Yes, scripture is "jam packed" with examples. And yet you have still not been able to list a single one. You have failed completely. The theist doth protest too much, methinks.
It's Jan's stupid argument all over again. Theists can have knowledge of God and atheists can't. But what they don't admit is that verification is still required in order to distinguish knowledge from delusion. How do you know the thing you believe through whatever religious tradition is true?
You wouldn't be mad at God at all if he let you go to hell? Dis-belief may or may not be worse than skepticism. Why not go to Heaven based on knowing and not have to burn... and reserve Doubt for the worst of the worst. Science upholds knowledge, faith gives us truth.
I have faith I can fly off this cliff Weeeeeeeeeeee Splat Shite. But at least now I know that science knowledge would tell me how I could fly and faith makes shite up Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am not sure how that works. Technically an atheist requires to have no knowledge (as in realization, which is the whole thrust of this discussion about evidence arising from prescriptive measures) in order to identify as such. Through appllication of course. So then it boils down to discerning valid from invalid practices as they pertain to goals.
If that was the case, there would be no need to go beyond mere definitions in scripture. Sure. You could say that is first. Pretty much all knowable issues begin like that. If you don't believe it will rain, you won't pack an umbrella, and so forth. What to speak of applying the means that grants discernment on the nature of God. If you don't have any notable degree of faith in a field of knowledge, it stands to reason that the catalysts that empower such a field will also be neglected. Very few interviewees get admitted to competitive universities by expressing their impatient distaste for the field and the institution they are applying to. I'm not sure on the connection you are trying to draw with foreigners. Unlike foreigners, atheists have very clear and apparent views that they choose to establish or maintain in order to remain as such. If that was the case, why talk of prescriptive measures in pursuit of goals?
Were we discussing epistemological authority or something else? By practice of course. This is why atheists have no recourse to anything outside of their head and struggle immensely to establish a position beyond being a mere reactionary subset of religion.
I guess if you practice enough you can believe anything. Some people really, honestly believe the earth is flat.
So how did having faith and believing I could fly off the cliff provide any truth? Seems like I killed myself because of my faith. Which is a twist on religion which frequently kills believers in other regions for having a different belief Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
If morality isn't the authority, then I don't care what they have to say about anything. Practice of delusional beliefs only reinforces delusion. How do you know it's not a delusion without evidence? Atheism is perfectly compatible with empiricism, which is not just reactionary to religious doctrine but actually superior.
You are just talking of ideas that have no practical element. No doubt you feel the same about theism, which would explain your reluctance to click on links and whatnot.
Ok. So you did just change the topic. By practice in pursuit of prescriptive descriptions .... the same as practically any claim you could care to mention. Bollocks
Which requires presenting the practice and methods of application, and the goals, for discerning examination. Something you will never do. And failed to present a single one of those examples. Of course they do. Now back to the topic - evidence that God is real.