of reality. No matter what your interpretation of reality is, someone can say that a goddidit. This is impossible to refute. While you might consider this to be a strength to your argument, it is actually a profound weakness. Indeed, I could accept your worldview completely (including the existence of your god) with one vital exception - that another god created your god - and you wouldn't be able to refute this extra layer of goddidit.
I would also disagree with your statement that most atheists here are strong atheists. In fact, I expect that most would describe themselves as weak atheists by the given definitions (although I stand to be corrected).
Of course, I understand that you want to label everyone as a strong atheist as this would indicate a positive belief for which evidence is required. But just cos you want something don’t make it so.
Now Dan, you don’t get immunity to the question....
What proof and evidence can you provide that shows ahobgoblinism is accurate and correct?
That is, do you have ‘proof and evidence’ for your belief in the non-existence of hobgoblins, or do you simply lack a belief in hobgoblins?
On a separate issue:
ReplyDeleteMy original post was deleted, although it was here yesterday.
Also, I've tried to post a comment three times on the 'Christian Evolutionists?' thread and each time it appears for a while and then disappears.
I have no reason to suspect that Dan is deleting posts as that's not his style, but something strange is going on...
Personally, I've picked the side of plausibility.
ReplyDeleteI require that a god be plausibly demonstrated to exist before bothering to invest belief in such a being.
The deist god, at least, with the generic claims made about it, does not contradict the available evidence; but neither is belief in it required by the evidence.
The Christian god, on the other hand, is logically inconsistent and contradicted by much of the available evidence pertaining to his existence.
For the time being, therefore, I'm an atheist - someone who lacks belief in any gods, for want of convincing evidence.
So if you actually have any convincing, plausible evidence that isn't better explained by other means than your god, go ahead and present it.
Dan, you said to Pvblivs,
ReplyDeleteIf you were to say,
'My worldview does not trust that the God of universe is Jesus Christ',
then I would be more likely to accept that.
How about if I, or some other atheist, were to say, "I don't trust that there is any god of the universe?"
Your question does seem to assume that there must be a "god of the universe", when this has never been plausibly demonstrated.
Dan, why are you wasting so much time splitting hairs over syntax? Definitions change over generation to suit the application of the public. If you doubt that, talk to someone who works for Webster Dictionary. I live close to their home and have often spoken with them about words. The evolution of words, their application and definition is a lot more fluid, and interesting, than you might be aware.
ReplyDeleteThe point I’m getting at is whether a person calls themselves Atheist or some other thing concerning a non or lack of belief, if you feel they are not being clear where they are coming from based on the conversation, just ask them. If their use of the name they tag on their view on that particular subject does not sync up with yours, its really not important. As long as you understand what definition they apply to it is all that matters.
I think Rhiggs is correct. You want to be able to claim all those who go here are strong atheists. If you do, then you would be able to ask for evidence to support that. No matter what you wish Dan, if a person says they define their atheistism as a lack of belief due lack of evidence, than that is what it is for them. If you would rather waste time over what is or isn’t proper syntax in the conversation, so be it. I think it would be time better spent if you just accept how the people here apply the word and just cut to more important points that can be discussed.
Dan, we’ve already been over this with you a million times. Even if we agreed with you and decided to create a completely new word to define ourselves just to satisfy this word fixation you seem to have, it doesn’t help you argument for a god nor hurt ours. Call me atheist, rationalist, or goo-goo gaa-gaaist, I really don’t care Dan, but if you have a worthwhile argument to post please do because this one is pointless.
~Atomic Chimp
@Atomic Chimp
ReplyDeleteHear hear!
I tried to articulate this in my deleted post - but not nearly as eloquently. My basic point was that definitions can be massaged or moulded to suit anyones argument. Dan is gleefully attacking his preferred definition of atheist even though it doesn't actually apply to most (all?) of us.
I am so over discussing the definition of atheism, burden of proof, lack of belief in God or the belief God doesn't exist... Blah blah blah. :P And others have done an admirable job in the comments already, so instead I think I'll analyze this question:
ReplyDelete"What proof and evidence can you provide that shows atheism is accurate and correct?"
It is an interesting question for various reason. First of all, it ask for proof and evidence. It's quite strange considering that if I could provide PROOF that there is no god, what would I do with corrobarating evidence? If the case has been proven, further evidence is welcome but unnecessary. But if I only have some very suggestive evidence that there's probably no god, I obviously haven't proven that there is no god. Somehow, I doubt that would satisfy anyone who would ask a question like this.
