But before you call me a religious nut know that I am an atheist like yourself who doesn't like to tell his dead friends father that she is not in heaven. Sorry my grammer is off due to my disabilities but people still will not forgive me because they don't have to that why we fuck up to because we don't have to love everyone in our society. Therfore, why not have fun with your friends of region and still care for money and pride such as our religious forefathers did before.
The Great leap forward, the Khmer Rough, Raids on Tibet, Polish-Soviet war,Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet deportations of the 1940's,The Ukrainian famine, and the lack of coverage on Chernobyl and action t4 which used natural selection in their arguments.
we can prove what we say. when we say something is provable or exists. you can bet your bottom dollar that said thing is provable and exists. religious people have no such reputation about what they say when it comes to matters of their religion/faith.
If I wanna get some lessons on astrophysics I'm going to watch some videos by astrophysicists. If I wanna get some lessons on history; ask an historian. Nough said.
Why does everyone keep thinking it was the Muslims who brought back the classical renaissance to Europe? It wasn't just them, it was largely because of Byzantium and her fall that made many monks and theologians and scholars flee to the west, taking their antiquity along with them. That there is the true "Eastern" influence that brought the renaissance, the Byzantines.
@MegaJay79 If I saw a group of people who were bullies down the road it is possible that someone in the group is not a bully but not likely. Now I'll get to my argument:
Darwin was friends with alot of eugenicists and slave supporters and it is possible that he wasn't like them and didn't support their ideas but my answer is... not likely.
@MegaJay79 If I saw a group of people who were bullies down the road it is possible that someone in the group is not a bully but not likely. Now I'll get to my argument:
Darwin was friends with alot of eugenicists and slave supporters and it is possible that he wasn't like them and didn't support their ideas but my answer is... not likely.
"no evidence the president ever said it" makes the billboard sounds very much more incorrect than saying, "the quote is actually a mis-quote, but still in line with what Jefferesen said about religon."
What the video doesn't mention is how Christianity stiffled the mind of people until this very day. Keeping the minds of people in darkness and superstition.
"Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC Julius Caesar "accidentally" burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea. After its destruction, scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city" Wasn't done by Christians. Most that you mention that they belief it true is most clearly false.
I just finish American Civilization and NO WHERE did Thomas Jefferson made that quote. Wow! How accurate can Backyard Skeptic can be with their history?
Anyway, it's far more absurd to claim that "Jefferson never wrote it". That view has no evidence what so ever, not even indirect evidence like the quote itself. The quote also seems entirely in character of the author of the Jefferson Bible. It sounds a bit less harsh if you see it in context. It basically compares the mythological aspects of Christianity with other religions and concludes they are equally bad.
Overall, the source is somewhat weak today, but calling forgery is silly.
By the way, the main issue with the billboard is not that it's a misquote. It does in fact quote
John Remsberg's "Six Historic Americans" (1906), which cites an undated letter to a Dr Woods as the source. Those letters either don't exist anymore, or people were making up quotes from Jefferson in ages past. It's certainly absurd to claim that the new atheists made this up, even though that guy apologized. I suppose using primary sources is a virtue, but in this case evidence may have existed.
A bit of constructive criticism--it may be a good idea to edit this into smaller parts, possibly as a series. One or two sentences of your own commentary followed by five to ten minutes of a secondary source make the argument difficult to follow, especially when done repeatedly for nearly 30 minutes. I'm interested in what you have to say, but a more concise and focused argument would be much appreciated.
You really are quite thick, aren't you? Atheism is not a belief, a world view or any other thing you would like to mislabel it as. It is simply a single position on a single issue. Science is a tool humanity uses to understand the nature of the Universe and the World we live in. Just because you are embarrassed to profess a belief in invisible wizards and magic zombies does not give you the right to misrepresent us. You don't even follow the precepts of your own religion.
@VyckRo Everything is NOT belief. The complete lack of evidence for the existence of god leads me to conclude that it is unlikely in the extreme that it exists. Magic? You mean like poofing the Universe into existence in six days? Like raising the dead? Like all the other magic tricks in the bible? Way to project.
Everything IS a belief, this means that anything requires a degree of faith, whether you start with "external reality" or whit the famous "scientific method" anything except atheism.
