Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Subduction Zone]

Yes that is the point, I am using childish atheist logic to refute the existence of stegosaurus fossils.

This is actually breaking the rules of the forum. The atheists are not the one using childish logic. Don't blame others when you fail. You used a very poor analogy since it is rather easy to show that there is plenty of evidence for stegosaurs. You appear to be angry because you cannot find any reliable evidence for your God. Instead of getting angry you should be trying to learn. Learn about evidence. See if there is any reliable evidence for your beliefs. If you cannot find any then the best thing to do is to admit that you cannot find any.

The fact that you cannot find any evidence does not mean that it does not exist. But since better people than your or I have tried to find such evidence and utterly failed it is not likely that you will find any either. You may have to go back to admitting that your belief is faith based.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do you know that?

To quote Dr Leanord Hofstadder:

The same way I know that the people in the TV can't see me...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes that is the point, I am using childish atheist logic to refute the existence of stegosaurus fossils.

You are using childish logic, agree there.

 

[leroy]

This is actually breaking the rules of the forum. The atheists are not the one using childish logic. Don't blame others when you fail. You used a very poor analogy since it is rather easy to show that there is plenty of evidence for stegosaurs. You appear to be angry because you cannot find any reliable evidence for your God. Instead of getting angry you should be trying to learn. Learn about evidence. See if there is any reliable evidence for your beliefs. If you cannot find any then the best thing to do is to admit that you cannot find any.

The fact that you cannot find any evidence does not mean that it does not exist. But since better people than your or I have tried to find such evidence and utterly failed it is not likely that you will find any either. You may have to go back to admitting that your belief is faith based.

you cannot find any reliable evidence for your God.

How can I possibly know if there is evidence, if I have no idea on what you mean by "evidence " ?

For example does the new testament count as evidence for the resurrection? Yes or No any why?

You used a very poor analogy since it is rather easy to show that there is plenty of evidence for stegosaurs

Well what would that evidence be? I am not questioning the existence of stegosaurus fossil, I am simply asking because I whant to understand your concept of evidence.

But since better people than your or I have tried to find such evidence and utterly failed it is not likely that you will find any either.

Again I dont know what you mean by evidence,

 

[Subduction Zone]

How can I possibly know if there is evidence, if I have no idea on what you mean by "evidence " ?

For example does the new testament count as evidence for the resurrection? Yes or No any why?



Well what would that evidence be? I am not questioning the existence of stegosaurus fossil, I am simply asking because I whant to understand your concept of evidence.




Again I dont know what you mean by evidence,

Oh please. What a series of weak excuses. Can't you reason at all? For God claims you need some strong objective evidence.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon
I know exactly what it means, it's you who is leaping to the unevidenced SUBJECTIVE assumption it means there is a "fine tuner". That subjective assumption represents ignorance of what it means.
I do understand it, it is you who can't see the subjective conclusion you are reading into the term.

Yes I agree, all conclusions are subjective, whats your point?

I never remotely claimed that "all conclusions are subjective", it's yet another of your tediously dishonest straw men. Read what I said again, and see if you have an honest response that remotely addresses what I said.

It is only true that the universe has a very narrow set of parameters that if changed even a miniscule amount, would make the carbon based life we see on earth impossible

Agree,

Then why the histrionics denying your interpretation was just an unevidenced subjective opinion?

Sheldon
How do you know any other kind of universe is even

logically possible, how do you know life as we see it, is the only kind of life that is possible, these are just two obvious assumptions inherent in your subjective assumption the universe had to have a fine tuner deity.

(Red letters added by me, please let me know if this addition changed the neaning of your quote)
Agree these are assumptions, but they seem to be valid assumptions.....Do you disagree with any of these assumptions. Or is it an other case where you dont afirm nor deny anything, you just keep your view vague and ambiguous.

Instead of trying to dishonestly alter my post, you might try answering my question for once. I am an atheist, and you seem to be asking me if I agree with your unevidenced assumption that the universe needed a creator, so I'm sure if you think hard you'll see why the question is redundant. The last sentence is hilariously ironic since I have no idea what it means beyond petty ad hominem?

...... so we seem to agred with everything, care to explain where is our point of disagreement?

