Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

What's the bet he goofs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you expect me to accept that God exists, then evidence of God is what is required. The same applies to UFOs, Bigfeet, etc. There is certainly nothing non sequitur about it. It is the one and only sequitur.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure, so whenever you're ready to spit out what that evidence is, the discussion can proceed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That which is evident.

A hole in a dead body with a bullet in it is evidence. It may not be conclusive but it leads to a logical conclusion.

Looking out the window and seeing a tree does not lead logically to the conclusion that God exists. Hence, a tree is not evidence of God.

What do you think pixies are?

 

Photo ID would work. Any photo would be a start, though not a definitive one. Or footprints. Or fingerprints. Really ANYTHING that suggests a god would be evidence.

 

Now that's just a silly response to a progressive question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'll ask again. What do you think God is?

We have a preconceived idea of everything in this scenario, so we can all come to an agreement on the evidence.
So tell me what you think God is, so we can understand why it is you don't see evidence.

Why isn't it?

Jan.

 

You have a high opinion of yourself.

God is to me the same as pixies are to you.

That's the problem, isn't it? Unless you can show evidence, I have no reason to think God is anything.

Why isn't a tree evidence of pixies?

 

Which is?

And a dead body without a bullet is also evidence, albeit evidence of a death other than a gun.
"True absence" of death by a gunshot does not work
So in the same way, when you say a group of people provides no evidence of God being one of them, "true absence" of God does not work.
I mean what if one of them pipes up, "Hey, I'm God!", what are you going to say?
"No, you are not"?
Or maybe, just as equally reliant on presence, "Prove it"?

Do you want to try another question?
I did warn you, we can play this game for literally an eternity.

Much like looking at a dead body, sans a bullet hole, is not evidence of a death by a gunshot.
Or looking at a room without the loch ness monster is evidence of a room with the loch ness monster.
Or looking at a rabbit without horns is an example of rabbit horns.
Or an example of looking at a room of occupants that are not God is evidence of a room of occupants with God being amongst one of them.

Let me know when you start to see a pattern emerge.
Otherwise we can continue on with a few more examples.

Would you like me to provide you with a multiple choice of pictures to see if you can answer that one yourself?

 

So, as I said, whenever your ready to offer a notion of what that might be, the discussion can progress.
I mean surely you can offer something for the same query regarding gunshot wounds, bananas, loch ness monsters, rabbit's horns, etc, so it's not clear what the sudden hold up is.

 

So do I. That's mainly what motivates my posting here these days.

Or in my own case, I'd probably say something that convinces me to believe that God exists.

I make that substitution in order avoid being trolled into the epistemological tangles. Such as 'what is evidence'?, 'What kind of evidence would be evidence of a god?' and so on.

The advantage of 'something that convinces me' is that I'll know that I've encountered it if I'm ever convinced. If I remain unconvinced, then obviously I haven't encountered it.

If somebody wants to insist that X should have convinced me, then the burden is on them to make that argument in such a way that it convinces me.

 

Can be seen, heard, touched, etc. Can be measured, photographed, etc. Can be detected in ANY way that is "evident" to everybody. A woo image in your mind is not evident.

I didn't say anything about death by gunshot. I said that the body was dead, which should be evident to most people. I said there was a hole with a bullet in it but I did not say that that evidence pointed inexorably to a conclusion of death by gunshot. That would be a premature conclusion.

That would be the sensible approach. Isn't that the approach you would take if somebody claimed to be God?

You don't seem to understand the meanings of the words "literally" or "eternity".

Unless you have photographs of your thoughts, that doesn't answer the question.

 

I did. You quoted it.

 

Sorry, but none of that is true, you are making conclusions where no evidence exists to make such conclusions. I cannot deny or reject anything that hasn't been shown to exist. If that is your honest answer to my inquiry, can I therefore conclude you have no legitimate answers to offer?

 

The "woo image in one's mind", as you so tactfully put it, is the standard one measures a claim of evidence against.
For instance if you demanded evidence of the loch ness monster and a boiled potato was brought before you, you would probably retort to the effect, "This is not what I had in mind", and proceed to give a rudimentary list of qualities to at least get the dog barking up the right tree.

So, when you talk about God not being evidenced by a tree, a banana, a room with the loch ness monster, a boiled potato, a group of people in a room, a bald man, a man with hair, a dead person with a gunshot wound, a person with a gunshot wound screaming at you to call an ambulance, a pile of hair clippings on the floor, a picture of a pixie, a picture of something else that does not look like a pixie or even a person coming up to you and saying, "Hey, I'm God", what is it that you have in mind? (the extra emphasized bit, being the suggestion from buddhism on where the precise problem of "true absence" lies).

BTW, this list has the potential to get bigger, hence the previos suggestions about a "literal eternity", assuming you have the time to spare.

 

Huh? That's the antithesis of evidence, not the standard.

I know. You tend to substitute blather for substance.

 

Then explain why you don't believe in God, if you think non of that is true.
If you opt to play the "there's no evidence" card, then please explain what you think God is. Then explain what evidence would be acceptable to you.

That would depend on what you think God is.

What else can I conclude?
There are theists, and there are atheists.
I accept both positions as real. There are people who believe in God, and there are people that don't. Either way God just Is.
Why can't you accept that?

Jan.

 

If you answered the question properly, we could take the discussion further. But that's not going to happen. Is it? That way you can, you can falsely maintain your worldview.

So God is a supernatural being in folklore and children's stories, typically portrayed as small and human-like in form, with pointed ears and a pointed hat?

So I understand you think God is a supernatural, mythical creature. Is that all you think God is?

That's not how it works. Why would you think it does.
If you reject and deny God (which you do), you are not going to be partial to any evidence presented. If you cannot even bring yourself to discuss God, as understood by people who believe in God, you're hardly likely to be partial to any evidence presented.
To summarise, you aren't interested in evidence for God, because you deny and reject God, as evidenced by your flaccid responses.

There is no claim that pixies are the origin of everything (including trees).
So once again. Why isn't a tree evidence of God?

Jan.

 

Jan, are you a married man? What country do you live in? What are you hobbies? What did you do today? What kind of work do you do. What is you level of education? Just curious...

 

"Supernatural" is a mythical concept, so just mythical will do.

That most assuredly is how it works. Without evidence, there's no reason to think that a myth is real or that one myth is significantly different from another. Gods = pixies.

Partiality is the problem, not the solution. Without evidence that can be recognized and accepted by everybody, including atheists and different varieties of theists, you have nothing but a vague idea.

That claim is irrelevant. As I've pointed out before, even if there was any evidence that some "god" existed, there would be no reason to extrapolate that evidence to conclude that it had created anything, much less everything.

 

It's imaginative, I can stipulate to that.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

How do we know fables are fables and not reality?
The themes of fables often deal with human morals. We know they are fables because foxes and ravens can't talk, they don't have the necessary vocal chords. Yet, in the story they speak coherently and the dialogue reveals the meaning of flattery (sin). Who is the "teacher" of the moral? The author or God?

If it is God, how did he communicate with humans? Remember, no vocal chords. Fable?