@VyckRo - I haven't closed my mind to real evidence. It just hasn't been shown to me yet. If you could show me one example of something that God actually did that didn't come from human hands, natural phenomenon or some other natural explanation I would be very open to it. The problem is, christians and other religions try to use subjective feelings and personal anecdotal accounts as evidence. Show me something tangible, that defies alternate explanation. Something real.
But when you say "tangible" how can you distinguish between what God has done verses the natural world? You have yet to provide anything "tangible" for us to make that distinction and therefore your challenge is meaningless.
@DawahFilms - It's easy to try to attribute things which occur naturally to supernatural movers. The evidence that these things are naturally occurring is tangible and measurable. We have chemistry, botany, geology, etc. to provide these proofs. Where is the evidence that a supernatural being did it?
So you want something "tangible" to "measure", but then you want to be able to indicate that it's supernatural?
It seems like you want your cake and want to eat it too. How can something supernatural be tangible? Furthermore, if something is not measurable are you implying that on the basis of it not being so (ignorance) that we suggest it's supernatural? Is this not the famed "God of the gaps" critique in practice?
@DawahFilms - Actually, if you produce a measurable bit of evidence it will, by definition no longer be considered supernatural. The term supernatural is defined as something beyond or outside of nature. Something related to divinity or ghosts. (Merriam Webster) The 'god of the gaps' analogy doesn't fit here. I'm asking for measurable, repeatable, quantifiable evidence.
@DawahFilms - My statement was a response to VyckRo who asked: "What would be considered as valid evidence for an atheis, that already has decided to deny all possible evidence?" I was attempting to answer him when you weighed in. It isn't nonsensical to posit that I would accept evidence that god was something other than supernatural.
But God cannot be anything other than supernatural. This is the God we believe in. So unless you're willing to say that God CANNOT be known because all that can be known is the natural, then I see no reason to posit this challenge.
"My statement was a response to VyckRo who asked: "What would be considered as valid evidence for an atheis"
In accordance with Dostoievsky, an atheist has only two options if he is confronted with irrefutable evidence for God, irrefutable as a miracle.
1. to doubt his own mental health
2. to conclude that he faced a problem, that he is unable to solve ... yet, but the problem must have a natural explanation ( and science will one day solve it).
@VyckRo - False dichotomy. Something which I would consider irrefutable would prompt me to investigate it. If, having investigating it I still was unable to assign natural causes for it I would tentatively conclude that it must be real. People are spontaneously cured of cancer by their own bodies rejecting the growths. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence. The evidence would have to be physical. I would need to actually see god or see it doing something.
@Christheatheist1 "Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." Sorry you can't know by touch or feel, it's by faith only. That's the test; can you? In either case, be blessed and I pray you have a great day.
@Gruurk2 Faith is gullibility. It's nice that you say that, but you do it through clenched teeth. You are brainwashed into thinking that you were born evil and must be fixed. What a miserable thing to think about yourself and humanity. My wish for you is that you overcome this self esteem destroying conditioning and find meaning in your life. I hope you learn to love yourself.
@Christheatheist1 You have faith in your belief in science which is in constantly changing with the seasons. When I wished you well, did you clench your teeth? Are you brainwashed to think you are good and you are beyond others? Perhaps you should spend more time facing the truth and stop running from in. A free lesson for you. The more you try to make yourself out to be superior the further you will fall. G-d bless.
@Gruurk2 -WRONG. I have a reasonable expectation that science is correct BECAUSE it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy. You are a silly little thing to think that an creatard could upset me. I know that I'm a good man because I've spent my life helping others. When you are man enough to be able to spell G-O-D I'll take you more seriously.
@Christheatheist1 WRONG AGAIN! First off you speak again without knowledge or understanding which is clearly obvious you are still young. That's not a sin but you should listen and learn before you make a complete fool out of yourself. Teaching time, Deu 5:11 "You shall not take the name of the L-RD your G-d in vain: for the L-RD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain". (cont)
@Gruurk2 "you speak again without knowledge or understanding which is clearly obvious you are still young." I'm 53. "you should listen and learn before you make a complete fool out of yourself." I hold two masters degrees. One in medicine and one in physical science. And I can spell the word GOD out without wetting myself.
