What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

[Ana the Ist]

Hello.

With the concept of burden of proof. What type of proof would you require?

I think the general answer is "evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a god".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nonsense!

The belief in God is testified throughout generations and nations and this is based on experiencal claims that cannot be dismissed an hypothesis. The subjects of the claim of God existing are part and parcel of the insurmountable bed of evidence that keeps coming and coming and no one throughout history has been able to refute the claim of the existance of God.

An Athiest csn only make hypothesis in counterclaim without any merited evidence, because evidence is required by the Athiests to prove otherwise.

"Experience claims"? That's it?

 

[Dave Ellis]

fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.

Yes, but I never claimed that. The other poster accused me of committing a fallacy, but refused to specify which one. I never said he was wrong because he committed a fallacy.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

The fallacy of the fallacy is a bit tricky...

It means that you can be correct in spite of using a logical fallacy...but it doesn't mean that you are correct.

But it doesnt mean you are wrong my friend

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

I think the general answer is "evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a god".

Hello and thank you

What would be sufficient? What would you aceept?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Something that would conclusively demonstrate the existence of a god that can be examined and falsified should do I would imagine.

It's not really up to me though, the person who believes the claim should be capable of providing evidence sufficient to warrant belief. It's up to them to prove their claims, and if they can, I'll accept their claim.

Hello and thank you.

Could you give me an instance?

 

[Ana the Ist]

But it doesnt mean you are wrong my friend

Right.

For example, if I were to say...

"Water is H2O because scientists say so!"

You could say that I've committed the "appeal to authority fallacy"...and I have...but regardless of my illogical reasoning, H2O is still in fact water.

So for you to be correct, you'd have to be correct for reasons other than the ones you stated...does that make sense? It's like a state of ignorance where you're still correct by accident.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hello and thank you

What would be sufficient? What would you aceept?

What would I personally accept? That's a big answer...there's lots of things that I would personally accept.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hello and thank you

What would be sufficient? What would you aceept?

I don't know, but an omniscient god knows what I'd accept. An omnipotent one can make it happen while defeating whatever reasons apologists use to say he can't.

 

[Strathos]

I think the general answer is "evidence sufficient to establish the existence of a god".

That is different for different people, though.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Right.


For example, if I were to say...


"Water is H2O because scientists say so!"


You could say that I've committed the "appeal to authority fallacy"...and I have...but regardless of my illogical reasoning, H2O is still in fact water.


So for you to be correct, you'd have to be correct for reasons other than the ones you stated...does that make sense? It's like a state of ignorance where you're still correct by accident.

Hello

It may be an appeal to authority but it can also be a strong conviction that the scientist is right. I cannot prove that h2o is water at home or with the tools i have.

Is there a way i can prove h2o is water on my own or do i have to accept it as fact?

What would I personally accept? That's a big answer...there's lots of things that I would personally accept.

Is there one instance you could indulge me?

I don't know, but an omniscient god knows what I'd accept. An omnipotent one can make it happen while defeating whatever reasons apologists use to say he can't.

Hello. Im curious.
Do you believe that God should present himself to you rather than you looking for Him?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Hello. Im curious.
Do you believe that God should present himself to you rather than you looking for Him?

I was a Christian for 44 years. I've done all the looking I'm gonna do.

Besides, if he is "not willing that any should perish" then, yeah, I believe that any such god should present himself.

Also, this is besides the point. You asked, "What evidence would I accept?" My response answers that. And your question supposes that someone could present this evidence. If this god cares, he can present it. Else he doesn't exist or doesn't care.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hello

It may be an appeal to authority but it can also be a strong conviction that the scientist is right. I cannot prove that h2o is water at home or with the tools i have.

Is there a way i can prove h2o is water on my own or do i have to accept it as fact?

There are ways to prove it...sure.

As for a "strong conviction"...you're talking about your emotions, your feelings, and those aren't even a part of a rational/logical argument...they're part of an emotional argument.

Frankly, your feelings don't prove anything other than how you feel (Technically, they don't even prove that)...so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Is there one instance you could indulge me?




Hello. Im curious.
Do you believe that God should present himself to you rather than you looking for Him?

If "god" wants me to believe in him...then yeah, "presenting himself" and proving himself god would be one way to do it.

Does that answer both your questions?

 

[Gene2memE]

Within the scientific community a claim or theory is to be taken as truth into evidence unless it is proven wrong.

Completely the reverse of reality.

A claim is not accepted until it is demonstrated to be correct. If you accept all claims as true until demonstrated to be false, you would be obligated to accept competing and often mutually exclusive claims.

Thus, we have the roles of the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis in scientific research and testing.

Furthermore, a theory, in scientific nonclamenture, is not a claim or a hypothesis or an idea. A theory is a explanation of some element of the natural world (gravity, germ borne disease, relativity, ect, ect) that is well supported by repeated testing of evidence.

Don't lump 'claim' in with 'theory' in a discussion on science and epistemology.

The ball is in the Athiest court to prove that the Christian claim to the existence of God is wrong.

For Athiests to do so, they have the burden to prove otherwise and in so doing they are claiming that God doesn't exist.

Again, you've gotten this backwards.

You're the one making the positive claim a god - in this case, the god of Judaic monotheism - exists. I don't believe that claim.

If you'd like me to believe it, then you need to provide evidence that demonstrates its existence that is sufficient to overcome my skepticism of the initial claim.

 

[The Times]

"Experience claims"? That's it?

Did not Edison experience the first glowing light bulb, before billions of people would also come to experience the same light that Edison experienced.

Well Jesus said I am The Light of the world and from the very first disciples who experienced him as the Light, to the countless of billions who would come to also experience The Light across the last 2000 years and counting.