Now, on to the next part of that question. Accurate AND correct. From the 'and' in the middle, I suppose that 'accurate' and 'correct' both have unique definitions that must be filled in order to fully answer the question. It's a shame ShockofGod hasn't, to my knowledge, ever really defined these terms. I mean, usually they're basically synonyms of each other, but I'm sure a bright mind such as ShockofGod wouldn't lower himself to redundancies to make his question more impressive looking. So what does it mean to show something is accurate? What does it mean to show something is correct?
My belief that Shockofgod has some very interesting definitions for these terms is bolstered by his recent video response to The Amazingatheist. AA misquoted Shock's question as a request to simply prove that atheism is true. Shock was not pleased at all. He stated that the AA dodged his question and then went on to make jokes about his physique(Very Christian of him). From this we can see, contrary to what one might assume, 'Proving atheism is true' is very different from 'Providing proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct'. It is truly mysterious.
In the end, it might take generations of philosophers to solve what Shock means with his question. Obviously, the question can't be answered by simply, for example, providing evidence that atheism is accurate or proof that atheism is correct. It has to be proof AND evidence that atheism is accurate AND correct. With this one question Shock has brought atheism to it's knees. It will surely go down in history as one of the most insightful questions ever asked.
Or maybe it's just dishonest mental masturbation and avoiding the burden of proof. You decide.
More seriously though, you should hear when Shock asks the question from someone. The person tries to answer, and then Shock talks over him, asking the question again and again. If the answer is something like "I can't prove that" or "I don't have the burden of proof", they are immediately either a) dodging the question or b) showing that atheism is a faith position with no proof to back it up.
ReplyDeleteIt is asinine and child-like. I've only got one question to ask you about this, Dan. Do you seriously wonder why we don't just lap this shit up? Do you seriously believe any reasonable person should be converted by something like this? I guarantee you that question has never saved a single soul. It's a question by christians for christians who, instead of participating in honest discourse and allowing their opponents to define themselves, want to just go "Neener, neener you can't answer my question!"
The reason why people lose faith is not because they want to sin. It's because your arguments suck.
Conceivably, maybe it's possible that ShockofGod might work for the Department of Unnecessary Redundant Synonyms Department, perchance?
ReplyDeleteJust as an interesting observation, it has generally been my experience that Christian fundies ask specifically for "proof" of atheism, or evolution, or any other concept that contradicts their religion. By contrast, atheists tend to ask Christians merely for evidence of the Christian god.
ReplyDeleteThat in itself, I think, points to an important difference in our relative approaches to gaining knowledge, as well as our relative levels of security in our worldviews.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Actually intellectually that is dishonest. The [c]reator has revealed [h]imself...."
No, Dan, he has not. The bible does not constitue a revelation (it was written by men.) Nor do I find its claims trustworthy.
My statement was quite correct. My worldview does not determine whether there is a god. If he exists, he hasn't shown himself. If you wish to say he has, give me evidence, not the deception known as the bible.
Rhiggs,
ReplyDelete>> What proof and evidence can you provide that shows hobgoblinism is accurate and correct?
I guess I would have to start by finding out what ahobgoblinism means and go from there. In a quick search I came up with nothing.
So to currently answer the question I cannot show that hobgoblinism is accurate and correct, I have no evidence or proof.
>>That is, do you have ‘proof and evidence’ for your belief in the non-existence of hobgoblins, or do you simply lack a belief in hobgoblins?
Ah, well I guess the question that you are asking is whether folklore is reality? From the observable world, and evidence, folkloric tales are labeled that to describe the fact that they are merely stories...now if it widely accepted that hobgoblins were written about in a 2000 year old book (that is what you are getting at anyway) and that book is also widely accepted as a historical narrative then it would warrant consideration.
now if it widely accepted that hobgoblins were written about in a 2000 year old book (that is what you are getting at anyway) and that book is also widely accepted as a historical narrative then it would warrant consideration.
ReplyDeleteWhether something is widely accepted by the general public or was written about 2000 years or more in the past does not give it any validity. Astrology is a great example of that. You can’t be seriously insinuating that the bible is truly accepted as an accurate historical narrative. Maybe Christians believe this but not historians.
No comment about my points Dan? Cat got your tongue?
