Faith is not evidence. This is why atheism has more of an advantage.

[Samantha Rinne]

Not one shred of proof has been shown that proves the existence of God. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book. Science has testable evidence that is in your face daily. For me, following science makes sense.

Nonsense.

1. The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence. Meaning, you can't find evidence, all this proves (all this EVER proves) is that you are unable to secure evidence. Consider the detective story, and the a killer hiding the bodies by burning it into ash and turning into soap. You can't find any evidence of a dead body, but the fact that suddenly these people don't seem to be found for awhile means there has at least been a missing persons, and some people might believe in a murder.
2. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book, huh? Okay then, let's play ball. Pasteurization works, right?You've been shown the whole science textbook and been told about it. But what if I told you, Pasteur faked many of his results to get rid of his rivals? What's the difference?
3. Let's talk about this book. All parts of it fall into about four categories: songs and prayers, allegory, history, and testimony. Testimony... kinda is a proof. Remember that detective thing? Suppose we catch the murderer. We then go into court where we rely on eyewitnesses. Someone saw the two come in, and then him come out with a jar filled with lye. Eyewitnesses are important to verify an event. But we can't be certain about even eyewitnesses. They could be lying to get attention. How will they react though, when their life is at risk? Oh wait.
Persecution in the Early Church: Did You Know?
Polycarp was burned alive. 300 years worth of Christians endured persecution. Several popes were martyred.

If they were lying about their faith, why wouldn't they recant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're asking me to explain why I think something I didn't think or say lol. What a joke.

Of course you did. You made a claim and I asked you to support it. This was your unsupported claim that led to this:

"I mean atheism led to materialism, the most faith driven and irrational position I've heard of."

You need to support all three of these claims. First that atheism led to materialism, second that materialism is faith driven, third that it is irrational. Perhaps you should start by defining Materialism. Please try to use valid sources.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense.

1. The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence. Meaning, you can't find evidence, all this proves (all this EVER proves) is that you are unable to secure evidence. Consider the detective story, and the a killer hiding the bodies by burning it into ash and turning into soap. You can't find any evidence of a dead body, but the fact that suddenly these people don't seem to be found for awhile means there has at least been a missing persons, and some people might believe in a murder.
2. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book, huh? Okay then, let's play ball. Pasteurization works, right?You've been shown the whole science textbook and been told about it. But what if I told you, Pasteur faked many of his results to get rid of his rivals? What's the difference?
3. Let's talk about this book. All parts of it fall into about four categories: songs and prayers, allegory, history, and testimony. Testimony... kinda is a proof. Remember that detective thing? Suppose we catch the murderer. We then go into court where we rely on eyewitnesses. Someone saw the two come in, and then him come out with a jar filled with lye. Eyewitnesses are important to verify an event. But we can't be certain about even eyewitnesses. They could be lying to get attention. How will they react though, when their life is at risk? Oh wait.
Persecution in the Early Church: Did You Know?
Polycarp was burned alive. 300 years worth of Christians endured persecution. Several popes were martyred.

If they were lying about their faith, why wouldn't they recant?

Pasteur's claims could be checked by others and seen if they were valid. That is one of the main strengths of the scientific method. When a scientist claims something to be true his work can be tested by others to see if his results were reliable. In Pasteur's case they were.

So now you need to ask yourself how you would test the Bible. Remember you can never test something to see if it is true. You can only test something to see if it is false using the scientific method. That the Bible warns you against testing it is rather telling. It indicates that the writers of it knew they were selling a bunch of nonsense.

And yes, some early Christians were martyred. So what? One can find martyrs for almost every religion. Martyrs for Christianity prove the Bible no more than martyrs for Buddhism or Islam.

Last a lack of evidence can be evidence against a concept. If a claimed event would provide definitive evidence of that event a lack of evidence is extremely strong evidence against that idea. that is why a worldwide flood is known not to have happened. The Flood in the Genesis myth would have left clear scientific evidence of it. There is none. The conclusion is that there was no such flood.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Nonsense. 1. The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence.

It certainly can be. The absence of expected evidence is evidence of absence. If nobody remembers seeing you at work yesterday and your time card wasn't stamped, you're probably not going to get paid however much you object.

Admittedly, that is not proof of absence, but it is very strong evidence of it.

Polycarp was burned alive. 300 years worth of Christians endured persecution. Several popes were martyred. If they were lying about their faith, why wouldn't they recant?

Who says that they were lying about their faith? They believed what they believed and died for it. That seems likely.

What is being said is that there was no reason to believe whatever it is they died for before they died, and being burned alive for those beliefs doesn't change that - at least not for me.

David Koresh and his adherents burned to death for their beliefs. Does that make you want to adopt them and become a Branch Davidian?

 

[Audie]

Nonsense.