With your unevidenced assumption that the universe needed a (deity) creator to "fine tune" it. I can see this will be another of those long tedious exchanges, where you keep making me repeat myself, while you ignore and then misrepresent what I've said, as if you've made a compelling response.

I dont see your point...Nobody is claiming that FT automatically implies design / additional arguments are typically provided in order to arrive at that conclusion .

When you offer anything beyond your bare assumption, then I will happily address it. My response can only address what you post, not what you think.

There is no objective evidenced the universe was designed or created, and fine tuned is simply a term applied to how narrow some aspects of the universe are, and the fact that if they were altered even by a miniscule amount, then the organic carbon based life that we see couldn't exist. The term is not evidence that was in fact fine tuned, anymore than the big bang theory is evidence of a big bang.

None of that remotely evidences a designer or creator, that is pure assumption. Got it now, or is that too vague?

 

[Sheldon]

[QUOTE="Valjean, post: 7601310, member: ]
He doesn't understand what evidence is, where it comes from, or how to evaluate it.

Ofcourse i dont understand what evidence means (according to atheists) that is why I keep asking @Sheldon to explain what he means by evidence so that I can judge if something counts as evidenc or not.........[/QUOTE]


You know what evidence means, it's in the dictionary, I have even posted the definition for you since you seem unable or unwilling to Google it yourself. This tedious canard is fooling no one.

but I was told that testimonials/claims / assertions are not evidence

No, you were told that claims and assertions alone, are not sufficient or objective evidence.

so if all you have is testimonials/claims/assertions then I have no alternative but to conclude that there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed.

That's not all science has though, as has been made clear, you just keep dishonestly misrepresenting the case. As another poster pointed out, you seem to think such duplicity is a clever argument, you're wrong. However if you want to deny Stegosaurs existed, then crack on, why would I care if you wish to appear ridiculous.

 

[Sheldon]

Where is the evidence that stegosaurus ever existed?

I already posted links to scientific discoveries of fossils, for over 80 Stegosaur samples, including a fully constructed skeleton in the Natural History museum. You either accept scientific integrity or you don't, you seem to want to choose the latter, as if this somehow lessens the burden of proof for your superstitious beliefs. Like people who hold unevidenced subjective beliefs, claiming all beliefs are subjective, as if this lends theirs some credence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If you don't like the atheists "No belief in God"....
It carries no information. It is just definition of Atheism, which is simply "No God". No new info is presented by "No belief in God".

"No God" denies the existence of God. "No belief in God" does not. The latter simply denies belief in God's existence. There is a distinct difference.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
So hypothetically, if something had limitless power, it can probably do some stuff.

Profound....

Yes you finally understood

Finally? It is a trivially true hypothetical, you are implying that making the claim is somehow evidence it is true or even possible, which is so bizarrely wrong it's almost funny.

If Harry Potter were real, and omniscient, he could have created the universe. What do I win?

That harry potrer hypothesis and stegosaurus are not analogous (the analogy is false)

I didn't mention a Stegosaur, nor was I implying any analogy with one? Is English your first language?

 

[Sheldon]

Well i didn't know that "evidence" was exclusive for science but ok,

You see that kind of dishonest straw man is precisely what people are objecting to. He never remotely claimed that.

all I am asking is for a useful definition of evidence that would allow me to judge if something counts as evidence or not.

The word is in the dictionary, but just presenting the most compelling reason for holding the belief, would seem to be a pretty obvious first step.

 

[Sheldon]

From your article
.

So I am correct the concept of evidence is not always the same. .....so asking @Sheldon what exactly does he mean by "evidence " when he asks for "evidence for God" is an appropriate question that requires an answer.

It might have been the first time, but since it has been answered innumerable times, it now just appears like dishonest obfuscation.

Evidence is adequately defined in the dictionary, as is the word objective, whether others agree that what you have presented is sufficient to support the claim or belief doesn't alter those definitions. Some people find the concept of debate a little challenging, but this is a debate forum. Not everyone has to agree, in fact disagreement is a basic prerequisite for debate.

 

[Sheldon]

Some context for your information

Sheldon: there is no evidence for God just claims and assertions.

LEROY: what do you mean by evidence/ what would accept as evidence?

Leroy: (sarcastically) there is no evidence that stegosaurus ever existed all we have are claims and assertions.

