Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[McBell]

I read the replies in this post and I see everyone is lost in the hot noise of debate of he said, she said, this and that, black and white. This has been going on for how many years now and look how far you've gotten.. IF you are delivered to God by death, it will be judgement day for you. I can't even respond to some of this because YOU still believe in a mythical creature named "jesus", does common sense not click in when a made up "jesus" speaks his "Words" also will be made up as well... The ideology of "jesus" is very real, extremely real, but you need to know the actual truth in order to fully understand. You people need to slow down seriously, there is no rush, time is not real because it equals light.. (think the sundial)... You have a lot of built up energy and instead of being apart of the problem, you should be apart of the solution. And I promise you...IF YOU are apart of that solution, YOU will be delivered into paradise by not death

 

[Subduction Zone]

They seemed awful preachy to me.

Especially after finding your unsourced criteria list...

I do not disagree with the list.
However, I am curious who came up with it.
A direct question you completely failed to address, let alone answer.

What, exactly, makes her question about the standards "foolish (and that is being generous)"?
So "foolish" in fact, the only thing you were able to provide in answer is to be "generous" calling it "foolish" and make the bold empty claim that "it is an admission that you were wrong"?

Which brings up the whole wrong about what, exactly?

Does the source matter? It appears that you are using a genetic fallacy. As I pointed out another poster here came up with a very similar list. I could have quoted him. When it comes to something like this the source does not really matter. Trying to attack the source is a way of not dealing with the tests.

I did not answer that question because it was an inherently dishonest question and an attempt at a dodge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the replies in this post and I see everyone is lost in the hot noise of debate of he said, she said, this and that, black and white. This has been going on for how many years now and look how far you've gotten.. IF you are delivered to God by death, it will be judgement day for you. I can't even respond to some of this because YOU still believe in a mythical creature named "jesus", does common sense not click in when a made up "jesus" speaks his "Words" also will be made up as well... The ideology of "jesus" is very real, extremely real, but you need to know the actual truth in order to fully understand. You people need to slow down seriously, there is no rush, time is not real because it equals light.. (think the sundial)... You have a lot of built up energy and instead of being apart of the problem, you should be apart of the solution. And I promise you...IF YOU are apart of that solution, YOU will be delivered into paradise by not death

Fine, prove your claim. Remember, the Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

So, you are not going to answer any of them at all?
For any reason?
Now it most definitely looks like you are avoiding the answers to those questions.

And now I am curious why you go to such great lengths to avoid answering them.

Avoidance is a tactic some people use in order avoid admitting they are wrong. If SZ had answered my questions that would have called the Criteria for a true prophecy into question. He did not want that, he just wanted me to accept those criteria without question, but why should I?

In sum, the reason some people avoid answering questions is because that might lead to a debate in which they might be proven wrong. It is much easier to just ignore the questions.

Another thing that people do when they do not want to answer questions is obfuscation.
Obfuscation: the act of making something less clear and less easy to understand, especially intentionally, or an instance of this: obfuscation

Another common tactic is deflection.
Deflection: something you do or say in order to avoid something such as criticism, blame, or a question being directed at you: deflection

One way that people deflect is by calling other people names such as dishonest, irrational, and the like. That takes the heat off them for the moment, or so they believe.

Here is an excellent example of deflection:
I did not answer that question because it was an inherently dishonest question and an attempt at a dodge.
#662 Subduction Zone, 4 minutes ago

Life is too short to be judging others and causing disharmony. I am not a Christian but in try to live by what Jesus taught.

Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[Trailblazer]

Remember, the Bible is the claim, it is not the evidence.

No, the Bible is the evidence that supports the claims of Christianity.
You might not think it is good evidence but it is evidence nonetheless.
The Bible has the claims of Jesus in it, but the Bible is not the claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Avoidance is a tactic some people use in order avoid admitting they are wrong. If SZ had answered my questions that would have called the Criteria for a true prophecy into question. He did not want that, he just wanted me to accept those criteria without question, but why should I?

LOL! I got rather ticked off at you because what you did was classical avoidance. Did you forget what your first question was?

In sum, the reason some people avoid answering questions is because that might lead to a debate in which they might be proven wrong. It is much easier to just ignore the questions.

Good, you hopefully can see your error.

Another thing that people do when they do not want to answer questions is obfuscation.
Obfuscation: the act of making something less clear and less easy to understand, especially intentionally, or an instance of this: obfuscation

Another common tactic is deflection.
Deflection: something you do or say in order to avoid something such as criticism, blame, or a question being directed at you: deflection

One way that people deflect is by calling other people names such as dishonest, irrational, and the like. That takes the heat off them for the moment, or so they believe.

Here is an excellent example of deflection:
I did not answer that question because it was an inherently dishonest question and an attempt at a dodge.
#662 Subduction Zone, 4 minutes ago

Life is too short to be judging others and causing disharmony. I am not a Christian but in try to live by what Jesus taught.

Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

Oh my, no no no. That was not deflection. You were caught being dishonest and would not own up to it. Not just once but multiple times. This is why I said that you can do better than this.

If you want a serious discussion you need to quit doing what you are accusing me of.

Please note that you avoided discussing this rationally. I offered to discuss those rules based upon an example.

Why did you run away from that discussion?

 

[McBell]

Does the source matter?

In your "discussion" with Trailblazer, I doubt it.

But since I have no dog in that particular fight, and I flat out asked about the source, your flat out avoidance is as much suspicious as it is interesting.

It appears that you are using a genetic fallacy. As I pointed out another poster here came up with a very similar list. I could have quoted him. When it comes to something like this the source does not really matter. Trying to attack the source is a way of not dealing with the tests.

