Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Call Me...double A7 Not 007. (No Nice Athiests Allowed!)


1AcceptingAThiest1

Recommended Posts

OK, I'll state the obvious. Evidence is empirical. There is no such thing as "non-empirical evidence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.

the only evidence I would accept for god existence, is god himself.

 

Do that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aries I said Non emperical evidence and Plus that is using God like a cosmic genie like a toy. Doesnt work that way. One example of non emperical evidence is logical abosolutes and laws of logic. Even in a court of law they accept non physical evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florduh What im asking is what type of evidence is accepted, im asking yall to give me an example on how to present non emperical evidence. or a 123 step process on how the conventional method of presentation.

 

Non-empirical evidence sounds like "making stuff up." Someone correct me though, if I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
One example of non emperical evidence is logical abosolutes and laws of logic.

 

The floor is yours. Have at it. Prove something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More obviousness: People in court are testifying about events they observed in the real world (empirical). Logic is not empirical. Empirical means "observed in the physical world". Logic is a mental construct, it's not empirical. Evidence, which is what we ask for, is always empirical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to take it just a bit further. Empirical evidence comes with a significant amount of context. First, evidence is always associated with making a measurement. This universe consists of physical systems. These systems interact and those interactions can be detected or inferred through measurements. In other words, we interact with these systems and are able to measure those interactions or the consequences of said interactions.

 

So, you develop a hypothesis about this universe. That hypothesis must have a framework that makes predictions based on some sort of interaction with the universe. The hypothesis must make predictions that can be measured through experimentation and interaction. Furthermore, you must clearly define exactly how you set the experiment up, the methods used to measure, the results, how you interpreted those results. Of great importance is the fact that somebody else should do exactly what you did and come up with the same results. In other words your evidence must be reproduced and significant beyond random chance or background noise. This also means every measurement method you use must be validated and calibrated. It also means that your measurement will have some uncertainty associated with it. You must identify and express the level of that uncertainty. Finally, your hypothesis must stand the test of time and experimentation, it must be falsifiable. That is to say a new experiment or hypothesis could produce even better or more broadly applicable results in the future. Your hypothesis may break down or require modification as new evidence comes in.

 

If you cannot do this with your religious ideas, they are not able to provide the kind of evidence rational folks use to base belief upon.

 

Please forgive any typographical errors.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Orbit and RogueScholar for your generous explanations. That is what i was asking for. everyone else seem to be playing ring around the rosie, I will credit $200 and 35cents to your bank accounts upon via my settlement.

 

So lets go thru some of the things that have NOT worked according to athiests and please verify these

Cosmological  

ontological  

intelligent design

many more that was just to list a few

 

These will not work right? because they are non emperical they are concepts using logic? is they why they are rejected? so if logic isnt evidence then why do people use it, fruthermore a bad argument for God doesnt mean he doesnt exist.  Is it possible to use a concept or a scenario if you will that is logically tenable at least even if it wasnt direct evidence Prove 100% God but that it cross from possibility to probabability?

 

I will from this point match seriousness with seriousness and jokes with jokes. Anyone who talks to me like you really want to talk then i will do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midniterider thansk for sharing your story :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Logic is not considered evidence because it is simply the use of valid reasoning.  It is useful for drawing sound conclusions.  Evidence may also be used in pursuit of said conclusion and so work in tandem with logic, as each new piece of evidence gives clearer understanding, if properly interpreted.  With clearer understanding, more sound conclusions may be drawn. 

 

You should also know that there is a difference between making decisions and drawing conclusions.  This will be useful in preventing you from thinking that we all just woke up one morning and made a decision to stop believing.  We did not.  What happened was that we drew a conclusion concerning the existence of god based upon the evidence (lack of) and our own logical faculties.

 

So, now that you know the difference between logic and evidence, please feel free to start presenting us with both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aries I said Non emperical evidence and Plus that is using God like a cosmic genie like a toy. Doesnt work that way. One example of non emperical evidence is logical abosolutes and laws of logic. Even in a court of law they accept non physical evidence

 

 

No such thing as non-emperical evidence.

 

If it isn't empirical then it isn't evidence.

 

Now you are introducing non-physical as if that were non-emperical.  You seem to be confused by these terms.  That is why people are not taking you seriously.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

These will not work right? because they are non emperical they are concepts using logic? is they why they are rejected? so if logic isnt evidence then why do people use it, fruthermore a bad argument for God doesnt mean he doesnt exist.  Is it possible to use a concept or a scenario if you will that is logically tenable at least even if it wasnt direct evidence Prove 100% God but that it cross from possibility to probabability?

 

We can prove that there is no all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God.  That is not possible.  Yet believers continue to believe in this fairy tail anyway.  Believers are always willing to fudge, bend the rules, look the other way and spin in favor of their religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok make your sky daddy appear before me.

 

I keep making this request and usually it is ignored by the Christians. I guess they dont believe it's possible either. Though I think Ironhorse just came out and said in another thread that Jesus would NOT be meeting me for coffee at Dennys. I'm not sure why a face to face is not possible with an all powerful entity who wants to have a personal relationship with me.