@Christheatheist1 (cont) So today many of us who would like to try to keep that commandment in a more perfect way so as to honor Jesus (Y’shua) leave out the ‘o’ It’s a way of saying “I LOVE YOU L-RD!” So my blinded and foolish Atheist, this has been done for thousands of years. It started with the Jews. If you would have noticed am what is called a Messiah Jew. You acted once again without any empirical knowledge. (cont1)
@Christheatheist1 (cont1) Lastly my foolish Atheist, you remark for "it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy" is akin to limitless and unyielding faith into a lie no matter what happens. How about you learn about a subject before engaging into conversation at this level?!? In short you lost. Oh, I don't have to defend Yahshua Ha Moshiach. He can do that on his own. You aren't an Atheist really, just another hate filled Theist looking for revenge. So long!
@Gruurk2 ""it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy" is akin to limitless and unyielding faith into a lie no matter what happens." The ignorance of that remark is boundless. A system which tests itself for accuracy is doing the exact opposite of operating without evidence, which is what faith does. "How about you learn about a subject before engaging into conversation at this level?!?" I was a christian for over 30 years. Seems long enough to me.
@Gruurk2 "In short you lost." Was this a contest? "I don't have to defend Yahshua Ha Moshiach. He can do that on his own." Which is why you posted three times, furiously spewing nonsense to get me to believe in your superstition. "You aren't an Atheist really, just another hate filled Theist looking for revenge" I don't believe in god. That is the definition of atheism. Try thinking next time before you press the post button.
@Christheatheist1 Why should I have to think when you don't? It is you my friend that is deep in your mysticism and superstition of science. If claim to be an atheist you have proven your mind is limited and can't conceive the truth. You follow the crowd because its the end thing to do. Good luck to you cause you are going to need it.
@Gruurk2 - Well, for starters, I DO think. You obviously don't. Mysticism? Look up the meaning of that word and then try to apply it to: "does not believe in god." Doesn't fit, does it? A little critical thinking goes a long way. Science is the diametric opposite of superstition. Science uses observable, repeatable, physical evidence. Superstition, which is what you rely on, if belief without the benefit of evidence. I think for myself. You should try it some time.
@Gruurk2 - Sorry. That doesn't work. You are a grown man who calls himself a "child," and a "slave." You have a masochistic need for a daddy figure to do your thinking for you. I on the other hand, have been patient enough to try and reason with you even though you resort to disingenuous tactics like this one. Grow up.
@Christheatheist1 It does more than you possibility can imagine it seems. If you were 100 then you will be the child of someone would you not? Thus the comment you are poorly trying to conceptualize must be on a intelligential plain far past your personal intelligence. No fault in this handicap really. It just is.
@Gruurk2 - No. My parents are dead and no one is in a parental position with relationship to me. Once again, projecting your absurd paraphilias upon me. BTW: It's plane, not plain. Casting aspersions upon my intelligence is ludicrous when you can only barely string a sentence together.
@Christheatheist1 You need to understand that I am not attacking you. I've had to engage in a running defense against your projections, tantrums and insults. This could all be avoided if you would simply get it through your head that not everyone in the world agrees with your religious fanaticism. Calm yourself and resolve to live and let live. You will be a much happier person.
@Gruurk2 While we're on the subject of conduct in private, you've spend the entire time, attempting to compare me with a "kid" and characterizing me as having a chip on my shoulder. Meanwhile, your tone had become increasingly hysterical and strident. Perhaps you would like to explain that?
@Christheatheist1 Mostly because you conduct yourself as an adolescent with a chip the size of Texas on your shoulders. Have you developed the inability to comprehend what someone is saying? If this is a recent medical issue I would recommend that you seek proper care for this pretention ailment. Or perhaps you just lack the reasoning ability to adequately associate realistic concepts.
@Gruurk2 - You tried that, remember? And you were corrected. Projecting hostility upon me is a clear indication of your dishonesty. Now stop throwing tantrums and behave like a man in his 50s. You seem to have an antisocial disorder of some sort.
"I would need to actually see god or see it doing something."
- If you really see God, your atheist mind would conclude that you witness a phenomenon perfectly explainable ( as a hologram produced by NASA or by Chinese), but a phenomenon for which you have not enough informed to understand it.
Once you enter this philosophical mental masturbation "Let's review the theists evidence, and refuse then" you can deny anything.
