Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Scuba Pete]

Not many, really? Methinks you should read more such forms.

Your admission of bias is simply not needed. Your incessant condescension is evidence enough of that preconception.

Since proving a negative is not the issue, nor is it a rational demand, we must look that the evidence offered as proof of God, is not actual evidence.

I've never asked you to prove a negative and do not agree with the OP's assertion. However, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the existence of God. Your summary dismissal of all of this evidence is based on emotion and not on some superior deductive reasoning. Again, it shows that you have confused the act of interpreting evidence as being actual evidence. This is it's own fallacy and is common among atheists (and theists) who let others do their actual thinking for them, all the while trying to show just how superior their beliefs, or non-beliefs are to those who differ from them. It's purely emotional. You're not basing your disbelief on any evidence for or against, since any such evidence is theistically neutral. You are relying on your personal interpretation of any such evidence.

If one's only offer of 'evidence' is the bland statement that supernatural beings will not provide any sort of evidence science is capable of examining and verifying, then the assertion remains baseless. A baseless assertion with no evidence may be rationally dismissed without evidence.

Yes, the OP's assertion is baseless, but not all assertions about God can be so easily pigeon holed. You've made an assumption, a decision about God and now you will interpret all facts to that end. You're mind is made up and no one will confuse you with facts. It's how humans work and that's OK. I have made the emotional decision that God does indeed exist and I am intellectually honest about that decision.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The claim that God is not a reasonable inference is a value judgement.

 

[Scuba Pete]

The claim that God is not a reasonable inference is a value judgement.

I agree and it's based on emotions, not on intellect.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Your admission of bias is simply not needed. Your incessant condescension is evidence enough of that preconception.

You don't seem to understand: the bias comes a a result of the observation of the faulty thinking, not the reverse. It's the result, not a preconception. Eventually, the evidence piles up, and leads to this logical conclusion.

I've never asked you to prove a negative and do not agree with the OP's assertion.

You said "disbelief in God is never supported by unequivocal evidence". That is a reworded request to provide evidence of non-existence.

However, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the existence of God. Your summary dismissal of all of this evidence is based on emotion and not on some superior deductive reasoning.

Wrong, it's based on the fact that your 'evidence' does not fit the actual definition of 'evidence'.

Again, it shows that you have confused the act of interpreting evidence as being actual evidence. This is it's own fallacy and is common among atheists (and theists) who let others do their actual thinking for them, all the while trying to show just how superior their beliefs, or non-beliefs are to those who differ from them.

No need to be so envious of my superiority

It's purely emotional. You're not basing your disbelief on any evidence for or against, since any such evidence is theistically neutral. You are relying on your personal interpretation of any such evidence.

This is your emotional response and is demonstrably wrong, Im afraid.

Yes, the OP's assertion is baseless, but not all assertions about God can be so easily pigeon holed. You've made an assumption, a decision about God and now you will interpret all facts to that end. You're mind is made up and no one will confuse you with facts.

You have not provided any facts.

It's how humans work and that's OK. I have made the emotional decision that God does indeed exist and I am intellectually honest about that decision.

Your conclusion is still not based on real evidence, and thus, is not equivalent. You simply wish it to be.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Essentially the pattern we are observing here as elsewhere is a constant attempt at finding any reason that an inferior position is somehow still on par with the superior, supported position. When this cannot be done from the front end, it is then necessary to cast all superior positions as either opinions or 'just as good as' baseless assertions; or to cast doubt on the general ability to verify anything as true.

As I said, I've seen this all before.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You don't seem to understand: the bias comes a a result of the observation of the faulty thinking, not the reverse. It's the result, not a preconception. Eventually, the evidence piles up, and leads to this logical conclusion.

What evidence? You have yet to provide any.

You said "disbelief in God is never supported by unequivocal evidence". That is a reworded request to provide evidence of non-existence.

Work on reading comprehension. I never asked for any such thing.

Wrong, it's based on the fact that your 'evidence' does not fit the actual definition of 'evidence'.

What definition is that? HH doesn't like it, so it's not evidence? Do you think the world revolves around your preconception of what is evidence and what is not?

No need to be so envious of my superiority

Confusion seems to be your mental state as of late. You confuse superiority with ego or arrogance. They are not the same. You also have confused envy with my LMAO at your inability to grasp the irony of this exchange.

This is your emotional response and is demonstrably wrong, Im afraid.

Well then, don't be afraid: demonstrate it. I'm sure it will be fun to read.

You have not provided any facts.

Which puts me on par with you. I'm sure you have a point here, but again, you have failed to make it. What facts did you need?


Your conclusion is still not based on real evidence, and thus, is not equivalent. You simply wish it to be.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scuba Pete]

Essentially the pattern we are observing here as elsewhere is a constant attempt at finding any reason that an inferior position is somehow still on par with the superior, supported position.

The premise that there is support for your position is fallacious. It's based on emotion and not fact.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Essentially the pattern we are observing here as elsewhere is a constant attempt at finding any reason that an inferior position is somehow still on par with the superior, supported position.

