Confirmation Bias; Why Atheists cant see the Evidence for God

[JakeStarkey]

No such fact about the flow of time, JB, can be proved: that is an impossibility.

Equally impossible is to prove the faith of the atheists, that God does not exist.

Both Jim and Clayton suffer from confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias
In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias (or confirmatory bias) is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, leading to statistical errors.

Confirmation bias is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.

As such, it can be thought of as a form of selection bias in collecting evidence.

Confirmation bias

 

[HUGGY]

NOT Confirmation Bias.... Invading Afghanistan

Confirmation Bias.... Invading Iraq

 

[JimBowie1958]

NOT Confirmation Bias.... Invading Afghanistan

Confirmation Bias.... Invading Iraq

Lol, you are so stupid, you think that is a persuasive statement.

roflmao

 

[MaxGrit]

That is complete and utter bullshit. No scholar of any standing would support such absurdity.

Here is a theory; you want to be respected as an intelligent person, but you don't have the prerequisite of actual intelligence, so you picked out some people you think are intelligent and simply mimic them. You chose atheists not having a clue about how valid any of their claims are, but you like the no-bounds life-style and think it is easier to pick up atheists chicks, so you go atheist.

And all through your life you have been showing people who actually know what they are talking about how stupid in reality you are. You are dimly suspicious that those around you are aware of your posturing as someone with a brain, but you chose to ignore those bad vibes and just double up on the rhetoric, not realizing that it equally doubles up your display of stupidity, and an example of which was your ridiculous post I now respond to with chuckles and mirth.

Yea most of the young ones are like this. Repeat the ignoramus Dawkins' stupid illogical shits all day without ever realizing how ignorant Dawkins really is about theology.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Confirmation bias in full swing above.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulationwhich we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

“Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.” – Anonymous

What utter nonsense. An extraordinary claim? Extraordinary evidence? Arguments fatally flawed?

Right.

The argument for atheism never even gets off the ground. It's inherently contradictory, asserted in defiance of the rules of logic.

As I have written elsewhere, here's the reality:

The gist of that goes back to this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9721287/.

The point is that the new atheists never get to the science on these forums. All they ever do is philosophize . . . badly, as they stupidly imagine themselves not to be philosophizing. LOL!

For example, in response to the new atheism's God in the gaps myth I wrote the following, which alludes to the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism in bold:

In addition to (1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they [for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton. . . .] did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.

See posts #367, #369, #372 and #375.

In these posts, on every point, the new atheism is routed.

Earlier on this thread and elsewhere on this forum, I've discussed precisely what the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism are, beginning with the implications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the problem of the infinite regression of origin, including it's ontological alternatives and the ramifications thereof. I've even explained to our amateurish new atheists why Hawking's baby talk about how the cosmos would have necessarily arisen due to the laws of physics which allow for quantum fluctuations is inherently contradictory and self-negating. Right. Hawking resolved the problem of infinite regression of origin, as if the quantum vacuum were a metaphysical nothingness or must have always existed prior to the cosmos.

"Oh? Why would that necessarily be?" the centuries-old cannon of the greatest minds of philosophical and theological thought asks.

The philosophizing Hawking, who obviously has not resolved the problem and doesn't even appear to understand the question, obtusely responds: "Philosophy is dead."

LOL!

Hawking isn't talking science. He's talking metaphysics. But even more to the point: the quantum vacuum arguably resembles the very essence of divinity itself or the essence of its methodology behind the veil of the space-time continuum for all that he or anybody knows.

What atheist on this forum has ever directly addressed my observations regarding the logic of theism, which is, in fact, objectively and universally apparent to all . . . whether one subsequently decides to embrace God's existence as a fact based on that logic or not.

Answer: Never!

Ironically, AtheistBuddah is the only one I've encountered on this forum who has ever come close. Hollie is an utter waste of time with regard to both the philosophical and the scientific concerns: a man walks into a bar and ducks.

