Is it sin?

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't ignore it, I have told you each and every time that this is a meaningless unevidenced assertion. It is also a no true Scotsman fallacy.
...

Evidence that it is meaningless. Please give evidence or it is just an unevidenced assertion.

 

[Sheldon]

Fair enough, what would "undeniable proof" of God even look like to you?

What would convince you your belief was wrong? What convinces me a claim has merit, is that it is supported by sufficient objective evidence. What convinces it is wrong, is that it is falsified by sufficient objective evidence. If a claim is unsupported by any evidence then I simply withhold belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What would convince you your belief was wrong? What convinces me a claim has merit, is that it is supported by sufficient objective evidence.

That to me, is your opinion. I am for a different opinion about evidence and its limits.

 

[Colt]

Don't ask me, i am just a lowly atheist but a god would know, if a god didn't know then he/she/it would not be worthy to call a god

I'm asking you because of your claim that evidence would change your mind. What would proof of God look like? You must have some idea in your mind?

 

[ChristineM]

I'm asking you because of your claim that evidence would change your mind. What would proof of God look like? You must have some idea in your mind?

View attachment 58312

As i said, who am i to decide the evidence? For example, walking along the street with a lapel badge saying 'i am god' wouldn't do it but I would certainly consider an entity being independently observed creating a universe to be evidence worthy of consideration. But any omni everything god would know without doubt what evidence would suffice

 

[Colt]

I don't ignore it, I have told you each and every time that this is a meaningless unevidenced assertion. It is also a no true Scotsman fallacy.




The fact you have to resort yet again to ad hominem fallacy, speaks for itself. I am an atheist as I have never seen anyone able to demonstrate anything beyond bare unevidenced assertions for any deity. I treat such claims as I would any other, I don't use bias to favour one type of claim over another, so god claims are judged on their merits, just as if they were any other type of claim, and I simply don't accept the unevidenced idea that this belief should be given a pass on objective evidence, or that I should presuppose a deity exists, then arbitrarily pick one from thousands, and then spend years navel gazing to arrive in a suggestible state at subjective and unevidenced conclusion.




I never ask for proof, as the proofs are for logic and mathematics, and I have never claimed it is impossible, so another straw man fallacy. I treat all claims with an open mind, and so without bias, why would I treat god claims any differently to any other claims?



Ad hominem again, if you think petty insult reflects on me, and not on you, then you are sadly mistaken. If you don't like having your claims subjected to critical scrutiny, or you find scepticism expressed about your unevidenced claims upsetting then don't offer them for debate. Endlessly attacking me is not going to change anything, and if you think this is the first time I have been subjected to insult, then again you are very wrong. It beads up and rolls off, since it must be obvious what resorting to petty insults in a debate infers.

Calling it "ad hominem" doesn't mean that it's not true. You just don't like being exposed.

 

[Sheldon]

I'm asking you because of your claim that evidence would change your mind. What would proof of God look like? You must have some idea in your mind?

This a quite a common misconception quite a few theists make about atheists. I can only tell you it is not the case for me, I don't formulate imaginary or hypothetical evidence for things I don't believe because there is no objective evidence, so why would I do this for deities? When theists ask me this, and they do so quite often, I usually tell them to demonstrate the best most objective evidence they have, or what they think is the most compelling reason they have to believe in any extant deity.

So far I remain an atheist, so the inference is unavoidable.

 

[Sheldon]

Calling it "ad hominem" doesn't mean that it's not true. You just don't like being exposed.

I just explained I am ambivalent to your petty insults, as I recognise it's just desperation because you have no credible answers. As I said, your petty ad hominem attacks reflect on you, and not on me, it's a little sad you don't see that. Or see that ad hominem is a known logical fallacy, and that your attacks are irrational, or what that means in a debate.

If all you have is ad hominem that rather infers something to me.

 

[Colt]

As i said, who am i to decide the evidence? For example, walking along the street with a lapel badge saying 'i am god' wouldn't do it but I would certainly consider an entity being independently observed creating a universe to be evidence worthy of consideration. But any omni everything god would know without doubt what evidence would suffice

Well, there you go! Who are you to tell those who have found God what their evidence should be??? You can't even define what it is in order to say what it is not! To be fair though it is by design that we live in the mystery so as to provide the "experience" of sorting our way through the maze of truth and error. God absolutely respects the free-will of our identity that he gave us. We have to want to grow in spirit and in truth and truly desire to be led by the spirit.