~Atomic Chimp
Chimp,
ReplyDeleteI feel your passion in your well said comment but you missed the mark completely.
>>No matter what you wish Dan, if a person says they define their atheistism as a lack of belief due lack of evidence, than that is what it is for them. If you would rather waste time over what is or isn’t proper syntax in the conversation, so be it. I think it would be time better spent if you just accept how the people here apply the word and just cut to more important points that can be discussed.
Its not the words that matters, its the intention of those words. Its like all of you are claiming you are not drunk (words) but you are clearly smacked or drunk or something because the evidence says something completely different. You are in denial of what you are claiming and that warrants some pressing. "Oh your not drunk, huh?" So try to write it off all you want but you are being dishonest to yourself more then to me or anyone else. If you got behind that proverbial wheel you would crash hard. All I wish is to wake you up and get you all back into reality.
Dan,
ReplyDelete"I guess I would have to start by finding out what ahobgoblinism means and go from there."
Good answer. And since I have explained to you what atheism means to me - a lack of belief in the existence of god/s - you should be able to see that I don't need to provide any evidence of this.
"Ah, well I guess the question that you are asking is whether folklore is reality?"
Nope. I asked what evidence you have to not believe in hobgoblins. You said you have no evidence. Can I assume that you don't believe in hobgoblins? If so, care to justify this in light of the fact that you have no evidence that they don't exist? Thanks.
Brummer,
ReplyDelete>>Do you seriously wonder why we don't just lap this shit up?
Nope
>>Do you seriously believe any reasonable person should be converted by something like this?
Nope
>>The reason why people lose faith is not because they want to sin. It's because your arguments suck.
Bzzt, Do you seriously believe any reasonable person should be convinced by something like this? Do you seriously wonder why we don't just lap this up?
Let me know when you are ready to discuss things honestly.
dormantdragon,
ReplyDelete>> Just as an interesting observation, it has generally been my experience that Christian fundies ask specifically for "proof" of atheism, or evolution, or any other concept that contradicts their religion. By contrast, atheists tend to ask Christians merely for evidence of the Christian god.
Your observation skills are lacking quite a bit. Did you even read the title of this post? Straw man much *pfft
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>> If you wish to say he has, give me evidence, not the deception known as the bible.
Do you mean evidence that is, lets say, admissible in a court?
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Do you mean evidence that is, lets say, admissible in a court?"
Well then, let's consider what is admissible in court. You have provided texts by anonymous authors that could not be cross-examined. Interestingly, that is not admissible in court. But you are not merely making a claim about a past event (inherently non-repeatable.) You are making a claim that a particular being continues to exist and is plainly evident. If iste deus existed he should be able to make an actual appearance, not just have his followers quote a "holy book." If he continues to exist then the evidence of said existence should be repeatable. I shouldn't have to rely on anything second-hand. On the other hand, if he once existed but exists no longer, why should I care?
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>You have provided texts by anonymous authors that could not be cross-examined.
Bare assertions are not admissible my friend. Oh wait though, your honor there are books in the Bible that were crossed examined corroborate the events described. There were eye witnesses and a host of other things some that are circumstantial evidence but evidence non the less.
Assertions are legally binding when said under oath. The Bible's claims are legally binding.
The Bible also follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"
Judge: Pvb is overruled.
It has already been concluded that God's Word would be admissible in courts. Its even sworn on to even testify in courts, although that is being contested these days, so don't play that game with me. The Bible is so trustworthy that it is incorporated throughout our Judicial system. So I don't know if you wish to continue this path of denial, and bare assertions, but if you do I will tear you to shreds in the closing statement and will in turn win the case.
Dan said to Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete"Bare assertions are not admissible my friend"
Funny how when Dan doesn't like what Pvblivs says it's a 'bare assertion', but when he does like what Pvblivs says it gets highlighted in a post...
Touché Rhiggs!
ReplyDeleteRats, they are on to me.
Maybe my tone in the last few posts was taken a bit far.
ReplyDelete"Nope"
Ok
"Nope"
Hm. I think you'd be of the opinion that any reasonable person who heard this question and wasn't able to answer it would realize that atheism shouldn't be preferred over theism.
"Bzzt, Do you seriously believe any reasonable person should be convinced by something like this?"
Well, not by me just saying that your argument sucks of course. I have to give evidence of that etc.
"Do you seriously wonder why we don't just lap this up?"