Aside from those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, anybody with an IQ above that of a gnat grasps the fact that theism is not based on faith, but reason. Moreover, the notion that theism is based on fear is redundantly stupid, while the notion that faith is based on fear is exponentially stupid, as both an atheist and a number of theists have irrefutably shown on this thread.

Faith doesn't even factor into the equation until one gets to theology, and theological faith that is not backed by the known facts and reason is useless.

And now we come to the clincher. It has been suggested that science, which necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, a fact that flies right over the new atheist's head, as if empirical data interpreted themselves, as if the methodology of science established itself, as if the entire enterprise of science were not necessarily contingent to the philosophy of science, is the cat's only meow. In other words, the new atheist imagines that the limitations of scientific inquiry constitute the limits of reliable human knowledge, it not the limits of reality itself.

Thusly, the obtuse new atheist thinks to philosophize the universally apparent facts of theism's rational and ontological justifications out of existence, rather than honestly engage them. The new atheist never addresses the real issues. Instead, he goes on and on about what are in fact the meanderings of teleological, anthropological and psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when he's not mangling the pertinent metaphysics.

Straw-man argumentation is the new atheists' forte.

Fine.

Let's move onto the science then, to the facts of abiogenetic research. Let's move on to the hypothesis that must necessarily be true in order for the atheist to be right, though even that wouldn't necessarily prove that God is not.

But, no, wait a minute! Let's not move on to the science . . . not with the likes of Hollie, as the likes of Hollie never do move on to the science.

I've only encountered one atheist on this forum who ever did, and once this authority on the science of abiogenetic research got done with his amateurish prattle. . . . Well, we haven't heard from him on this forum since.

The atheists' "science"?

Anytime you're ready, children, let me know. [/quote]​

 

[JimBowie1958]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulationwhich we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

“Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.” – Anonymous

What utter nonsense. An extraordinary claim? Extraordinary evidence? Arguments fatally flawed?

Right.

The argument for atheism never even gets off the ground. It's inherently contradictory, asserted in defiance of the rules of logic.

As I have written elsewhere, here's the reality:

The gist of that goes back to this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9721287/.

The point is that the new atheists never get to the science on these forums. All they ever do is philosophize . . . badly, as they stupidly imagine themselves not to be philosophizing. LOL!

For example, in response to the new atheism's God in the gaps myth I wrote the following, which alludes to the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism in bold:

In addition to (1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they [for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton. . . .] did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.

See posts #367, #369, #372 and #375.

In these posts, on every point, the new atheism is routed.

Earlier on this thread and elsewhere on this forum, I've discussed precisely what the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism are, beginning with the implications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the problem of the infinite regression of origin, including it's ontological alternatives and the ramifications thereof. I've even explained to our amateurish new atheists why Hawking's baby talk about how the cosmos would have necessarily arisen due to the laws of physics which allow for quantum fluctuations is inherently contradictory and self-negating. Right. Hawking resolved the problem of infinite regression of origin, as if the quantum vacuum were a metaphysical nothingness or must have always existed prior to the cosmos.

"Oh? Why would that necessarily be?" the centuries-old cannon of the greatest minds of philosophical and theological thought asks.

The philosophizing Hawking, who obviously has not resolved the problem and doesn't even appear to understand the question, obtusely responds: "Philosophy is dead."

LOL!

Hawking isn't talking science. He's talking metaphysics. But even more to the point: the quantum vacuum arguably resembles the very essence of divinity itself or the essence of its methodology behind the veil of the space-time continuum for all that he or anybody knows.

What atheist on this forum has ever directly addressed my observations regarding the logic of theism, which is, in fact, objectively and universally apparent to all . . . whether one subsequently decides to embrace God's existence as a fact based on that logic or not.

Answer: Never!

Ironically, AtheistBuddah is the only one I've encountered on this forum who has ever come close. Hollie is an utter waste of time with regard to both the philosophical and the scientific concerns: a man walks into a bar and ducks.