@VyckRo Honestly, this is so ludicrous, there is no human technology that can produce a convincing illusion of this scale.
As for doubting my mental health, that's why it's good if the phenomena is experienced by multiple people or leaves evidence behind.
And as for "science will explain it later" - I don't see a big problem with that necessarily. Science has been constantly expanding to explain things that were thought "supernatural". Supernatural has a track record of failure/hoaxes.
therefore, considering that the atheist requires evidence, It is no exaggeration for the theist to ask for further clarification on what type of evidence he would have to bring.
Otherwise we can lose whole days, whit me lisatand evidence as: an aunt was cured of cancer, I personally had an experience whit God, the order from the universe....
And all that the atheist woud have to do is to say:
@VyckRo Theist are asked for evidence to support their supernatural claims. As for what type ... well how about testable evidence, something other people can examine and test and see if they come up with the same results as you do?
@DawahFilms You ask how can something be supernatural and also tangible, as if you understand the supernatural. Where exactly did you get your understanding of things that we are not able to perceive?
@VyckRo "everything is a belief in one way or another, but not atheism because atheis is magic."
A belief means that you hold some statement about reality to be true, but atheism in its broad sense makes no statements about reality. It merely rejects theism. For example due to lack of evidence for theistic claims, but this does not imply making the positive claim that nothing anyone has called god has existed anywhere, ever.
Of course you're the one to decide what is to be atheism. So what would you call somebody who simply holds no belief about any given deity?
If I defined theists as people who deny the existence of tea - I certainly would strengthen my position that their ideology is ridiculous .. by deluding what their is actually known on that topic. (Of course the belief in a deity which can't even be properly defined (=actual theism) nearly as ridiculus ..)
You can call him a "strong" atheist or pronounce his view ... the problem is that such a view is pretty naive. If you think about it such a position is neither necessary nor reasonable.
these fucking religious fascist sit there and tell everyone that Atheist are wrong REALLY? this stupid troll of a cunt! stop spreading BULL SHIT!
dillinger9999 5 days ago
@VyckRo Atheism is not a religion.
dillinger9999 5 days ago
But before you call me a religious nut know that I am an atheist like yourself who doesn't like to tell his dead friends father that she is not in heaven. Sorry my grammer is off due to my disabilities but people still will not forgive me because they don't have to that why we fuck up to because we don't have to love everyone in our society. Therfore, why not have fun with your friends of region and still care for money and pride such as our religious forefathers did before.
zambiaclipppersmvcp5 1 month ago
The Great leap forward, the Khmer Rough, Raids on Tibet, Polish-Soviet war,Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Soviet deportations of the 1940's,The Ukrainian famine, and the lack of coverage on Chernobyl and action t4 which used natural selection in their arguments.
zambiaclipppersmvcp5 1 month ago
well, when you believe that lying is an evolutionary virtue, you can't be expected to value any truth beyond what you can gain from it.
saintstrawman 1 month ago
Atheists lying again..
ShaneyCunn84 1 month ago
so pointing out historical facts is a war on history? atheists have no problem with history. that's why we like to point it out so often ;)
lonewolf975 1 month ago
@lonewolf975
In fact all the "facts" mentioned here are just atheist myths!
VyckRo 1 month ago
@VyckRo there are no atheist myths? because we only have truths? because thats what we do? nice try though.
lonewolf975 1 month ago
@lonewolf975
If those are questions then:
1.yes there is.
2.No
3.No
VyckRo 1 month ago
@VyckRo rhetorical questions.
1. no there are not.
2. yes.
3. yes.
we can prove what we say. when we say something is provable or exists. you can bet your bottom dollar that said thing is provable and exists. religious people have no such reputation about what they say when it comes to matters of their religion/faith.
lonewolf975 1 month ago
@VyckRo there is no such thing as Atheist myths you stupid twat
dillinger9999 5 days ago
Just writing to say I love your PS message in the information box. Haha!
wazpoppin9 1 month ago
If I wanna get some lessons on astrophysics I'm going to watch some videos by astrophysicists. If I wanna get some lessons on history; ask an historian. Nough said.
hippo11222 1 month ago 2
Why does everyone keep thinking it was the Muslims who brought back the classical renaissance to Europe? It wasn't just them, it was largely because of Byzantium and her fall that made many monks and theologians and scholars flee to the west, taking their antiquity along with them. That there is the true "Eastern" influence that brought the renaissance, the Byzantines.