Nope. But I was completely serious about that question. What I meant by that is that it's hard for me to conceive of someone like Shock actually thinking his question is somehow convincing, or that he's 'beaten' any atheist. Or the videos he's done on 'Santa Syndrome'. It's just so asinine.
"Let me know when you are ready to discuss things honestly."
Anytime :P
@Dan,
ReplyDeleteYour observation skills are lacking quite a bit. Did you even read the title of this post? Straw man much *pfft
When I said that it has "generally been my experience" that Christians ask for proof and atheists ask for evidence, that's exactly what I meant. Your post is one instance out of many, the exception rather than the rule. A swing and a miss for the comeback king.
You say many atheists are in denial of what we really are, and need to be called out on it. That's funny, because there are plenty of atheists who feel that way about Christian evangelicals.
So, in the grand tradition of atheists asking for evidence, if you have any for your god - rather than a series of old creationist chestnuts that have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked, why don't you bring your 'A' game?
Don't forget - the burden of proof rests on you in this argument...
Dan thats the stupidest response I've heard from you in a while. Thats kind of rude too if you think about it. So you not only know whats in gods mind but mine too.
ReplyDeleteSorry Dan, you can't claim a win just because you tell me what I do or do not think. Unless you can show evidence that supports your claims about me, what I think or what I believe, you're still wrong Dan.
So, Until someone can produce evidence to support the claim of there being a god(s), I will continue to file it with all other unsupported claims like Bigfoot, Aliens, Ghost and astrology.
There have been many claims (mostly scientific) in my past that I thought were a crock, but then when proper evidence was showed to me I wholeheartedly accepted it. If you too can do the same for your claims Dan, I'll give you the same eager admission that I was wrong. I will patiently wait for you to show me your evidence Dan.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan: Oh wait though, your honor there are books in the Bible that were crossed examined corroborate the events described.
ReplyDeletePresiding judge: Can you produce this cross examination? The advocate, Pvblivs, seems to make a valid point. An anonymous "witness" who is not subject to cross-examination can lie with impunity. The bible, at best, qualifies as a direct examination by its supporters.
Dan: There were eye witnesses and a host of other things some that are circumstantial evidence but evidence non the less.
Presiding judge: Feel free to bring in your witnesses. I'm sure the opposing advocate would love to cross-examine them.
Dan: The bible also follows the 'ancient documents rule' that "every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise"
Presiding judge: There does not appear to be any dispute that the bible really was written a long time ago. Attributions of authors were done centuries later. What is your point?
"It has already been concluded that [g]od's [w]ord would be admissible in courts."
However, that conclusion is drawn only by you and other christians. It is even in dispute whether the bible even is the word of any god.
PS. Dan, if you think that the bible can be taken as a literal recap of what went on in ancient times, you are wrong. The bible also was not only written by many people, it was not written by witnesses as you though. It was transcribed and edited many times over before being assembled into what is called the bible today. It in no way can be used as evidence in court since its just hearsay. We do not know the original authors and it is not even their original word. Most historians consider it a collection of allegorical tales, which were very popular at the time the bible was originally written, connected to familiar ancient people and places.
ReplyDelete~Atomic Chimp
Dan asks for "proof or evidence" of atheism.
ReplyDeleteWell, clearly people exist who don't believe in any gods. There is a philosophical worldview known as atheism, which involves either withholding belief in gods or actively believing there are none.
This is pretty solid evidence that atheism exists.
Somehow, I don't think that's what Dan meant, though. If he's actually asking, as a presuppositionalist, that others attempt to disprove god, he's grasping the wrong end of the stick. Burden of proof rests upon those making positive claims, and by hiding behind presuppositionalism, Dan is, as others have pointed out, merely assuming what is in dispute - ie: the existence of god(s).
I was to tired last night to read the post clearly so….
ReplyDeleteDan Said, Its like all of you are claiming you are not drunk (words) but you are clearly smacked or drunk or something because the evidence says something completely different. You are in denial of what you are claiming and that warrants some pressing. "Oh your not drunk, huh?"
Well Dan, just as with any claim its up to the one making the claim to produce the evidence. I don’t go around clanging my bell & shouting out “I’m Not Drunk” nor proclaiming, “There is no such thing as a god(s)” like a town crier. Many of my own friends were un aware of my opinion (and I’m sure some still are) for a long time. My stepping forward to say anything about it is in response to claims made by others in matters than concern me, or that spawn thought provoking discussions such as this.