Aside from those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, anybody with an IQ above that of a gnat grasps the fact that theism is not based on faith, but reason. Moreover, the notion that theism is based on fear is redundantly stupid, while the notion that faith is based on fear is exponentially stupid, as both an atheist and a number of theists have irrefutably shown on this thread.

Faith doesn't even factor into the equation until one gets to theology, and theological faith that is not backed by the known facts and reason is useless.

And now we come to the clincher. It has been suggested that science, which necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, a fact that flies right over the new atheist's head, as if empirical data interpreted themselves, as if the methodology of science established itself, as if the entire enterprise of science were not necessarily contingent to the philosophy of science, is the cat's only meow. In other words, the new atheist imagines that the limitations of scientific inquiry constitute the limits of reliable human knowledge, it not the limits of reality itself.

Thusly, the obtuse new atheist thinks to philosophize the universally apparent facts of theism's rational and ontological justifications out of existence, rather than honestly engage them. The new atheist never addresses the real issues. Instead, he goes on and on about what are in fact the meanderings of teleological, anthropological and psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when he's not mangling the pertinent metaphysics.

Straw-man argumentation is the new atheists' forte.

Fine.

Let's move onto the science then, to the facts of abiogenetic research. Let's move on to the hypothesis that must necessarily be true in order for the atheist to be right, though even that wouldn't necessarily prove that God is not.

But, no, wait a minute! Let's not move on to the science . . . not with the likes of Hollie, as the likes of Hollie never do move on to the science.

I've only encountered one atheist on this forum who ever did, and once this authority on the science of abiogenetic research got done with his amateurish prattle. . . . Well, we haven't heard from him on this forum since.

The atheists' "science"?

Anytime you're ready, children, let me know.​

​

great post.

 

[Hollie]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

The standard of evidence required to prove a god’s existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle – none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulationwhich we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. Note: This is not the same as being close-minded.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said god’s existence.

“Because if the only way the supreme creator of the entire universe can demonstrate his existence to me is to create images of Mary or Jesus on food items, I’m not impressed.” – Anonymous

What utter nonsense. An extraordinary claim? Extraordinary evidence? Arguments fatally flawed?

Right.

The argument for atheism never even gets off the ground. It's inherently contradictory, asserted in defiance of the rules of logic.

As I have written elsewhere, here's the reality:

The gist of that goes back to this post: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9721287/.

The point is that the new atheists never get to the science on these forums. All they ever do is philosophize . . . badly, as they stupidly imagine themselves not to be philosophizing. LOL!

For example, in response to the new atheism's God in the gaps myth I wrote the following, which alludes to the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism in bold:

In addition to (1) the readily apparent facts of human consciousness, the absolute rational forms and logical categories thereof, (2) the axioms regarding ontological origination and (3) the marvelously rational nature of existence in general: it was the nature of the things they [for example, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton. . . .] did grasp, not the unknown, that underscored their absolute certainty that God is. That's the icing on the cake, the coup de grâce. The unknown, the yet to be discovered or deciphered, for them or for any other sensible person, had absolutely nothing to do with the price beans in heaven.

See posts #367, #369, #372 and #375.

In these posts, on every point, the new atheism is routed.

Earlier on this thread and elsewhere on this forum, I've discussed precisely what the only pertinent philosophical concerns regarding the logic of theism are, beginning with the implications of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness and the problem of the infinite regression of origin, including it's ontological alternatives and the ramifications thereof. I've even explained to our amateurish new atheists why Hawking's baby talk about how the cosmos would have necessarily arisen due to the laws of physics which allow for quantum fluctuations is inherently contradictory and self-negating. Right. Hawking resolved the problem of infinite regression of origin, as if the quantum vacuum were a metaphysical nothingness or must have always existed prior to the cosmos.

"Oh? Why would that necessarily be?" the centuries-old cannon of the greatest minds of philosophical and theological thought asks.

The philosophizing Hawking, who obviously has not resolved the problem and doesn't even appear to understand the question, obtusely responds: "Philosophy is dead."

LOL!

