Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was not talking about people who choose what to do with the conclusions. I was talking about people who can choose to believe things. Of which I am not one. So I will not be following you down one of your usual unrelated rabbit holes.
Nice ninja edit. But no I said nothing even remotely like that. At all. Anywhere. But you do value your little distortions at the best of times.
It isn't a distortion...the issue, as per the thread title, is, "Evidence, Anyone?".
"Ninja Edit": What many Atheists do to the known, expert, FULL definition for "G-O-D"...to make it fit their CHOSEN belief that there is "No Evidence" to substantiate "GOD".
More Strawman stuff. We are not talking about "my feelings & opinions" here.
Of course I would like eyewitness testimony evidence if it placed me miles from a crime screen, or "written record" evidence if it shows a payment I made it is being claimed I didn't. If it went against me...I wouldn't like it.
Also, relative to your arguments..."scientifically testable" evidence can be contaminated or planted, and yeild erroneous results.
But none of that is the issue.
The thread is titled, "Evidence, Anyone?". I am noting that "Eyewitness Testimony" and "Written Records" are well known to be "evidence"...with millions of cases where is has been presented as such to back that up.
Address THAT. Refute my claim that "Eyewitnesses Testimony" & "Written Records" is KNOWN TO BE EVIDENCE.
What I've pointed out is that only fools rest their confidence in eyewitness accounts. And because this is a religion thread, it is particularly foolish to believe Scripture, the oldest scraps of the NT which date to the late second century, were consistent in detail. Given that there are more mistakes among the 5000 existing scraps and manuscripts than there are words in the NT, some involving critical verses for some sects of Christianity, why would anyone reach the conclusion that human hands and hand copying could be anywhere close to solid evidence isn't rational.
Just because historically we have depended on written records and eyewitness testimony doesn't't mean it is wise or accurate. It may be, in the case of historical documents, because we have nothing else.
Proof that we are evolving in that regard is the fact that community after community is requiring body cams for police officers. Why? Because of conflicting eyewitness reports, both sides committed to what they saw.
So history as we have understood it, may very well be flawed based on our current knowledge of the foibles of men and how they have most likely colored our understanding of the past.
What I've pointed out is that only fools rest their confidence in eyewitness accounts. And because this is a religion thread, it is particularly foolish to believe Scripture, the oldest scraps of the NT which date to the late second century, were consistent in detail. Given that there are more mistakes among the 5000 existing scraps and manuscripts than there are words in the NT, some involving critical verses for some sects of Christianity, why would anyone reach the conclusion that human hands and hand copying could be anywhere close to solid evidence isn't rational.
Just because historically we have depended on written records and eyewitness testimony doesn't't mean it is wise or accurate. It may be, in the case of historical documents, because we have nothing else.
Proof that we are evolving in that regard is the fact that community after community is requiring body cams for police officers. Why? Because of conflicting eyewitness reports, both sides committed to what they saw.
So history as we have understood it, may very well be flawed based on our current knowledge of the foibles of men and how they have most likely colored our understanding of the past.
My point was that it IS "evidence".
Some make the bogus claim it isn't...on the basis that it isn't "as good" as other evidence might be.
That was not my point...and why I noted it was a "Strawman Argument".
My point was that dismissing it as "not evidence" flies in the face of the millions of times it has been presented, and accepted, as such...even formally and officially.
Bottom line FACT of the matter: It IS "evidence". Those that are ignorant to that fact, notwithstanding.
My point was that it IS "evidence".
Some make the bogus claim it isn't...on the basis that it isn't "as good" as other evidence might be.
That was not my point...and why I noted it was a "Strawman Argument".
My point was that dismissing it as "not evidence" flies in the face of the millions of times it has been presented, and accepted, as such...even formally and officially.
Bottom line FACT of the matter: It IS "evidence". Those that are ignorant to that fact, notwithstanding.
OP Here. I have to say lots of words have gone under the bridge, and all sorts of esoteric arguments presented, but not one word of evidence as I see it. None.
My point was that it IS "evidence".
Some make the bogus claim it isn't...on the basis that it isn't "as good" as other evidence might be.
That was not my point...and why I noted it was a "Strawman Argument".
My point was that dismissing it as "not evidence" flies in the face of the millions of times it has been presented, and accepted, as such...even formally and officially.
Bottom line FACT of the matter: It IS "evidence". Those that are ignorant to that fact, notwithstanding.
Accepting something as evidence doesn't make it evidence. As Neil Tyson pointed out in the video which I think you did not watch, our own history with what people SAY, is that it is unreliable. He asked a second grader if he had ever played the game of "telephone" with his classmates (he had). And Tyson asked him what happened to the story told by the first person and the boy said, "It was completely different."