In court no matter how guilty a person might seem appear it is up to the prosecutor to show evidence to support the charges against him. All the defendant has to do is demonstrate that the evidence is fallacious and does not support the charges. In some cases that isn’t even necessary since the evidence is too weak in the first place. If I might be drunk its up to those who accuse me to show the evidence to support it.
Dan, Things are not always as they might appear. With closer examination or more detailed information, it often can reveal a completely different conclusion. This is why we ask for evidence to support claims.
So, since you seem to believe there is more than enough evidence to support your belief/claim, please show me this evidence.
~Atomic Chimp
Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>I don’t go around clanging my bell & shouting out “I’m Not Drunk” nor proclaiming, “There is no such thing as a god(s)” like a town crier.
But in a way you certainly do, You are here to "proclaim" that Ray is wrong in Raytractors and over at Some More Retarded Thinking. You gather daily to refute the claims that God exists and you actively challenge anyone that says otherwise as demonstrated at this blog.
>>Many of my own friends were un aware of my opinion (and I’m sure some still are) for a long time.
I do feel honored to know you more intimately then some of your friends. I do like this forum. So much so that I am here on my and my wife's bday (she is 5 hours older then I) and its our 11th Anniversary to boot.
>>In court no matter how guilty a person might seem appear it is up to the prosecutor to show evidence to support the charges against him. All the defendant has to do is demonstrate that the evidence is fallacious and does not support the charges. In some cases that isn’t even necessary since the evidence is too weak in the first place.
Excellent point, and when the Bible, God, is on trial the burden of proof is solely on y'all. Have at it. I predict a solid win for God's Word but I will play along to satisfy justice.
So, since you seem to believe there is more than enough evidence to support your belief/claim that the Bible is a fabrication, please show me this evidence.
~The Debunker :7)
Dan you Said, "But in a way you certainly do, You are here to "proclaim" that Ray is wrong in Raytractors and over at Some More Retarded Thinking. You gather daily to refute the claims that God exists and you actively challenge anyone that says otherwise as demonstrated at this blog."
ReplyDeleteYes I did, and if you look closely at what you just mentioned, you'll see each exalmple is in response to refute claimsother people publicly making claims. You have even confirmed what I said in the first place in your own words when you say I “refute claims” and “challenge” peoples claims, not make claims.
The 'Raytractors' and 'Smrt' were created for the purpose of timely and censor free respones to claims made by Ray Comfort. They're not the only places I've be active and I've even participate in public debates by invitation from believers.
Dan, if you looked closely you’d notice I do not gather there or anywhere daily. I have not posted on either of those blogs in a very long time. I hop around the web and respond to individual claims that I feel I can offer something to refute or support a claim made by a person I may or may not fully agree with.
The part you left out from my original post read, "My stepping forward to say anything about it is in response to claims made by others in matters than concern me, or that spawn thought provoking discussions such as this."
I have not setup a website, blog, forum, public debate or any website of my own to make any claims about god(s) existence.
Dan, I respond to those who I see making unsupported claims or promoting misinformation that either might effect my rights, or for a friendly discussion and thats it. You on the other hand proselytize. You make claims about your god and about atheists, and I am here to respond. Since it is you making the claim, you need to support them, not me.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan one more thing, you posted, "You gather daily to refute the claims that God exists and you actively challenge anyone that says otherwise as demonstrated at this blog.
ReplyDeleteYou’re right about the first part. I have refuted & actively challenge people’s claims concerning god(s) and many other supernatural matters. Where you are incorrect is that I do not do this daily. Also I do not challenge the actual possibility of their existence, but the flawed logic or faulty evidence used to support the things they assert. In the end, my opinion on the existence of the claimed supernatural force remains suspended. I give them no more or less value than any other unsupported claims I have dealt with in the past. I go on with my daily life taking no consideration concerning their existence or lack thereof, in anything I say or do.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan:
ReplyDelete"Excellent point, and when the [b]ible, [g]od, is on trial the burden of proof is solely on y'all. Have at it. I predict a solid win for [g]od's [w]ord but I will play along to satisfy justice."
Well, so far in regards to the claim that the bible is the word of any god, we have the verdict of "not proven." If you want to tell yourself that that is a win, you can; but you won't convince others.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteWell, so far in regards to the claim that the bible is not the word of God, we have the verdict of "not proven." If you want to tell yourself that that is a win, you can; but you won't convince others.