RomaZeal 1 month ago
Vyck, dealing in magics and divination once again? lol
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
well when you believe that lying to yourself is an evolutionary virtue, you can't be expected to be a truth-speaker.
saintstrawman 1 month ago
Darwin was a proud Eugenicist.
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
@JamesRideout123 Darwin wasn't a eugenicist in any way it was others who twisted his theory
MegaJay79 2 months ago
@MegaJay79 If I saw a group of people who were bullies down the road it is possible that someone in the group is not a bully but not likely. Now I'll get to my argument:
Darwin was friends with alot of eugenicists and slave supporters and it is possible that he wasn't like them and didn't support their ideas but my answer is... not likely.
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
@JamesRideout123 Apparently in Decent of Man Darwin actually mentions how eugenics is wrong and not applicable to his theory
MegaJay79 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MegaJay79 If I saw a group of people who were bullies down the road it is possible that someone in the group is not a bully but not likely. Now I'll get to my argument:
Darwin was friends with alot of eugenicists and slave supporters and it is possible that he wasn't like them and didn't support their ideas but my answer is... not likely.
JamesRideout123 2 months ago
@JamesRideout123
Nope...
Wrath0fKhan 1 month ago
"no evidence the president ever said it" makes the billboard sounds very much more incorrect than saying, "the quote is actually a mis-quote, but still in line with what Jefferesen said about religon."
What the video doesn't mention is how Christianity stiffled the mind of people until this very day. Keeping the minds of people in darkness and superstition.
Futureplanet 2 months ago
The fact that this video opened with a clip from Fox News was enough for me to smell the bullshit.
SongADayChallenge 2 months ago
I don't think Atheists have to worry about this video.lol
SuperMrAtheist 2 months ago
Penis! ;)-----<<-------------8
Coffeeisnecessary 2 months ago
"Plutarch (AD 46–120) wrote that during his visit to Alexandria in 48 BC Julius Caesar "accidentally" burned the library down when he set fire to his own ships to frustrate Achillas' attempt to limit his ability to communicate by sea. After its destruction, scholars used a "daughter library" in a temple known as the Serapeum, located in another part of the city" Wasn't done by Christians. Most that you mention that they belief it true is most clearly false.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
I just finish American Civilization and NO WHERE did Thomas Jefferson made that quote. Wow! How accurate can Backyard Skeptic can be with their history?
cguevara12 2 months ago
Anyway, it's far more absurd to claim that "Jefferson never wrote it". That view has no evidence what so ever, not even indirect evidence like the quote itself. The quote also seems entirely in character of the author of the Jefferson Bible. It sounds a bit less harsh if you see it in context. It basically compares the mythological aspects of Christianity with other religions and concludes they are equally bad.
Overall, the source is somewhat weak today, but calling forgery is silly.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
By the way, the main issue with the billboard is not that it's a misquote. It does in fact quote
John Remsberg's "Six Historic Americans" (1906), which cites an undated letter to a Dr Woods as the source. Those letters either don't exist anymore, or people were making up quotes from Jefferson in ages past. It's certainly absurd to claim that the new atheists made this up, even though that guy apologized. I suppose using primary sources is a virtue, but in this case evidence may have existed.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
A bit of constructive criticism--it may be a good idea to edit this into smaller parts, possibly as a series. One or two sentences of your own commentary followed by five to ten minutes of a secondary source make the argument difficult to follow, especially when done repeatedly for nearly 30 minutes. I'm interested in what you have to say, but a more concise and focused argument would be much appreciated.
yermomsboxx 2 months ago 2
@yermomsboxx
I thought to do a series on this, but not these myths (these are too simple) , here, I just wanted to show that they are widely widespread.
anyone can take the case of Giordano Bruno, and see exactly why he was condemned.
Or anyone can verify when the "Library of Alexandria" was mentioned for the last timpe.
and so on...
VyckRo 2 months ago
You really are quite thick, aren't you? Atheism is not a belief, a world view or any other thing you would like to mislabel it as. It is simply a single position on a single issue. Science is a tool humanity uses to understand the nature of the Universe and the World we live in. Just because you are embarrassed to profess a belief in invisible wizards and magic zombies does not give you the right to misrepresent us. You don't even follow the precepts of your own religion.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
"Atheism is not a belief, a world view or any other thing you would like to mislabel it as"
Obviously, atheism is beyond human comprehension is ... magic.
everything is a belief in one way or another, but not atheism because atheis is magic.