Hawking isn't talking science. He's talking metaphysics. But even more to the point: the quantum vacuum arguably resembles the very essence of divinity itself or the essence of its methodology behind the veil of the space-time continuum for all that he or anybody knows.

What atheist on this forum has ever directly addressed my observations regarding the logic of theism, which is, in fact, objectively and universally apparent to all . . . whether one subsequently decides to embrace God's existence as a fact based on that logic or not.

Answer: Never!

Ironically, AtheistBuddah is the only one I've encountered on this forum who has ever come close. Hollie is an utter waste of time with regard to both the philosophical and the scientific concerns: a man walks into a bar and ducks.

Aside from those whose minds are as closed as a slammed-shut door, anybody with an IQ above that of a gnat grasps the fact that theism is not based on faith, but reason. Moreover, the notion that theism is based on fear is redundantly stupid, while the notion that faith is based on fear is exponentially stupid, as both an atheist and a number of theists have irrefutably shown on this thread.

Faith doesn't even factor into the equation until one gets to theology, and theological faith that is not backed by the known facts and reason is useless.

And now we come to the clincher. It has been suggested that science, which necessarily rests on one metaphysical apriority or another, a fact that flies right over the new atheist's head, as if empirical data interpreted themselves, as if the methodology of science established itself, as if the entire enterprise of science were not necessarily contingent to the philosophy of science, is the cat's only meow. In other words, the new atheist imagines that the limitations of scientific inquiry constitute the limits of reliable human knowledge, it not the limits of reality itself.

Thusly, the obtuse new atheist thinks to philosophize the universally apparent facts of theism's rational and ontological justifications out of existence, rather than honestly engage them. The new atheist never addresses the real issues. Instead, he goes on and on about what are in fact the meanderings of teleological, anthropological and psychological irrelevancies . . . that is, when he's not mangling the pertinent metaphysics.

Straw-man argumentation is the new atheists' forte.

Fine.

Let's move onto the science then, to the facts of abiogenetic research. Let's move on to the hypothesis that must necessarily be true in order for the atheist to be right, though even that wouldn't necessarily prove that God is not.

But, no, wait a minute! Let's not move on to the science . . . not with the likes of Hollie, as the likes of Hollie never do move on to the science.

I've only encountered one atheist on this forum who ever did, and once this authority on the science of abiogenetic research got done with his amateurish prattle. . . . Well, we haven't heard from him on this forum since.

The atheists' "science"?

Anytime you're ready, children, let me know.​

​

Why are you cutting and pasting the same nonsensical, silly tripe that has already been dismantled with your other false claims?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither atheism or deism are empirically or philosophically verifiable.

Any folks who try to convince you otherwise are mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or possibly a combination of all three.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"The world is so complicated" is not "evidence" of the existence of a God.

Right. Of course. The complex and marvelously rational configuration of the cosmos and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not evidence of God's existence. Oh, no. Not at all.

LOL!

No need to repeat myself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9714944/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719783/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719880/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9720164/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9726377/

 

[Hollie]

"The world is so complicated" is not "evidence" of the existence of a God.

Right. Of course. The complex and marvelously rational configuration of the cosmos and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not evidence of God's existence. Oh, no. Not at all.

LOL!

No need to repeat myself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9714944/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719783/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719880/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9720164/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9726377/

I'm afraid that screeching such absurdities as "golly gee - rational cosmos", does nothing to support your claims to partisan gawds.

Your revulsion for science, knowledge and rationality is noted, but it is based more on wistful nostalgia, willful ignorance and uncompromising allegiance to fear and superstition. Every point you attempt to make in furtherance of your revulsion for true knowledge is at best polemically skewed and at worst demonstrably false.

 

[AVG-JOE]

3000 or so years ago the Jews(not called Jews then) were being treated like dirt so they baked up this plan to convince themselves that they were special. The first really big lie came into being...that horseshit about Moses and the tablets. Then Jesus(if there really was a Jesus) outdid the Moses nonsense and/or the Christianity scam was born.

These charletons have had over 2,000 years to dumb down the human race even more than it was already.

