Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[questfortruth]

You just said the wonders you think he performs are and will remain a mystery.



Magic
noun

1. the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Dear oh dear...

I know better God, than an atheist does.
Atheists or sinners have written dictionaries.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

Look the correct use of words:

Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.

Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

 

[lukethethird]

Atheists find their truth through science, and it seems to make them content and satisfied

Since when?

 

[leroy]

The fact that you couldn't back up this tired claim of yours in any of the many times you trotted it out inclines me not to give it any weight at all.

That is not relevant in this context


All I am saying is that stegosaurus and god are not analogous.


1 there are many things that lack an explanation

2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus

3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)


Which of these 3 points do you disagree with?

 

[Sheldon]

Really and what is that evidence?

"Fossils of this dinosaur have been found in the western United States and in Portugal, where they are found in Kimmeridgian- to early Tithonian-aged strata, dating to between 155 and 145 million years ago. Of the species that have been classified in the upper Morrison Formation of the western US, only three are universally recognized: S. stenops, S. ungulatus and S. sulcatus. The remains of over 80 individual animals of this genus have been found."

Who knows ? Specially because you are unable (or unwilling) to explain what you mean by objective evidence.

Both words are in any dictionary, and I have posted the definitions numerous times on here, more than once for you as well.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes If my grandmother tells me that she had an unambiguous experience where she saw an “ape-man” with her own eyes, i would believe in big foot or at least I would move a step towards beliving in it-

Or else, I would have to provide good reasons to think why my grandma was likely mistaken or lying.

I take it, then -- since you suggest you can't think of good reasons for your grandma being mistaken -- that you haven't read much on the subject of the human mind? You might start, for example, with "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks in 1985, or his "Hallucinations" in 2012.

Or how about Jennifer Cisowski (going back 20 years or so) who told investigators a "spirit" voice told her to harm the baby as a test of faith, according to court documents. "She said she knew that it was wrong to harm the baby, but that the 'spirit' voice assured her that the baby would be returned from the dead," the documents state. "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool," she told investigators.

"She is told allegedly by these voices to throw her baby down on the ground and he will be healed," Bakkedahl said. "She was of the opinion it was God speaking to her."

Would you believe her, just because she said it? Or might you suspect something else?

 

[Sheldon]

All I am saying is that stegosaurus and god are not analogous.

Indeed not since we have sufficient objective evidence that stegosaurus existed and is therefore possible, we have no such objective evidence that any deity is even possible.

 

[Sheldon]

Which of these 3 points do you disagree with?

1 there are many tjings that kack an explanation
2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus
3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)

I disagree with 2 and 3.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not relevant in this context


All I am saying is that stegosaurus and god are not analogous.


1 there are many tjings that kack an explanation

2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus

3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)


Which of these 3 points do you disagree with?

Point 3: despite making lots of noise about it, you've never made a real, valid argument for how any god is an explanation for anything.

Edit: point 2 is also wrong, now that I think about it.

Things like big unidentified scat in the woods or mashed down undergrowth could be explained by a stegosaurus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who knows ? Specially because you are unable (or unwilling) to explain what you mean by objective evidence.

I will be more than happy to go over the concept of evidence with you when it comes to scientific concepts.

Warning, once you understand the concept of evidence you will see that creationists never seem to be able to find any that supports them (at least in my experience that has always been the case).

 

[Sheldon]

If I don't like bananas and claim they taste crappy..it has nothing to do with belief.

If you think the claim is true, then you are affirming your belief that they taste crappy to you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That is not relevant in this context


All I am saying is that stegosaurus and god are not analogous.


1 there are many tjings that kack an explanation

2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus

3 some of this things would have an explanation if we postulate the existence of God. .......(Say we define God as an inteligente being that excist independently of the universe)


Which of these 3 points do you disagree with?

@9-10ths_Penguin can answer on his own, I certainly don't speak for him.

But for myself, I disagree with your first point (which I assume should read "there are many things that lack an explanation"), because I accept that everything has an explanation, but it's excessively likely that I just don't know what it is. That does not mean the explanation is lacking.

I don't disagree with your second point entirely, because at least the fossils of stegosaurus would be explained by their existence, but not a great many other things would. But I put it to you that that is uninteresting for the simple reason that there are trillions of other things that likewise do not offer any explanation for things for which we might not yet have found an explanation.