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo Everything is NOT belief. The complete lack of evidence for the existence of god leads me to conclude that it is unlikely in the extreme that it exists. Magic? You mean like poofing the Universe into existence in six days? Like raising the dead? Like all the other magic tricks in the bible? Way to project.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
Everything IS a belief, this means that anything requires a degree of faith, whether you start with "external reality" or whit the famous "scientific method" anything except atheism.
VyckRo 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
"The complete lack of evidence for the existence of god"
What would be considered as valid evidence for an atheis, that already has decided to deny all possible evidence?
I guess it is easy to appeal to a kind of, philosophical mental masturbation and deny anything: Obama, China, that the earth is round...
The real question is: what evidence needs an atheist?
What kind?
What type?
Some examples would be very useful
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo - I haven't closed my mind to real evidence. It just hasn't been shown to me yet. If you could show me one example of something that God actually did that didn't come from human hands, natural phenomenon or some other natural explanation I would be very open to it. The problem is, christians and other religions try to use subjective feelings and personal anecdotal accounts as evidence. Show me something tangible, that defies alternate explanation. Something real.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
But when you say "tangible" how can you distinguish between what God has done verses the natural world? You have yet to provide anything "tangible" for us to make that distinction and therefore your challenge is meaningless.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms - It's easy to try to attribute things which occur naturally to supernatural movers. The evidence that these things are naturally occurring is tangible and measurable. We have chemistry, botany, geology, etc. to provide these proofs. Where is the evidence that a supernatural being did it?
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
So you want something "tangible" to "measure", but then you want to be able to indicate that it's supernatural?
It seems like you want your cake and want to eat it too. How can something supernatural be tangible? Furthermore, if something is not measurable are you implying that on the basis of it not being so (ignorance) that we suggest it's supernatural? Is this not the famed "God of the gaps" critique in practice?
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms - Actually, if you produce a measurable bit of evidence it will, by definition no longer be considered supernatural. The term supernatural is defined as something beyond or outside of nature. Something related to divinity or ghosts. (Merriam Webster) The 'god of the gaps' analogy doesn't fit here. I'm asking for measurable, repeatable, quantifiable evidence.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
Of what? If God is supernatural then what you are asking for is nonsensical.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms - My statement was a response to VyckRo who asked: "What would be considered as valid evidence for an atheis, that already has decided to deny all possible evidence?" I was attempting to answer him when you weighed in. It isn't nonsensical to posit that I would accept evidence that god was something other than supernatural.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
But God cannot be anything other than supernatural. This is the God we believe in. So unless you're willing to say that God CANNOT be known because all that can be known is the natural, then I see no reason to posit this challenge.
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
"My statement was a response to VyckRo who asked: "What would be considered as valid evidence for an atheis"
In accordance with Dostoievsky, an atheist has only two options if he is confronted with irrefutable evidence for God, irrefutable as a miracle.
1. to doubt his own mental health
2. to conclude that he faced a problem, that he is unable to solve ... yet, but the problem must have a natural explanation ( and science will one day solve it).
