A Troubled Man
Active Member
The indoctrinated do believe their indoctrinations are most certainly drivel as an explanation to why they believe in the supernatural.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
The indoctrinated do believe their indoctrinations are most certainly drivel as an explanation to why they believe in the supernatural.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
You guys are killing me! What happened to the intellectuals that were atheists? Jay, Voice of Reason and even Mr Spinkles? Have you lost their creativity over the years? Where's the excellence?
mycorrhiza
Well-Known Member
I see no evidence that you are sitting in a chair reading this. By your submission, the chair should cease to exist and your can should be on the floor. Take a picture of the chair, and I will cry "PHOTOSHOP" and your can will remain on the floor. You can tell me that you are sitting in it, and I will point out that you might as well say that the moon is made up of cream cheese. Is your can in the chair or on the floor? BUT I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE! You can smugly smile at my inability to comprehend that your butt is still snug in your chair. Go ahead. Now you know how many theists feel when you blithely claim that there is no God. It's a matter of faith!
I could visit you and show myself sitting in a chair. Could you show me God?
"I believe so" is not the same as evidence. Neither is "the idea exists". Atheism is not the denial of evidence, while what you are showing here is a clear denial of evidence (claiming that the photo would be photoshopped, etc). The person in the scenario clearly provided evidence that the chair existed and he was sitting in it, so what is your evidence of God?
There's quite the difference between "I'm sitting in a chair" and "there's a transcendental being that created the Universe and sends prophets with his laws".
A Troubled Man
Active Member
If you look back through these posts, you'll find they've been busy handing you your butt on a platter.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
That's a big "if", but then the entire atheistic premise in this thread has been based on big "ifs".
I follow God just as surely as he is sitting in his chair. Actually, I still don't have any evidence for the latter.
Of course there is! That's why God is Super Natural. If you could do the same in your chair, then I would be following you. You can't and God did, so that settles it quite nicely from this perspective.
Is it Halloween yet? They've sure ensconced themselves in disguises sure to throw the best gum shoe off their trail! You, in particular, have been brilliant at disguising any semblance of sentience. I fruballed you for this!
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Must be all the silly theists I've been talking to that got to my good mood.
Anecdotes are not considered evidence in the context of science.
And as mentioned, we're dealing with objective (anecdotes are subjective), empirical (not even close) scientific (forget it) evidence when it comes to how we define reality.
My denial of what exactly? :sarcastic
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
So did Dawkins and he is philosophically senseless and I doubt you read anything beyond the Summa.
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hopefully not as silly as the atheists I've been talking with. But enough about you...
Anecdotal evidence has been used in science. It's not the most well thought of, but it's still accepted on a relatively routine basis. In fact, anecdotal evidence is often what gives researchers a clue about which direction to proceed.
You really are ignorant about what constitutes evidence.
Reality
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Right.
Seems you have little else than personal attacks and conjecture to bring to the table.
I guess we're done here.
McBell
Unbound
so, are you going to present any objective empirical evidence for the supernatural?
Or is the very best you can come up with is your appeal to numbers?
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I don't understand. Could you rephrase?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Agreed.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Atheist feel shy to give any evidence ; that they demand from others, always?!
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Do you really exist?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
That's like asking if God is SOOOO powerful, can he create a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it.
If something is SUPER natural, then it is beyond our natural senses. It touches our spiritual side and you claim that you have no spiritual side. Spiritually, you are blind and want to blame me for it.
So, are you going to trot anything out to disprove God, or are you simply relying on your appeal to snarkiness?
jarofthoughts
Empirical Curmudgeon
Because atheist generally don't make claims they can't substantiate.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
What makes you think you even have a spiritual side apart from the physical interactions of your brain?
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
That or I am as looney as you are. I prefer the spiritual aspect.
McBell
Unbound
So, are you lieing now, or when you said that there is "a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God"?
So you are not going to support your claim with anything other than your already called out appeal to numbers?
Even though there is (according to you) "a butt load of evidence that supports the existence of God"?
Perhaps you meant the butt of a microbe?
Oh well.
Since you are not the least bit interested in an honest discussion, i shall leave you to run home claiming victory.