That is the answer. Yes, people have relied on eyewitness accounts. But it is equally true that we now know it to be one of the poorest, if not THE poorest, kinds of evidence that can be provided.
Besides, I do not wish to bog down my faith with "evidence" to "prove" it. Scripture itself indicates that FAITH is the only way to approach God. You and others wish to make it about "evidence."
Don't tell me you are not a fundamentalist (and there are godless fundamentalists as much as religious ones). A fundamentalist clings doggedly to their point of view regardless of how reasonable any argument appears to the contrary. You did the same thing with the "Irish" thread, clinging to the view that Ireland is nothing based solely on your perception of their economic output in the world. You failed to measure or account for their cultural impact---which has resulted in St. Patrick's Day parades throughout the United States and a number of other countries as well. In other words, you are a fundamentalist.
You are Mr. Strawman himself when it comes to argumentation. I don't try to argue with atheists/agnostics that God exists because their is no EMPIRICAL evidence to support it. The support comes from weak "eyewitness" (there was not a single REAL eyewitness who authored any of the NT) accounts. The actual writings were based on oral stories passed down--and oral stories do get altered over time--and in mythical (classic understanding, not modern) stories the details get embellished over time.
The fact that the stories resemble one another in general while differing highly in detail lends some credibility to the general message of the gospels.
As a fundamentalist you are welcome to cover your ears and close your eyes and say "Nuh-uh!" The christian ones are quite adept at it because "god" tells them to do so. It helps them maintain the atrocious view that god killed entire city-states to show his love for one group of people over another. Whereas Jesus, from what stories we have, appears to have loved everyone. Even if one accepts Jesus only as a principled philosopher, that Jesus is far more appealing in the Good News offered EVERYONE, than an unprincipled murderous higher being.
You are in love with your viewpoint. Mine has altered many times over the decades, perhaps because, as Tyson pointed out, I'm willing to stay at the drawing board rather than walk away thinking that the last answer I found was the only one needed.
It isn't a distortion...the issue, as per the thread title, is, "Evidence, Anyone?".
"Ninja Edit": What many Atheists do to the known, expert, FULL definition for "G-O-D"...to make it fit their CHOSEN belief that there is "No Evidence" to substantiate "GOD".
More evidence for your habitual dishonesty. Nozz talked of those who were choosing to believe. Which you know, since you are smart enough, implies believing something because you want to, (as many theists - apparently do - including you) rather than being obliged to accept something as true whether they want to or not, which is what many deconverts found they had to do.
This [quote=GldnRule;44101194]You believe you shouldn’t believe things...Noted.[quote] is a blatant misrepresentation.
And we all know that YOU were the one who picked a collateral definition of God to fit your argument and ignored all the others, and denied that you had done so even when the other definitions were posted.
And now you are even using the notorious chop -logic nitpick of bad evidence still being "evidence" (no names...to protect the guilty).
Sunshine, even before you walked into the Forward -planning God trap (and you subsequently denied that you had) your credibility was long gone.
[quote=TRANSPONDER;44120313] More evidence for your habitual dishonesty. Nozz talked of those who were choosing to believe. Which you know, since you are smart enough, implies believing something because you want to, (as many theists - apparently do - including you) rather than being obliged to accept something as rue whether they want to or not, which is what many deconverts found they had to do.
This: You believe you shouldn’t believe things...Noted.
Quote:
is a blatant misrepresentation.
And we all know that YOU were the one who picked a collateral def ' God to fit your argument and ignored all the others, and denied that you had done so even when the other definitions were posted.
Sunshine, even before you walked into the Forward -planning God trap (and you subsequently denied that you had) your credibility was long gone.
I didn't "pick" a definition. I take the FULL definition as it is...with every one of the ways "G-O-D" is defined. I accept all of them as meritorious. I submit: They *all* count!
It is YOU, et al, that try to proffer the bogus argument that some don't count...AKA: Cherry-picking.
The issue then, is: If one has a perception of God that comports with the definition...can they provide evidence that can be substantiated to indicate the objective existence of that God?
It would reason...if one has a perception of God that comports with the known, expert, FULL definition of God...and they can provide hard evidence that perception objectively exists...then "GOD" objectively exists.
My perception of God (ALL THE MATTER/ENERGY THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED) comports with the definition of GOD...and obviously objectively exists.
Thus "GOD" objectively exists. See how that works?
Oh, and...since I have now meritoriously established, through "evidence", PROOF that GOD objectively exists...Atheism is rendered null and void.
You, et al, need to get hip to that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