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo - False dichotomy. Something which I would consider irrefutable would prompt me to investigate it. If, having investigating it I still was unable to assign natural causes for it I would tentatively conclude that it must be real. People are spontaneously cured of cancer by their own bodies rejecting the growths. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence. The evidence would have to be physical. I would need to actually see god or see it doing something.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 "Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." Sorry you can't know by touch or feel, it's by faith only. That's the test; can you? In either case, be blessed and I pray you have a great day.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 Faith is gullibility. It's nice that you say that, but you do it through clenched teeth. You are brainwashed into thinking that you were born evil and must be fixed. What a miserable thing to think about yourself and humanity. My wish for you is that you overcome this self esteem destroying conditioning and find meaning in your life. I hope you learn to love yourself.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 You have faith in your belief in science which is in constantly changing with the seasons. When I wished you well, did you clench your teeth? Are you brainwashed to think you are good and you are beyond others? Perhaps you should spend more time facing the truth and stop running from in. A free lesson for you. The more you try to make yourself out to be superior the further you will fall. G-d bless.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 -WRONG. I have a reasonable expectation that science is correct BECAUSE it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy. You are a silly little thing to think that an creatard could upset me. I know that I'm a good man because I've spent my life helping others. When you are man enough to be able to spell G-O-D I'll take you more seriously.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 WRONG AGAIN! First off you speak again without knowledge or understanding which is clearly obvious you are still young. That's not a sin but you should listen and learn before you make a complete fool out of yourself. Teaching time, Deu 5:11 "You shall not take the name of the L-RD your G-d in vain: for the L-RD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain". (cont)
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 "you speak again without knowledge or understanding which is clearly obvious you are still young." I'm 53. "you should listen and learn before you make a complete fool out of yourself." I hold two masters degrees. One in medicine and one in physical science. And I can spell the word GOD out without wetting myself.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 (cont) So today many of us who would like to try to keep that commandment in a more perfect way so as to honor Jesus (Y’shua) leave out the ‘o’ It’s a way of saying “I LOVE YOU L-RD!” So my blinded and foolish Atheist, this has been done for thousands of years. It started with the Jews. If you would have noticed am what is called a Messiah Jew. You acted once again without any empirical knowledge. (cont1)
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 “I LOVE YOU L-RD!” Do you mean LORD? LOL!
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 (cont1) Lastly my foolish Atheist, you remark for "it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy" is akin to limitless and unyielding faith into a lie no matter what happens. How about you learn about a subject before engaging into conversation at this level?!? In short you lost. Oh, I don't have to defend Yahshua Ha Moshiach. He can do that on his own. You aren't an Atheist really, just another hate filled Theist looking for revenge. So long!
Gruurk2 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Gruurk2 ""it constantly tests itself to ensure accuracy" is akin to limitless and unyielding faith into a lie no matter what happens." The ignorance of that remark is boundless. A system which tests itself for accuracy is doing the exact opposite of operating without evidence, which is what faith does. "How about you learn about a subject before engaging into conversation at this level?!?" I was a christian for over 30 years. Seems long enough to me.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 "In short you lost." Was this a contest? "I don't have to defend Yahshua Ha Moshiach. He can do that on his own." Which is why you posted three times, furiously spewing nonsense to get me to believe in your superstition. "You aren't an Atheist really, just another hate filled Theist looking for revenge" I don't believe in god. That is the definition of atheism. Try thinking next time before you press the post button.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 Why should I have to think when you don't? It is you my friend that is deep in your mysticism and superstition of science. If claim to be an atheist you have proven your mind is limited and can't conceive the truth. You follow the crowd because its the end thing to do. Good luck to you cause you are going to need it.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 - Well, for starters, I DO think. You obviously don't. Mysticism? Look up the meaning of that word and then try to apply it to: "does not believe in god." Doesn't fit, does it? A little critical thinking goes a long way. Science is the diametric opposite of superstition. Science uses observable, repeatable, physical evidence. Superstition, which is what you rely on, if belief without the benefit of evidence. I think for myself. You should try it some time.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 I don't see that being supported by your conduct nor behaviour. So, grow up and be what you said to me in private.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 - Sorry. That doesn't work. You are a grown man who calls himself a "child," and a "slave." You have a masochistic need for a daddy figure to do your thinking for you. I on the other hand, have been patient enough to try and reason with you even though you resort to disingenuous tactics like this one. Grow up.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 It does more than you possibility can imagine it seems. If you were 100 then you will be the child of someone would you not? Thus the comment you are poorly trying to conceptualize must be on a intelligential plain far past your personal intelligence. No fault in this handicap really. It just is.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 - No. My parents are dead and no one is in a parental position with relationship to me. Once again, projecting your absurd paraphilias upon me. BTW: It's plane, not plain. Casting aspersions upon my intelligence is ludicrous when you can only barely string a sentence together.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 You need to understand that I am not attacking you. I've had to engage in a running defense against your projections, tantrums and insults. This could all be avoided if you would simply get it through your head that not everyone in the world agrees with your religious fanaticism. Calm yourself and resolve to live and let live. You will be a much happier person.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 While we're on the subject of conduct in private, you've spend the entire time, attempting to compare me with a "kid" and characterizing me as having a chip on my shoulder. Meanwhile, your tone had become increasingly hysterical and strident. Perhaps you would like to explain that?