 

I think when Christians say 'personal' relationship they really mean 'imaginary' relationship. I have a lot of personal relationships with real people and I can see them and talk to them and they talk to me.

 

Absurd non-Christian conversation:

 

Non-theist Me: "I think my wife is leading me to become a car salesman."

 

Non-theist Friend: "Why do you think that? Did she say that? Did she get a you book on sales?"

 

Non-theist Me: "No, it's just a feeling I'm getting."

 

Non-theist Friend: "Why dont you just ask her?"

 

Non-theist Me: "I've really been thinking that's what she wants me to do...and well, sales is my passion...I've been searching my soul and I'm sure that is 'her' wish for me."

 

Non-theist Friend: "But you didnt just ask her?"

 

Non-theist Me: "No."

 

Non-theist Friend: "You're an idiot."

..................

 

Absurd one Christian conversation:

 

Christian Me: "I think Jesus is leading me to become a car salesman."

 

Non-theist Friend: "Why do you think that? Did he say that?"

 

Christian Me: "No, it's just a feeling I'm getting."

 

Non-theist Friend: "Couldn't you have just made that shit up?"

 

Christian Me: "I've really been thinking that's what he wants me to do...and well, sales is my passion...I've been praying and that is His wish for me."

 

Non-theist Friend: "You don't think it's just because 'You' want to be a car salesman that you think Jesus wants you to be a car salesman as well?"

 

Christian Me: "No."

 

Non-theist Friend: "You're an idiot."

 

.................................

 

Full blown absurd two Christian conversation:

 

 

Christian Me: "I think Jesus is leading me to become a car salesman."

 

Christian Friend: "Hallelujah! Praise Jesus!"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my mistke i would hope people wouldn take me seriously if i was purposely being willfully blind, there is a difference between willfully ignorant and simply not knowing or genuine misunderstanding. To me non emperical and non physical is the same feel free to help me see the the difference using an example for each.

 

Professor thanks for that info about logic, that is subjective correct because humans use it differently to explain and describe phenomenon. But logical absolutes are timeless and unchanging what if i presented a case built around this for God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Present your fucking evidence, already!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aries I said Non emperical evidence and Plus that is using God like a cosmic genie like a toy. Doesnt work that way. One example of non emperical evidence is logical abosolutes and laws of logic. Even in a court of law they accept non physical evidence

 

He doesn't work that way, nor in any noticeable way at all. :-) How about in Matthew where it says, 'Whatever you ask for in my name, I (Jesus) will give it to you!' Except when you really ask for something in his name then it becomes 'using God like a cosmic genie.' When it says to ask for 'whatever' in his name it doesn't really mean you should ask for 'whatever' in his name...that's just silly that the bible would mean what it actually fucking said! 

 

Give me an example of a logical absolute that is non-empirical evidence because I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

midniterider again God is not a cosmic genie, a toy, that you play with and press a button and noise comes out. Furthermore, if he presented himself to you, that would erase free will,  you would beleive him because you had no other choice. Not because you wanted to but because you ahd to you were forced to. God does want to Force anyone to do anything otherwise he would have already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

florduh i asked you a question about what i wanted to present u never answered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we both live in florida and i know where saint pete is so want me to come visit you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

florduh i asked you a question about what i wanted to present u never answered

 

 

My answer was non-empirical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

we both live in florida and i know where saint pete is so want me to come visit you?

 

 

Sorry, busy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

midniterider again God is not a cosmic genie, a toy, that you play with and press a button and noise comes out. Furthermore, if he presented himself to you, that would erase free will,  you would beleive him because you had no other choice. Not because you wanted to but because you ahd to you were forced to. God does want to Force anyone to do anything otherwise he would have already

 

 

Oh please... If your god demands that we believe that he exists, but does not reveal himself, then he IS taking away the free will of those who he refuses to reveal himself to. How can it be free will if we are required to believe the claim that he exists without any evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

james 4:3 When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.   You cannot ask for anything if it conflicts with sellfish desires since being selfish is not a desire God wants us to have.

God will not present himself because that would eliminate trust him like ina  relationship, We can never fully know any other person. We cannot experience all they experience nor enter into their minds to know what their thoughts and emotions areBecause we are incapable of fully knowing other people, to some degree faith (trust) is an integral ingredient in all relationships. For example, a wife gets into a car with her husband driving, trusting him to drive safely, even though he often drives faster than she would on winter roads. She trusts him to act in their best interest at all times. We all share information about ourselves with others, trusting they will not betray us with that knowledge. We drive down the road, trusting those driving around us to follow the rules of the road. So, whether with strangers or with intimate friends and companions, because we cannot fully know others, trust is always a necessary component of our relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least the wife can see the husband. She's not expected to trust the car to drive itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 To me non emperical and non physical is the same feel free to help me see the the difference using an example for each.

 

Nope.  You don't get to use a private, personal meaning.  English words already have meaning.  If you go changing that around the result is nonsense.  Perhaps that is why you are having so much trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.