The shock of god gambit? Really? One of the most dishonest 'christians' currently on YouTube?
ReplyDeleteThe guy who called the Florida Atheists Podcast, barely let them speak, then making a video about how he defeated 'The Atheist Experience' TV show?
The guy who ignored repeated responses from AETV to pretend they were ignoring him.
Never rings the actual show then again pretends to have defeated them.
Pretends a clearly labled 'fan channel on youtube is the real ACA/AETV and posts about how they have blocked him.
Eventually takes a blog by Martin, pretends it's from Matt, pretends comments addressed to Jen were direct at him. Then fakes threatening paragraphs at the end to pretend the blog post was directed to him personally.
And of course he doesn't allow corrective comments on his videos.
Oh but his highness will apparently bless the AETV with his presence if they do decide to answer his question.
Plenty of people have responded to his videos, with many of them starting 'what a weirdly worded question'.
Rich doesn't call the AETV because he knows he wouldn't be allowed to interrupt like he does everywhere else.
Dan you nor anyone I've ever spoken to has been able to produce the evidence to support your claim that the bible IS the word of god. If you truly believe you can, than you should submit a paper on your claim and the evidence you have to support it. You'll most likely receive the Templeton Prize and the Pulitzer Prize.
ReplyDeleteHey, Let us help you work out the bugs in you paper by sharing your evidence with us. We can be sort of you Pre-Peer review, peer review.
~Atomic Chimp
Chimp or Pvb or anyone,
ReplyDeleteLet's ask it another way then. Can you show evidence that the historical figures made up stories about Jesus; that the Bible is a fabrication; that the Biblical claims are false?
Dan, let's ask it a different way:
ReplyDeleteCan you prove that you don't owe me $100,000?
PAY UP ALREADY.
(Still, I admire your attempts to shift the burden of proof away from yourself and your claims... neat, that.)
Dan said,"Let's ask it another way then. Can you show evidence that the historical figures made up stories about Jesus; that the Bible is a fabrication; that the Biblical claims are false?"
ReplyDeleteDan, I agree its an ancient text. I agree that some of historical character, places and events mentioned have a sliver of truth to them. I agree it is possible it could be the word of god(s). I'm sure we can agree on many things about it. Its you who bring it a step further and claim its the word of god. If you or anyone didn't make the claim its the word of god, I would not have reason to question if it were. I would just see it as a piece of ancient literature much like the Iliad. Any claim of it not being from your god would never have entered my mind. Anything I say concerning it being the word of god(s) is solely a response to people like you who claim to have evidence to support it.
Get it Dan, my claim is only against your claim to have evidence to support it. I only deny it being the word of god the same way I would deny anything unsupported.
Even if I could not produce any evidence to support any claims against the validity of the bible being the word of god does not mean the it is. Anyone claiming this would still need to show support for this claim. Once you do, we can talk about if it holds up, or claims I have about your evidence.
~Atomic Chimp
Dan I have a question for you. Of the many of god and goddesses of ancient and modern history, what evidence for each of them do you have that they do not nor ever did exist?
ReplyDelete~Atomic Chimp
Let's ask it another way then. Can you show evidence that the historical figures made up stories about Jesus; that the Bible is a fabrication; that the Biblical claims are false?
ReplyDeleteLet's see, besides the "global flood" refuted here, there's no flood myths in Egypt or China. Both had civilizations going on at the time the "flood" was to have happened?
How's about the so-called hundreds of witnesses to the other "saints" who were supposed to have risen up from the grave when christ was supposed to?
There's one biblical reference to that, and none from any other source. One would think that in a relatively semi-literate culture that there'd be at least a few references to that. Instead, there's none.
So you admit there are denominations of Atheism. Thanks for the honesty that Atheism is also a religion.
ReplyDeleteAre you still beating that decomposing, dead horse? Yeesh. And I suppose if all atheists believed and acted exactly alike, you'd still call it a "religion"?
God, how stupid. Haven't you been bitch-slapped on that enough?
Dan has abandoned yet another thread when he can no longer twist our words or change his argument in a failed attempt to salvage his original point. I predict that in a few more months maybe a 6 at the most, he will drag this same claim out again and see if he can get it past the current lurkers without a struggle.