You said..... "Experience claim? That's it"

My response to you is...... what other experience can it be other than what can be comprehended and experienced from a real and tangible humanistic experience.

Does this mean that we discount the experience of billions across generations scoping the last 2000 years and still counting, all because you a proclaimed Athiest have yet to experience The Light?

Do you see how cognitive dissonance works, where there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.

Do you know what changes in an Athiest's logical mindset, in order to eliminate the dissonance?

They must deny evidence that does not agree with their cognitions, that is their belief that God does not exist.

 

[The Times]

Completely the reverse of reality.

A claim is not accepted until it is demonstrated to be correct. If you accept all claims as true until demonstrated to be false, you would be obligated to accept competing and often mutually exclusive claims.

Thus, we have the roles of the null hypothesis and alternate hypothesis in scientific research and testing.

Furthermore, a theory, in scientific nonclamenture, is not a claim or a hypothesis or an idea. A theory is a explanation of some element of the natural world (gravity, germ borne disease, relativity, ect, ect) that is well supported by repeated testing of evidence.

Don't lump 'claim' in with 'theory' in a discussion on science and epistemology.



Again, you've gotten this backwards.

You're the one making the positive claim a god - in this case, the god of Judaic monotheism - exists. I don't believe that claim.

If you'd like me to believe it, then you need to provide evidence that demonstrates its existence that is sufficient to overcome my skepticism of the initial claim.

Enough of fluff talk. Please refer to....

What Does Atheism Profit Atheists?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Did not Edison experience the first glowing light bulb, before billions of people would also come to experience the same light that Edison experienced.

View attachment 196520

Well Jesus said I am The Light of the world and from the very first disciples who experienced him as the Light, to the countless of billions who would come to also experience The Light across the last 2000 years and counting.

You said..... "Experience claim? That's it"

My response to you is...... what other experience can it be other than what can be comprehended and experienced from a real and tangible humanistic experience.

Does this mean that we discount the experience of billions across generations scoping the last 2000 years and still counting, all because you a proclaimed Athiest have yet to experience The Light?

Do you see how cognitive dissonance works, where there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.

Do you know what changes in an Athiest's logical mindset, in order to eliminate the dissonance?

They must deny evidence that does not agree with their cognitions, that is their belief that God does not exist.

View attachment 196521

Let's start with the difference between your experience with "god" and Edison's lightbulb...

Edison's "experience" with the lightbulb is one he can repeat for anyone...and they can have the same experience.

Your experience with "god"for all purposes, is something that only exists in your mind. You cannot reproduce it for anyone. No one gets the same experience you did.

To pretend these two experiences are similar is called a false equivalence.

As for discounting the experiences of billions across history...yes we can...and you do.

For thousands of years, people had "experiences" with all kinds of gods that you don't believe in....are their experiences substantially different from yours? No...they believed in their gods as you believe in yours...and you discount then just as I do you.

Anything else?

 

[The Times]

Let's start with the difference between your experience with "god" and Edison's lightbulb...

Ok.

Edison's "experience" with the lightbulb is one he can repeat for anyone...and they can have the same experience.

Ok.

Your experience with "god"for all purposes, is something that only exists in your mind. You cannot reproduce it for anyone. No one gets the same experience you did.

Firstly, to say that I cannot reproduce it is a fallacy, because I never said that I can make people experience it as your first premise, neither did Edison make people experience it first hand.

Your faulty conclusions from your faulty premises are, that I cannot reproduce it and that no one gets the same experience I did.

The experience is of the Light Jesus Christ, he made the claim that he will make people experience him.....

Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them." (John 14:21)

Many countless Christians throughout the last 2000 years and counting have claimed to experienced the Light, as the promise quoted above. They experienced the same Light and their lives have been touched in ways that is not infinitesimal, but one that is playing out throughout their lives as they walk and bath in the Light Jesus Christ.

The same people who experienced the invention of Edison are literally bathing in his invention at night and have the same life changing experience as peoples who have lights running in their homes at night in all the world. The people didn't experience Edison they continue to experience his invention.

In contrast Jesus the Light of the world has been directly experienced by the people's of the world and yet some like 3rd world countries still live in darkness because they have yet to experience the Light of Christ.

The inability to experience what countless others have experienced does in no way, shape or form do away with what is real and tangible for those who have the Light of Life Jesus Christ.

To pretend these two experiences are similar is called a false equivalence.

You can't assert this claim of false equivalence, because you have yet to experience the Light of the world, in the same way 3rd world countries that have no light cannot make claims against those in the 1st world countries who experience light every single day of their lives.

As for discounting the experiences of billions across history...yes we can...and you do.

No you can't! That is not your call and never was, because you have yet to experience the Light of the Wolrd.

For thousands of years, people had "experiences" with all kinds of gods that you don't believe in....are their experiences substantially different from yours? No...they believed in their gods as you believe in yours...and you discount then just as I do you.

Again, you have not experienced any of which you mentioned above and your lack of a real and tangible daily and life long experience is not a right to discount the experiences of billions across the last 2000 years and counting.

Anything else?

Yes, try again from an angle you have authority to opine in and to provide a reasoned counter claim.

All you are doing here is demonstrated cognitive dissonance, because what ever is your cognition, you manipulate your dissonance to agree with it and this is a logical fallacy by rights, because you are not in a position to discount a single person who has experience the Light of the world Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave Ellis]

But it doesnt mean you are wrong my friend

No, just because there's a fallacy present doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily false.

However, the argument containing the fallacy must be thrown out or corrected and a logically correct argument must be shown before we can accept the conclusion as true.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hello and thank you.

Could you give me an instance?

Nope, it's not my job to provide the evidence. I have no idea what someone could provide that would prove a god.

However, if a person believes god exists, it should follow that they already have sufficient evidence. Hopefully they can provide whatever that is to me.