1. The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence. Meaning, you can't find evidence, all this proves (all this EVER proves) is that you are unable to secure evidence. Consider the detective story, and the a killer hiding the bodies by burning it into ash and turning into soap. You can't find any evidence of a dead body, but the fact that suddenly these people don't seem to be found for awhile means there has at least been a missing persons, and some people might believe in a murder.
2. People only know what they've been told and shown in a book, huh? Okay then, let's play ball. Pasteurization works, right?You've been shown the whole science textbook and been told about it. But what if I told you, Pasteur faked many of his results to get rid of his rivals? What's the difference?
3. Let's talk about this book. All parts of it fall into about four categories: songs and prayers, allegory, history, and testimony. Testimony... kinda is a proof. Remember that detective thing? Suppose we catch the murderer. We then go into court where we rely on eyewitnesses. Someone saw the two come in, and then him come out with a jar filled with lye. Eyewitnesses are important to verify an event. But we can't be certain about even eyewitnesses. They could be lying to get attention. How will they react though, when their life is at risk? Oh wait.
Persecution in the Early Church: Did You Know?
Polycarp was burned alive. 300 years worth of Christians endured persecution. Several popes were martyred.

If they were lying about their faith, why wouldn't they recant?

So call t he fire dept and report a massive conflagration. They come, cannot seem to find the fire.
Will you be charged for your false alarm?

Of course not. "Absence of evidence,..." you can say.
They will say, oh yeah, cool, that totally makes sense. Right?

Various religious leaders have faked their "results".
What diff does that make other than, say, that some
have died for their lies and fakery?

The flyboys of 911 died for somebody's lies.
Why didnt they recant?

 

[1137]

Of course you did. You made a claim and I asked you to support it. This was your unsupported claim that led to this:

"I mean atheism led to materialism, the most faith driven and irrational position I've heard of."

You need to support all three of these claims. First that atheism led to materialism, second that materialism is faith driven, third that it is irrational. Perhaps you should start by defining Materialism. Please try to use valid sources.

Oh ****, I assumed you'd have some understanding of these things, and I apologize.

Materialism is the view that all things reduce to matter. It's an atheistic position because materialism would objectively disprove the existence of deities which are explicitly immaterial beings. It's faith based and irrational because of the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

 

[syo]

believers don't have blind faith. something must have made them believers. and that's evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh ****, I assumed you'd have some understanding of these things, and I apologize.

Materialism is the view that all things reduce to matter. It's an atheistic position because materialism would objectively disprove the existence of deities which are explicitly immaterial beings. It's faith based and irrational because of the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Sorry, but you still have not supported your claim. And how does your misunderstanding of a philosophical problem help you?

You are still failing badly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

believers don't have blind faith. something must have made them believers. and that's evidence.

Perhaps, the question is: Is it reliable evidence? No believer appears to be able to supply any.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh ****, I assumed you'd have some understanding of these things, and I apologize.

Materialism is the view that all things reduce to matter. It's an atheistic position because materialism would objectively disprove the existence of deities which are explicitly immaterial beings. It's faith based and irrational because of the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Could you please present the 'Hard' problem of consciousness and show how it implies something non-material?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

believers don't have blind faith. something must have made them believers. and that's evidence.

You are making the assumption that people need evidence in order to believe in something.

 

[syo]

You are making the assumption that people need evidence in order to believe in something.

yes, something must have triggered their faith.

 

[1137]

I am no more "trolling" than you are. You make clear errors and those have been pointed out to you. You can't support your claims properly. If you do so you will get more thorough answers. But when you post nonsense that can be dismissed with not much more than a handwave that is all that you will get.

But... I did explain. Materialism is based on faith because, well, there's nothing else supporting it if we are honest.

 

[Audie]

believers don't have blind faith. something must have made them believers. and that's evidence.

Well, there you GO! Every religion, every superstition must have evidence.
And perforce must be true!

Every scam artist out there will present evidence.

 

[Audie]

yes, something must have triggered their faith.

Maybe mommy and daddy told them and they believed it, then rationalized and internalized it?

I was walking across campus with Christian girl and
an autumn leaf fell in front of us. She picks it up, and
says, "Look, three parts God sent this, it is a symbol of the Trinity!"

I look at it. It had five.

"So why does it have five parts to represent three of something?"

"Oh, then God sent it to represent..."

That is evidence for sure, of something.

 

[syo]

Maybe mommy and daddy told them and they believed it, then rationalized and internalized it?

yes, it happens in most cases.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But... I did explain. Materialism is based on faith because, well, there's nothing else supporting it if we are honest.

No, that is just a vapid empty claim.

 

[Audie]

yes, it happens in most cases.

Along with a lot of confirmation bias later.

Who wants to think mommy and daddy fed them a line of bs?

This is a mighty weak thread to hold up this "god".

 

[Audie]

No, that is just a vapid empty claim.

No, there is more depth and subtlety to it!

Note the "If we are honest". So much packaged into that!

The given, that it is so ; the part about how the author is
honest, leaving those who disagree to be the dishonest ones.

No wonder it is one of the oldest "debate" tricks in the dustiest tome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there is more depth and subtlety to it!

Note the "If we are honest". So much packaged into that!

The given, that it is so ; the part about how the author is
honest, leaving those who disagree to be the dishonest ones.

No wonder it is one of the oldest "debate" tricks in the dustiest tome.

Of course if one bases what one is trying to refute on a strawman then it is easy. I guess if we do not agree with his strawman he can't refute us and we are therefore not "honest". Strangely enough he won't even post a link to what he thinks "materialism" is. Using this definition of Materialism I wonder where the faith is:

Materialism - Wikipedia