The pattern we are observing here is childish hubris in the service of secularism, and I say this as someone extensively familiar with and respectful of secular humanism.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

The pattern we are observing here is childish hubris in the service of secularism, and I say this as someone extensively familiar with and respectful of secular humanism.

Your love-hate crush on me is noted.

 

[waitasec]

I agree and it's based on emotions, not on intellect.

so is the claim that god is a reasonable inference

 

[waitasec]

What evidence? You have yet to provide any.

apparently you don't trust his POV for himself...

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What evidence? You have yet to provide any.

Ah, such an ingenue.
I am referring in this sentence to years of written evidence of this identical failure of reason on the part of Christians in arguments exactly like this. In some cases basically identical. Do you honestly require me to dredge up posts on other forums of identical arguments for you? It will be off topic and clutter the thread but if this is necessary and I won't get it modded out of existence after all the work I will gladly oblige.

Work on reading comprehension. I never asked for any such thing.

Your own words being shown to you makes this comment rather specious.

What definition is that? HH doesn't like it, so it's not evidence? Do you think the world revolves around your preconception of what is evidence and what is not?

The scientific definition of evidence for which I have been referring throughout. Again another strawman by you, and some tangential whining.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Speaking for the short-attention-spanned, this is verifiable, repeatable, document-able. The same for anyone looking for it using valid means. You do not ahve this.

Confusion seems to be your mental state as of late. You confuse superiority with ego or arrogance. They are not the same. You also have confused envy with my LMAO at your inability to grasp the irony of this exchange.

Actually, what's occurring is that you are falling for a very simple, and enjoyably puerile, form of debate tactic.

Also, in some cases you have confused the neutral concept of superior/inferior discussion balance with a more personal dig of some sort; it all amounts to the same, for me, though.

Well then, don't be afraid: demonstrate it. I'm sure it will be fun to read.

Would it? What specifically do you want me to demonstrate? That I drew my conclusion regarding the fallibility of the Bible on evidence; that I drew my conclusion of my disbelief in Biblegod on evidence.. what exactly are you asking me to demonstrate

Which puts me on par with you. I'm sure you have a point here, but again, you have failed to make it. What facts did you need?

You are far from on par with me.
The facts in this sentence which are referred to, are those which you believe have been provided to me which led me to my lack of belief in the Biblegod. That is what we were talking about at that point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are far from on par with me.

That pretty much sums up your attitude. Thanks for sharing.

And, by the way, as for the above quoted evaluation: I tend to agree.​

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That pretty much sums up your attitude. Thanks for sharing.

And, by the way, as for the above quoted evaluation: I tend to agree.​

Every human skill is gradable on a Bell curve. Since I am in the top 10% of intelligence based on tests back in high school, it is inevitable that I will encounter lesser intellects, especially on subjects such as this [since faulty reasoning is rampant in such venues and its demonstrable that rational correction based on citation of valid sources is ignored].

I endure, for the sake of truth. My own entertainment is tangential to the duty of truth.

btw, you've fallen for the same aforementioned tactic. Why so serious?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Your love-hate crush on me is noted.

Jay has a long standing tradition of debunking intellectual frauds for what they are. That you think this is some kind of "crush" is as funny as it is maudlin.

 

[Scuba Pete]

so is the claim that god is a reasonable inference

Completely. My bad if I indicated otherwise. Belief as well as disbelief are both emotional constructs.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Jay has a long standing tradition of debunking intellectual frauds for what they are. That you think this is some kind of "crush" is as funny as it is maudlin.

Oh is that what you call what he does?

lol

Im being sarcastic, not serious, brainiac. Jesus.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Every human skill is gradable on a Bell curve. Since I am in the top ...

No wonder the term "ding-dong" comes to mind.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

No wonder the term "ding-dong" comes to mind.

Why, are you hungry for a chocolate coated sponge cake with creamy filling?

I won't ponder the biological reference aloud. No, I will not make out with you.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Ah, such an ingenue.

Except that I am male.

I am referring in this sentence to blah, blah, blah, blah, blah...

You're expecting me to read your mind and hoping that your appeal to special authority/special circumstances will somehow show everyone how special you are. This should be made into a FAIL pic somehow.

Your own words being shown to you makes this comment rather specious.

Specious? Please explain how. I think you're just trying to impress us with vocabulary. Yet another stunning fail!

The scientific definition of evidence for which I have been referring throughout.

But you don't even understand scientific evidence. Rly, I'm not making this up. Evidence is EVERYTHING that supports or contradicts a premise. Often science makes a great leap of understanding because they find evidence that contradicts current understanding. Moreover, you expected us to read your mind, yet once more. While you like making assumptions, I refrain from it.

The facts in this sentence which are referred to, are those which you believe have been provided to me which led me to my lack of belief in the Biblegod. That is what we were talking about at that point.

While your whole post is pretty rambling and incoherent, this sentence is even worse. If you are in the top %10 of your high school, then I cringe thinking about the lack of quality in our school system. You probably think that you being in the top %10 is ten times better than me being in the top %1. Again, you assume when you should research instead. You kind of remind me of someone famous for their fails...