I fail to see how merely asking a question for specifics is any manner of fallacy.
You and Trailblazer were in a discussion and your blatant avoidance of answering the question to the point of claiming it being generous to say it was a foolish question peeked my curiosity.
Now since I was not involved in that discussion between you and her, you can not claim I am using a fallacy for merely asking a question.
That excuse may work for Trailblazer, but since I have no dog in that fight...

I did not answer that question because it was an inherently dishonest question and an attempt at a dodge.

So what is your excuse for not answering when I, a person with no dog in the fight, ask?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the Bible is the evidence that supports the claims of Christianity.
You might not think it is good evidence but it is evidence nonetheless.
The Bible has the claims of Jesus in it, but the Bible is not the claim.

And you are back to circular reasoning. The Bible can only be used to discuss if doctrine is correct within Christianity. It is never evidence for Christianity itself. At least not until it is proven to be reliable. And since believers tend to be afraid to test their holy books properly it will probably never be evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In your "discussion" with Trailblazer, I doubt it.

But since I have no dog in that particular fight, and I flat out asked about the source, your flat out avoidance is as much suspicious as it is interesting.



I fail to see how merely asking a question for specifics is any manner of fallacy.
You and Trailblazer were in a discussion and your blatant avoidance of answering the question to the point of claiming it being generous to say it was a foolish question peeked my curiosity.
Now since I was not involved in that discussion between you and her, you can not claim I am using a fallacy for merely asking a question.
That excuse may work for Trailblazer, but since I have no dog in that fight...


So what is your excuse for not answering when I, a person with no dog in the fight, ask?

When people start with false accusations they really should not expect people to answer their questions. And when one of your claims was shown to be false you continued with false accusations.

Trailblazer asked a question that demonstrated that she did not want to even address that list. It was a dodge. Following a long dishonest post. I had very little patience at that time. Sometimes I will give people the benefit of the doubt. But a Gish Gallop always sets me off.

 

[McBell]

When people start with false accusations they really should not expect people to answer their questions. And when one of your claims was shown to be false you continued with false accusations.

Trailblazer asked a question that demonstrated that she did not want to even address that list. It was a dodge. Following a long dishonest post. I had very little patience at that time. Sometimes I will give people the benefit of the doubt. But a Gish Gallop always sets me off.

So your excuse is that you did not like my pointing out your being preachy?

 

[Trailblazer]

When it comes to something like this the source does not really matter. Trying to attack the source is a way of not dealing with the tests.

How do you know I was going to attack the source? I just wanted to know what it was so I could understand what those criteria were being applied to and how they were being applied. I found the source so now I know.

I did not answer that question because it was an inherently dishonest question and an attempt at a dodge.

Dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: Definition of dishonest | Dictionary.com

Why was it dishonest?
What was I attempting to dodge, the five criteria? I do not have to dodge them because I am not obligated to agree with them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your excuse is that you did not like my pointing out your being preachy?

That was one of them. How was I being "preachy"? When people use certain dishonest tactics I will react. That is hardly being preachy. If you were fair you would have commented on the poor techniques used against me as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you know I was going to attack the source? I just wanted to know what it was so I could understand what those criteria were being applied to and how they were being applied. I found the source so now I know.

Dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief: Definition of dishonest | Dictionary.com

Why was it dishonest?
What was I attempting to dodge, the five criteria? I do not have to dodge them because I am not obligated to agree with them.

Because it was a pointless question. Either the criteria stand on their own or they do not. It was an attempt at deflection.

Why did you avoid the offer of a discussion of those criteria that I made to you?

 

[Trailblazer]

When people start with false accusations they really should not expect people to answer their questions.

Please cite the post where I started with false accusations or stop accusing me of such.

Trailblazer asked a question that demonstrated that she did not want to even address that list.

No, my questions did not demonstrate that I was avoiding the list, that is only in your mind.

It was a dodge. Following a long dishonest post.

Please cite the dishonest post and explain why it was dishonest. Otherwise I will consider that a dodge.
Dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief:
Definition of dishonest | Dictionary.com

 

[McBell]

That was one of them. How was I being "preachy"? When people use certain dishonest tactics I will react. That is hardly being preachy. If you were fair you would have commented on the poor techniques used against me as well.

She is not going out her way to avoid a direct question I have flat out asked.
That would be you.

Unless of course you are claiming she is somehow responsible for your not answering.

 

[McBell]

Please cite the post where I started with false accusations or stop accusing me of such.

I strongly suspect that he is talking about me "falsely accusing" him of being preachy.

What do you think?
Was he being "preachy" in your opinion?

 

[Trailblazer]

So your excuse is that you did not like my pointing out your being preachy?

That was not an excuse, it was deflection.

 

[Trailblazer]

She is not going out her way to avoid a direct question I have flat out asked.
That would be you.

That's called projection. Normally, people who do it are not very self-aware.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please cite the post where I started with false accusations or stop accusing me of such.

I was not accusing you of that.

No, my questions did not demonstrate that I was avoiding the list, that is only in your mind.

It definitely looked that way. I see far too many theists use that dodge.

Please cite the dishonest post and explain why it was dishonest. Otherwise I will consider that a dodge.
Dishonest: not honest; disposed to lie, cheat, or steal; not worthy of trust or belief:
Definition of dishonest | Dictionary.com

Do you not pay attention? I called you out for it immediately. I explained to you what you did wrong. One of the things that you did was a Gish Gallop. How could you forget so soon? It was the post where you did a huge copy and paste.

Now did you want to discuss that list properly or are you going to continue to run away?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's called projection. Normally, people who do it are not very self-aware.

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.[1] For example, a person who is habitually rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It incorporates blame shifting.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

LOL! Oh my, oh my!

Once again, I offered several times to discuss that list with you since. You instead are focused on your past failures and accuse me of your flaws. That is classic projection.