Your third point, however, could easily be replaced by any number of other postulations -- magic, for example, or the existence of our universe as a simulation being run by some other reality (which obviously remains unexplained!). This is not useful in the least.

And lastly, I have to point out to you that since you seem to think that "explanations" are important, you have postulated something (a god) for which, unsurprisingly, you have no explanation at all. If you thought just a little more deeply than you seem to be doing, I suggest that you would find that deeply unsatisfying.

 

[questfortruth]

If you think the claim is true, then you are affirming your belief that they taste crappy to you.

I know better God, than an atheist does.
Atheists or sinners have written dictionaries.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

Look the correct use of words:

Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.

Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

Parents punish their children, but criminals capture and torture children.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

 

[Sheldon]

Atheists or sinners have written dictionaries.

That's a particularly stupid claim, since dictionaries are based on common usage.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

As I already said, I never motioned sin or witchcraft, these are straw man fallacies you have dishonestly introduced.

Look the correct use of words:

You claimed quite specifically that these wonders you believe a deity does, are and will remain a mystery, that is magic by definition. Since magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." So that is the correct word.

 

[leroy]

"Fossils of this dinosaur have been found in the western United States and in Portugal,

How do you know that ?

Do testimonies count as evidence?

Apppart from testimonies how do you know that any fossil from any stegosaurus have been found?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
If you think the claim is true, then you are affirming your belief that they taste crappy to you.

I know better God, than an atheist does.
Atheists or sinners have written dictionaries.

Do not insult the God, do not accuse Him of sin. He is not magician, He is not a witch.

Look the correct use of words:

Police executes criminals, but criminals murder people.

Army executes enemies, but enemies murder people.

Parents punish their children, but criminals capture and torture children.

God makes wonders, but satan makes magic.

Are you simply going to repost that disjointed rant to every post I make, even though is has zero relevance?

Magic is defined as "the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces." It was you and not me who claimed these "wonders" you believe a deity performs are and will remain a mystery, thus they are magic by definition. The fact you find the word offensive is irrelevant.

 

[leroy]

I take it, then -- since you suggest you can't think of good reasons for your grandma being mistaken -- that you haven't read much on the subject of the human mind? You might start, for example, with "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" by Oliver Sacks in 1985, or his "Hallucinations" in 2012.

Or how about Jennifer Cisowski (going back 20 years or so) who told investigators a "spirit" voice told her to harm the baby as a test of faith, according to court documents. "She said she knew that it was wrong to harm the baby, but that the 'spirit' voice assured her that the baby would be returned from the dead," the documents state. "Just like Jesus raised Lazarus, I threw the baby on the stones by the pool," she told investigators.

"She is told allegedly by these voices to throw her baby down on the ground and he will be healed," Bakkedahl said. "She was of the opinion it was God speaking to her."

Would you believe her, just because she said it? Or might you suspect something else?

Okkkk so you are providing good reasons for why my grand ma could have been mistaken... you are providing an alternative explanation and showing that it is a better explanation.


As an atheist you are expected to do the same with the arguments for the existence of God that you know about.

 

[leroy]

I disagree with 2 and 3.

Ok would you show that 2 is wrong ? Would you show that there are things have no explanation and that would be explained if we postulate the existence of stegosaurus?

 

[Sheldon]

How do you know that ?

Do testimonies count as evidence?

Apppart from testimonies how do you know that any fossil from any stegosaurus have been found?

The Natural History Museum has a complete fossilised skeleton on display.

 

[Sheldon]

As an atheist you are expected to do the same with the arguments for the existence of God that you know about.

No we're not, arguments, claims and beliefs do not have any credence because they are not refute, or disproved, that is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

All claims and beliefs carry a burden of proof, disbelieving a claim does not.

 

[leroy]

Point 3: despite making lots of noise about it, you've never made a real, valid argument for how any god is an explanation for anything.

1 you dont have an explanation for why the universe is FT

2 if God exist, his existence would explain why the universe is FT

Edit: point 2 is also wrong, now that I think about it.

Things like big unidentified scat in the woods or mashed down undergrowth could be explained by a stegosaurus.

But appart from stegosaurus there sre other possible explanations and some of these explanations are better ....agree ?