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1 Mostly because you conduct yourself as an adolescent with a chip the size of Texas on your shoulders. Have you developed the inability to comprehend what someone is saying? If this is a recent medical issue I would recommend that you seek proper care for this pretention ailment. Or perhaps you just lack the reasoning ability to adequately associate realistic concepts.
Gruurk2 2 months ago
@Gruurk2 - You tried that, remember? And you were corrected. Projecting hostility upon me is a clear indication of your dishonesty. Now stop throwing tantrums and behave like a man in his 50s. You seem to have an antisocial disorder of some sort.
Christheatheist1 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
"I would need to actually see god or see it doing something."
- If you really see God, your atheist mind would conclude that you witness a phenomenon perfectly explainable ( as a hologram produced by NASA or by Chinese), but a phenomenon for which you have not enough informed to understand it.
Once you enter this philosophical mental masturbation "Let's review the theists evidence, and refuse then" you can deny anything.
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo cop out
givingmantoo 2 months ago
@VyckRo Honestly, this is so ludicrous, there is no human technology that can produce a convincing illusion of this scale.
As for doubting my mental health, that's why it's good if the phenomena is experienced by multiple people or leaves evidence behind.
And as for "science will explain it later" - I don't see a big problem with that necessarily. Science has been constantly expanding to explain things that were thought "supernatural". Supernatural has a track record of failure/hoaxes.
DogmasDemise 2 months ago
@Christheatheist1
therefore, considering that the atheist requires evidence, It is no exaggeration for the theist to ask for further clarification on what type of evidence he would have to bring.
Otherwise we can lose whole days, whit me lisatand evidence as: an aunt was cured of cancer, I personally had an experience whit God, the order from the universe....
And all that the atheist woud have to do is to say:
-this is not proof for me
-this is not proof for me
OkTHEN WHAT IS?
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo Theist are asked for evidence to support their supernatural claims. As for what type ... well how about testable evidence, something other people can examine and test and see if they come up with the same results as you do?
MrArizonahandyman 2 months ago
@MrArizonahandyman
"well how about testable evidence, something other people can examine and test and see if they come up with the same results as you do?"
Like what? If I use the same philosophical methods, as the atheist, I can easily deny your existence with you in my face.
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo another cop out and bullshit too
givingmantoo 2 months ago
@DawahFilms You ask how can something be supernatural and also tangible, as if you understand the supernatural. Where exactly did you get your understanding of things that we are not able to perceive?
MrArizonahandyman 2 months ago
@MrArizonahandyman
What Im able to perceive is not merely the tangible.
Philosophy is not grounded in the "tangible".
DawahFilms 2 months ago
@DawahFilms another cop out, you just love to cop out.
givingmantoo 2 months ago
@VyckRo "everything is a belief in one way or another, but not atheism because atheis is magic."
A belief means that you hold some statement about reality to be true, but atheism in its broad sense makes no statements about reality. It merely rejects theism. For example due to lack of evidence for theistic claims, but this does not imply making the positive claim that nothing anyone has called god has existed anywhere, ever.
Obviously this has nothing to do with magic.
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro
"A belief means that you hold some statement about reality to be true"
I hold reality (external reality) to be true, but I have no proof of this. That makes me an Atheist or a Teist?
"this does not imply making the positive claim that nothing anyone has called god has existed anywhere, ever."
Then we do not talk about atheism!
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo
"Then we do not talk about atheism"
Of course you're the one to decide what is to be atheism. So what would you call somebody who simply holds no belief about any given deity?
If I defined theists as people who deny the existence of tea - I certainly would strengthen my position that their ideology is ridiculous .. by deluding what their is actually known on that topic. (Of course the belief in a deity which can't even be properly defined (=actual theism) nearly as ridiculus ..)
Nederdien 2 months ago
@Nederdien
" So what would you call somebody who simply holds no belief about any given deity?"
A person that holds no belief about any given deity
The real question is, how you define a person who believe that God does not exist?
VyckRo 2 months ago
@VyckRo
You can call him a "strong" atheist or pronounce his view ... the problem is that such a view is pretty naive. If you think about it such a position is neither necessary nor reasonable.
Nederdien 2 months ago