Challenge for atheists/ atheist position

[Demonslayer]

What you are not accepting is the fact that evidence does not "has to be" anything other than that which convinces someone of something.

I see you're still aggravating people with your watered down, pointless defintion of the word "evidence."

You keep presenting your own personal standards for evidence as though everyone has to follow them.

People do have to follow the proper defintions of things, and evidence is more than a gut feeling otherwise the word has no meaning. A four sided figure is not a triangle, no matter how much you say it is.

 

[McBell]

[/QUOTE]

I see you're still aggravating people with your watered down, pointless defintion of the word "evidence."

Your argument is with the dictionary, not me.
Sad you seem unable to comprehend that.

People do have to follow the proper defintions of things,

And yet you flat refuse to accept that my "watered down, pointless defintion of the word "evidence" is an actual dictionary definition...
Hypocrite much?

and evidence is more than a gut feeling otherwise the word has no meaning. [/qoute]
And here I thought you already whooped that strawmans ***....

A four sided figure is not a triangle, no matter how much you say it is.

STILL whooping up on that strawman....

 

[McBell]

WTF?
The system refuses to allow me to fix the quoting in post #406

 

[Demonslayer]

Your argument is with the dictionary, not me.

I have to hand it to you, you put the dense in evidence.

The dictionary supports the definition of the word that me and the rest of the people on this thread understand is the real definition. You're the only one insisting that evidence means "anything, anywhere that anyone ever thought or felt."

Under your definition I could say I have evidence that you're a child molester. Are you comfortable with that?

Evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a: an outward sign : indication
b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence— American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2
: as evidence

 

[Demonslayer]

WTF?
The system refuses to allow me to fix the quoting in post #406

I have evidence that shows the quote can't be fixed because demons have possessed your computer.

 

[McBell]

I have to hand it to you, you put the dense in evidence.

The dictionary supports the definition of the word that me and the rest of the people on this thread understand is the real definition. You're the only one insisting that evidence means "anything, anywhere that anyone ever thought or felt."

Under your definition I could say I have evidence that you're a child molester. Are you comfortable with that?

Evidence
noun ev·i·dence \ˈe-və-dən(t)s, -və-ˌden(t)s\
: something which shows that something else exists or is true
: a visible sign of something
: material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something
Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1
a: an outward sign : indication
b: something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2
: one who bears witness; especially: one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices
— in evidence
1
: to be seen : conspicuous <trim lawns … are everywhere in evidence— American Guide Series: North Carolina>
2
: as evidence

Ignoring definitions you dislike does not make them go away.

Now, if you want your *** handed to you in this thread as well, I am more than happy to.

 

[Demonslayer]

Ignoring definitions you dislike does not make them go away.

That's your exact strategy.

Now, if you want your *** handed to you in this thread as well, I am more than happy to.

You keep your hands off my *** cowboy, I don't swing that way.

 

[McBell]

That's your exact strategy.

Bold faced lie.

Conditional modifiers are used to specify the specific type of evidence.
The problem is that people ask for "evidence" when they are actually asking for "empirical evidence" or "objective evidence" or "empirical objective evidence".
Then they want to whine that the evidence they are given is "not evidence".

 

[Shad]

Can you convince me that I'm incorrect in my theism? Here is the thing though, no help from me, you'll have to simply present your argument, or realize that you don't have an argument suitable, and pass on the challenge.
I'm an honest person, not religious, this isn't a ''trick'' question. Non atheists can answer to

/fun thread

You hold a view which you will not make an argument for, support with evidence or even comment upon. Thus your view is is one of faith only, until demonstrated to be otherwise by you.. Based on probability, inductive reasoning, of all the other claimed Gods and religions which have failed your own faith has a high probability of also being wrong. Well that was easy, time for Turkey-Day leftovers.

 

[Demonslayer]

Conditional modifiers are used to specify the specific type of evidence.

And yet, despite the obvious fact that there are several different categories of evidence, there are base words in the definition that something must meet to be considered in any category of evidence. Read the definition. Something that shows..., a visible sign, material that is presented, an outward sign, something that furnishes proof, one who bears witness, to be seen...

Not a single defintion of evidence would accept your idea that any old thing we think in our heads counts as evidence. Otherwise evidence = any thought.

If I think orange peels cure cancer, I have evidence that orange peels cure cancer.
if I think your mom is a space alient, I have evidence that your mom is a space alien.
if I think my dog is talking to me, I have evidence that my dog is talking to me.

As you can see, with your defintion, the word evidence means nothing at all. Why have a word that means nothing?