 

[ChristineM]

Well, there you go! Who are you to tell those who have found God what their evidence should be??? You can't even define what it is in order to say what it is not! To be fair though it is by design that we live in the mystery so as to provide the "experience" of sorting our way through the maze of truth and error. God absolutely respects the free-will of our identity that he gave us. We have to want to grow in spirit and in truth and truly desire to be led by the spirit.

I am not telling anyone anything about your god, you appear to be doing that yourself.
And you also appear to be saying your omni everything god isn't as omni as you make out.

 

[Colt]

I just explained I am ambivalent to your petty insults, as I recognise it's just desperation because you have no credible answers. As I said, your petty ad hominem attacks reflect on you, and not on me, it's a little sad you don't see that. Or see that ad hominem is a known logical fallacy, and that your attacks are irrational, or what that means in a debate.

If all you have is ad hominem that rather infers something to me.

Many of your posts on RF are "petty insults" all dressed up as intellectualism. Spare us the feigned outrage and phony virtue signaling.

 

[Colt]

I am not telling anyone anything about your god, you appear to be doing that yourself.
And you also appear to be saying your omni everything god isn't as omni as you make out.

You demand evidence, I asked you to define what that would be and now you are bs-ing your way out of the corner that you painted yourself into.

If you ever get sufficiently dissatisfied with yourself and seek God with a sincere heart, THEN God will respond. Demanding all the answers to the test before ever taking the class isn't how life works.

 

[Sheldon]

Many of your posts on RF are "petty insults" all dressed up as intellectualism. Spare us the feigned outrage and phony virtue signaling.

Just because you feel insulted by a criticism of your claims or beliefs, doesn't make it ad hominem. I am not outraged, nor am I feigning any outrage, I very specifically just told you I was ambivalent towards your use of ad hominem. I was pointing it out for your edification, since using this kind of fallacy in debate, especially using it repeatedly as you have done, has a rather obvious inference.

 

[Sheldon]

You demand evidence,

No, that's a misconception, the claim demands evidence, as do all claims, in this context the atheist is merely pointing this out.

I asked you to define what that would be and now you are bs-ing your way out of the corner that you painted yourself into.

No, again this is a misconception, the evidence should be offered to support the claim, not imagined by the observer of the claim.

If you ever get sufficiently dissatisfied with yourself and seek God with a sincere heart, THEN God will respond.

This is a no true Scotsman fallacy you keep using. it is irrational by definition, whether you understand that or not.

Demanding all the answers to the test before ever taking the class isn't how life works.

That one is called a straw man fallacy. Again there is an inescapable inference when someone relentlessly makes irrational claims about a belief they hold.

 

[ChristineM]

You demand evidence, I asked you to define what that would be and now you are bs-ing your way out of the corner that you painted yourself into.

If you ever get sufficiently dissatisfied with yourself and seek God with a sincere heart, THEN God will respond. Demanding all the answers to the test before ever taking the class isn't how life works.

I don't give a hoot what the evidence is so long as it is falsifiable, repeatable and indipendentely observed, i have said all along that a god should know, and now your giving me BS because you can't dig your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself. See how this works?

And if you really want to know why i gave up on god (yes, i was once a devout believer for what little good that did me) i will happily tell you so don't give me your made up BS designed to massage your own ego

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="ChristineM, post: 7472557, member: 61711"]I don't give a hoot what the evidence is so long as it is falsifiable, repeatable and indipendentely observed, i have said all along that a god should know, and now your giving me BS because you can't dig your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself. See how this works?

And if you really want to know why i gave up on god (yes, i was once a devout believer for what little good that did me) i will happily tell you so don't give me your made up BS designed to massage your own ego[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was never a devout believer, so I have a different relationship to faith. Subjectivity is so fun! And no, there is no evidence for that.

 

[Colt]

I don't give a hoot what the evidence is so long as it is falsifiable, repeatable and indipendentely observed, i have said all along that a god should know, and now your giving me BS because you can't dig your way out of the hole you have dug for yourself. See how this works?

And if you really want to know why i gave up on god (yes, i was once a devout believer for what little good that did me) i will happily tell you so don't give me your made up BS designed to massage your own ego

I see, it's not that you don't believe in God, you are mad at him based on the disappointment of your own expectations.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see, it's not that you don't believe in God, you are mad at him based on the disappointment of your own expectations.

Well, I have never been a devout believer, so that doesn't apply to me.

 

[Sheldon]

I see, it's not that you don't believe in God, you are mad at him based on the disappointment of your own expectations.

Are you generally angered by things you don't believe are real?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you generally angered by things you don't believe are real?

Do you think that your thoughts about meaningless are real? You are aware that meaning is first person in your mind, right? And not objective as existing outside of the mind or existing in the real world.