ReplyDeleteDan, I just want you to know that even when you don't hear from me, I'm lurking in the background watching. More often than not the current people posting clearly and concisely, and in a timely manner, point out the issues in your arguments better than I could.
~Atomic Chimp
Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>Get it Dan, my claim is only against your claim to have evidence to support it.
Great, now you are claiming that there's nothing that is self evident. Dream on.
>>Even if I could not produce any evidence to support any claims against the validity of the bible being the word of god does not mean the it is. Anyone claiming this would still need to show support for this claim.
Its not anyone but God Himself that claims it. The Bible itself claims it, not I. Its self evident. The Bibles claims were clearly and fully backed up with a plethora of evidence. None that you will acknowledge.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Let's see, besides the "global flood" refuted here,
O'rly? You point to a failed, broken linked, website to denounce the flood?
I have in front of me a current book called "Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study" by John Woodmorappe that is an honest and exhaustive study about the subject and comes to an entirely different conclusion then that failed website of yours. It would be a great addition to your bookshelf. If I buy you a copy would you read it?
>>there's no flood myths in Egypt or China.
O'rly? Feb 2010 there were floods recorded in Egypt. They do happen you know.
From an article "Heavy rains and flash floods in the Sinai (Egypt) have left at least seven people dead. The flood has damaged houses, roads, electricity lines, several harbours and the airport of Sharm-El-Sheikh. It has been the worst flash flood since 1994. "
They even had to find a method as an early warning system to warn against them. Go to flaflom.org for more.
Oh and your right, China never floods. ^/sarcasm
Thanks for the smiles though.
Chimp,
ReplyDelete>>Dan has abandoned yet another thread when he can no longer twist our words or change his argument in a failed attempt to salvage his original point.
Got Evidence?
Dan
ReplyDeleteOh and your right, China never floods. ^/sarcasm
Thanks for the smiles though.
No global flood myths, Dan. I know that both places (China and Egypt) have local floods.
The point, which as usual, flew over your head is that neither place got "flooded" out at the time this supposed global flood was to have ocurred. Both of their civilizations went on as normal.
And no, Dan, the link I gave to Morton's site are not "broken". They work fine. Morton is a person who's worked in geology for some 20 years, by the way.
You can try again here.
Reynold,
ReplyDeleteWouldn't it make sense that if a civilization were to be wiped out entirely by a flood that there would not be writings about it at all?
The fact that there are flood references throughout the world means that there was at one time a flood that many knew about. They didn't have cells phones to verify each others experiences back then either.
>>No global flood myths, Dan. I know that both places (China and Egypt) have local floods.
Sorry, I knew what you meant I was just being cheeky with you, but you are wrong.
From what I read:
China- Lolo tribe legend says there was, Destruction by Water, Divine Cause, Humans Spared, Animals Spared and they were Preserved in a Vessel.
The Chinese classic called the Hihking tells about "the family of Fuhi," that was saved from a great flood. This ancient story tells that the entire land was flooded; the mountains and everything, however one family survived in a boat. The Chinese consider this man the father of their civilization. This record indicates that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters were the only people that escaped the great flood. It is claimed, that he and his family were the only people alive on earth, and repopulated the world.
Egypt- Book of the Dead legend says there was, Destruction by Water, Divine Cause, Warning was Given, Humans Spared, and they were Preserved in a Vessel.
No, the "Chinese" flood story is nothing of the kind.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG202_2.html
And you are still missing the point: both China and Ancient Egypt have recorded history from before the supposed flood.
One would think that if all life on Earth was wiped out in a flood, we wouldn't have any surviving history or civilizations, or that they would end abruptly.
A rather detailed account of why Noah's Flood didn't happen can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
That's rich, Nathan.
ReplyDelete[i]This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. We have traced it back to Nelson's The Deluge Story in Stone (1931, 181-182). Nelson says that, according to the Hihking, Fuhi "escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, his three sons and three daughters." There is no mention of a boat. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson attributes to Gutzlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around 1825. Gutzlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There are no further references to allow either account to be checked.[/i]
Later:
[i]It is possible that the Hihking refers to another work, but we can find no other that is more plausible. The I Ching is a possibility as Fu Hsi is credited with its authorship, but it contains no flood account at all.[/i]
My point was that during the time of the alleged flood, both egyptian and chinese cultures were apparently sailing along smoothly.
Ah yes, I've heard of this shockofgod character before.
ReplyDelete