What is the falsification methodology of the God argument?

[samtonga43]

We all have our stories. Yourself, changing from atheism to theism; and myself, changing from theism to strong atheism (which does not even agree to the possibility of existence of Gods and Goddesses and even less to the existence of just one God professed by a certain religion). What proof can you provide for it?

You can honestly say that you know that there is no God?

Proof? There is none; you, as a former theist, should know this.

 

[samtonga43]

There are quite a few here. And I can name a forum where most of the Christians appear to be literalists. The literalists are in the minority, but they make far more noise than those that are not. As a result many non-Christians have a tendency to overestimate their numbers.

(see BOLD) That's because they are insecure. Think of them as very easy to refute, and count your blessings!

(Do you have blessings?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

(see BOLD) That's because they are insecure. Think of them as very easy to refute, and count your blessings!

(Do you have blessings?)

I agree. On pretty much everything. When I debate here it is usually not against the run of the mill Christians. It is against those that are excessively literal where they believe Genesis actually happened as told in the Bible.

And yes, they are very insecure as a rule. They refuse even to learn the simple concept of scientific evidence because if they understood they could not continue their false claim that their is no evidence for evolution without openly lying.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You said (#429) that 80 million Americans believe in a 6000 year old earth and the physically impossible literal interpretation of the flood.
You produced the following when I asked for your evidence:
Record Few Americans Believe Bible Is Literal Word of God (gallup.com)

I can't seem to find the evidence in this 'poll'. Are you sure it's in there?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I wasn't referring to 'Bible-belt-ish' Christians. I was referring to you actually.

I'm an atheist. Your comment makes no sense.

As I explained to you, this is not true.

It is.

Why else does a distinction exist between believing on evidence and believing on faith?

Faith + Evidence is most definitely a pathway to Truth.

When you have evidence, you have no need for "faith".

One has to believe in the resurrection, miracles, the supernatural, spirits, the after life, gods,... "on faith", BECAUSE there is no evidence.

Faith makes complete sense to me.

It also makes sense to the YEC.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I would be very interested to know how this poll was set up; how many Christians were involved, type of questions asked, when and where the questions were asked, how many fundamentalists / liberal Christians made up total believers...

One has to be very careful when using polls as evidence of any kind.

But I expect you are aware of this.

(I wonder how many Christians believe that Jesus is a gate?)

Why is it, do you think, that just about every religious forum out there has a section "evolution vs creation" or similar?

Because fundamentalist, literalist christians are numerous or because they are extremely rare?

25% of americans. Yes, technically a "minority". Yet, enough to get a president elected.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Proof? There is none; you, as a former theist, should know this.

That is precisely the reason why I rejected theism.

 

[samtonga43]

That is precisely the reason why I rejected theism.

Oh yes, I do understand. Been there, done that.

 

[samtonga43]

Why is it, do you think, that just about every religious forum out there has a section "evolution vs creation" or similar?

I suppose it's because some people, Christians and non-Christians, think that it is either/or (creation, evolution).

25% of americans. Yes, technically a "minority". Yet, enough to get a president elected.

What about the other 75% of Americans?

 

[samtonga43]

I'm an atheist. Your comment makes no sense.

I come across many atheists who think in a very literal fashion.

Why else does a distinction exist between believing on evidence and believing on faith?

A distinction exists only in your mind, TM, and in the minds of others like you. There is an invalid assumption here that evidence and faith are somehow in opposition. They are not.

When you have evidence, you have no need for "faith".

What type of evidence are you speaking of?

One has to believe in the resurrection, miracles, the supernatural, spirits, the after life, gods,... "on faith", BECAUSE there is no evidence.

Again what type of evidence are you referring to?

It also makes sense to the YEC.

Really? This is your attempt at rationality?

Premise 1. Faith makes sense to A.
Premise 2. Faith makes sense to B

TM's conclusion: A's faith is similar to B's faith.

 

[samtonga43]

View attachment 48862

That is SO original!!!!