Sheldon: no I wont explain what I mean by evidence (+some exuseses here and there)

Then you jumped to this conversation...

Then you provided a source that explains the concept of evidence

Then I pointed out that according to your source the concept of evidence is not universal (people mean different things according to the context)

Which shows that my original request is valid, asking what do you mean by evidence is a valid requirement.

Then you falsely accused me for straws and redherrings

My theory is that you jumped to this conversation without understanding the context (which is ok forums tebd to be chaotic)


So with this context in mind , do you have anything to comment on?

Please don't make up sentences and assign them to me by putting my username in front, you can quote my posts very easily, so this kind of duplicity speaks for itself. This is your one and only warning.


It is a scientific fact that Stegosaurs once existed. If you had that level of objective evidence for a claim I would be likely to accept it, but of course that claim does not involve any appeals to supernatural magic, and I have never seen any objective evidence demonstrated for any deity.

 

[Sheldon]

I mean it seriously / by atheists standards tere is no evidence that stegosaurus ever lived .....but please do not use the word "ever" that is rude and impolite (as @Subduction Zone claims)

Care to quote a single "wild claim" made by me.

Well the one I have subtly emboldened in red above seems to qualify, as it is not even remotely true. Unless of course you think science accepts the existence of a deity? That might explain a lot actually, is that what you're claiming?

 

[Sheldon]

And how do you know that the fossils are authentic ? .......

There is an entire field of science that studies this, they have demonstrated they are real, scientists from Museums in good standing agree and exhibit them.

How to tell if a fossil is fake.

Theism is also an unfalsifiable concept, though not all their claims are of course. All scientific ideas must be falsifiable, it's an essential requirement. Unfalsifiable ideas or claims are rejected as unscientific.

 

[Sheldon]

I honestly think that i haven't made any wild claims in this forum. The problem is than any claim that contradict your atheism counts as "wild"

I'm guessing irony is another concept you struggle with, as that is just hilarious, Was it deliberate?

 

[Sheldon]

What us the point of quoting my questions if you will not answer them?


How do YOU know that the fossils are authentic?

They have been authenticated by the relevant scientific fields of study. There is a consensus among scientists based on the evidence available. You keep implying that scientific claims are just subjective opinions, like religious beliefs, but that isn't the case.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, it looks to me like it's your knee that's jerking, here, not @leroy.

Leroy points out that he is skeptical about the claims of scientists, and suddenly, you, the big ole rational "super-skeptic", flies into a litany of insults. How dare he not accept the scientific fountain of all truth and reality at it's word! How dare he claim that the sacrosanct scientific method might be biased, processed, group-think! OUTRAGEOUS!

Actually that wasn't what he claimed, you may want to read the whole exchange for the correct context. Unless you just wanted to point score or stir the pot, in which case you're golden.

 

[Sheldon]

All you have is the testimonials of people who claim to have studied the fossisl.

Still not true. Unless you think palaeontology is not subject to the same methodological and ethical practice and scrutiny as other scientific fields? Or maybe you think all science is just bare subjective claims? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so suddenly claims, testimonials , assertions etc. Became evidence.

Wow, evidence need not be compelling, it might be insufficient to support a conclusion. For a start testimonials, as you yourself imply here, are not all given equal credence, if I testify that I can fly, but only when no one can detect it, is that testimony equally as valid as a scientific consensus that Stegosaurs existed?

That is what I said originally (atleast sometimes they count as evidence)

How compelling would depend on a whole host of other factors, the claim belief or conclusion being made, the credibility of the person(s) giving the testimony, the objective evidence supporting their testimony etc etc etc...we don't just have bare subjective claims that Stegosaurs once existed.

If a scientist is in a position to know if the fossils are authentic or not, and has no aparent reason to lie, we can trust his testimony / the problem is that i have been told endlessly in this forum that testimonials are not evidence

You seem to have answered your own question there, since we don't just have bare subjective claims that Stegosaurs once existed, as you imply in the first part of that assertion.

Its not my logic, its the atheist logic

It was entirely your rationale, you just genuinely don't seem to understand what has been said. You're describing evidence as if it is a binary state. A bare testimonial might be sufficient for some claims, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a bare testimonial is just a subjective anecdote. Your comparison here is simply wrong, as scientific facts are not established on bare testimonies.