 

[McBell]

And yet, despite the obvious fact that there are several different categories of evidence, there are base words in the definition that something must meet to be considered in any category of evidence. Read the definition. Something that shows..., a visible sign, material that is presented, an outward sign, something that furnishes proof, one who bears witness, to be seen...

Not a single defintion of evidence would accept your idea that any old thing we think in our heads counts as evidence. Otherwise evidence = any thought.

If I think orange peels cure cancer, I have evidence that orange peels cure cancer.
if I think your mom is a space alient, I have evidence that your mom is a space alien.
if I think my dog is talking to me, I have evidence that my dog is talking to me.

As you can see, with your defintion, the word evidence means nothing at all. Why have a word that means nothing?

Still ignoring the definition you dislike.
Nice little rant by the way.

I am going to ignore your strawmen.
You have so many it is difficult to keep track.

 

[Quintessence]

Pick thy battles wisely, Mes. There are those who have their door closed, and it might be opened. And then there are those who have it closed and locked. Less likely to convince the person to unlock and open the door. Also, there are a few that have the door closed, locked, and have covered it with wood planks to nail it shut forever.

 

[Quintessence]

As an aside, I always have to laugh at the people who say there's no evidence for gods even if they mean empirical evidence. Such people must have a narrow awareness of the diversity of theisms, and be especially ignorant of theologies that posit immanence as is commonplace in polytheism and pantheism.

 

[Iti oj]

As an aside, I always have to laugh at the people who say there's no evidence for gods even if they mean empirical evidence. Such people must have a narrow awareness of the diversity of theisms, and be especially ignorant of theologies that posit immanence as is commonplace in polytheism and pantheism.

i said in a different thread some gods i believe don't exist, some i don't find meaningful or useful and others i haven't even considered. I believe in many of your gods but i don't find calling them gods meaningful or useful, as an example. as for pantheism, many atheist(at least dawkins and i lol )t would say that is just sexed up atheism, at least for natural pantheism. some people say the universe is conscious, i reject that because there i see no reason to believe such. I don't really see how polytheistic gods are any more believable, lighting is not evidence of Zeus. i do admit that vast majority of gods fall under the haven't really considered or heard off though. perhaps you could enlighten me with an example.

edit though to toot my own horn i was a major contributor to Dawkins million gods project. (yea for resources}

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As an aside, I always have to laugh at the people who say there's no evidence for gods even if they mean empirical evidence. Such people must have a narrow awareness of the diversity of theisms, and be especially ignorant of theologies that posit immanence as is commonplace in polytheism and pantheism.

Of course there's evidence for gods. All "evidence" is are the facts that would make up the case for a conclusion. Even false claims usually have evidence for them.

For instance, take the claim that Amelia Earhart disappeared into a time vortex over the Pacific and got teleported to the year 2525. The facts of her disappearance would be elements for the case for this claim, and are therefore evidence for the claim. They're definitely not sufficient evidence on their own, but without demonstrating that Amelia Earhart disappeared, the claim that she was teleported through a time vortex would fall apart, so they're evidence.

 

[Quintessence]

i said in a different thread some gods i believe don't exist, some i don't find meaningful or useful and others i haven't even considered. I believe in many of your gods but i don't find calling them gods meaningful or useful, as an example.

Which is fine, and not only does that bother me, but if you don't consider any of those things worthy of worship, I don't feel someone should call them gods. That's really where the meaningful distinction lies. Pantheism and other immanent god-concepts (which is what polytheism mostly is) are not "sexed-up atheism," and in most contexts it seems to be a derogatorily dismissive remark intended to negate other theistic perspectives. Someone who brushes off immanent god-concepts like this doesn't really understand what they're about. To use a parallel, it's similar to suggesting there's no point in distinguishing between a perfect stranger and a best friend. Deification changes the way one regards something and thus the kind of relationship you have with it. That is not a superficiality. Or rather, if it it is, you shouldn't be calling those things your gods in the first place, because you're not using that as a meaningful designator.

I don't really see how polytheistic gods are any more believable, lighting is not evidence of Zeus.

It is when people quit thinking like mythological literalists and recognize that these are basically poetic allegories that are personifying various aspects of reality. It's about being a good storyteller, and telling stories in a way that convey deeper meanings. To the polytheistic mind, which thinks in terms of divine immanence, not transcendence, lightning is not evidence of Zeus, it is Zeus. The persona is a mythopoetic map of the territory. Or at least it can be. There's no reason to suppose our ancestors had an agreed upon theology for these things any more than we do.