Then around 500 years ago the printing press made it possible for just about any human being to become somewhat educated.

Fast forward to the invention of the transistor.

Now the computer and cell phones have made it impossible to keep avaerage people uninformed.

You evil bastages have had your chance to control the thinking of human beings.

Your time has come and gone. You are the walking dead. You just don't know it yet. You cling like dogshit to the soles of our shoes.

We all know in a matter of seconds that which you could once hide..from beheading non believers to raping small children.

As you cut off the heads or hang your heritics you kill your own worthless ideas.

Atheists don't HAVE to do anything. You are doing it to yourselves.

And not a moment too soon.

I disagree.


Not with the post, per se... Just the last line. It could have been sooner... I wouldn't have minded one bit.

 

[Lib]

The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

I suggest you look up the definition of "cult" because you clearly don't know what one is.

The only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of members

 

[AVG-JOE]

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

A particular standard of evidence is required to prove any claim. This ‘standard’ is adjusted depending upon the nature of the claim. Since god’s existence is an extraordinary claim, perhaps the most extraordinary claim, proving it requires equally extraordinary evidence.

I am not responding to all your crap, but I will respond to this one as the epitome of your irrationality.

No, extraordinary claims do NOT demand extraordinary evidence. They require exactly the SAME evidence as any other proposition. This demand for extraordinary evidence is the very example of what confirmation bias is and how it works, duh.

You're both wrong...

Claims, extraordinary or not, require enough evidence to convince to the mark. Otherwise the sales pitch falls flat.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that education and critical thinking is shrinking the prospect base for the selling of religion in general.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"The world is so complicated" is not "evidence" of the existence of a God.

Right. Of course. The complex and marvelously rational configuration of the cosmos and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not evidence of God's existence. Oh, no. Not at all.

LOL!

No need to repeat myself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9714944/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719783/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719880/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9720164/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9726377/

I'm afraid that screeching such absurdities as "golly gee - rational cosmos", does nothing to support your claims to partisan gawds.

Your revulsion for science, knowledge and rationality is noted, but it is based more on wistful nostalgia, willful ignorance and uncompromising allegiance to fear and superstition. Every point you attempt to make in furtherance of your revulsion for true knowledge is at best polemically skewed and at worst demonstrably false.

Your lies and repetitious sloganeering is duly noted. Tells all about that energy and matter that existed before the Big Bang again. You know, that embarrassingly stupid rash of pseudoscientific claptrap you apparently endorsed.

Better yet, since of you atheists never discuss the pertinent issues, as they utterly destroy your insanity, let's do another a man/duck walks into a bar joke.


A man walks into a bar and bellys up.

Moments later, just when the man is about to order, a duck walks into the bar, picks up a chair, smashes it over the man's head and quacks.

Moments later, a monkey walks into the bar, grabs the duck and drop kicks him through the glass window and into the street. The duck shacks it off, flies back into the bar through the broken window, grabs the monkey by his tail, and throws him out the window.

The man struggles to his feet, grabs the duck and throws him across the room. The duck hits the wall head first and is knocked out cold. The man then staggers to the bar and orders a shot of whiskey.

Flabbergasted, the bartender exclaims, "What in the world was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the man. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke that duck shows up."

Minutes later the duck comes to.

"Hey, duck," says the bartender. "What in the world was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the duck. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke, I'm suddenly walking into a bar somewhere in the world behind that man right there. I got better things to do with my time. I figured if I killed the man the nightmare would end."

"So what's the deal with that monkey?" asks the bartender.

"Don't know," says the duck. "That's the first time that lunatic walked into the bar behind me."

Moments later, the monkey walks back into the bar and glares at the duck.

"So what's your story?" the bartender asks.

Says the monkey, "That duck dropped a load on my head as he flew over, landed and walked into this bar.
__________________________________________

LOL! That's a real knee slapper. Made them one up myself!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Neither atheism or deism are empirically or philosophically verifiable.

Any folks who try to convince you otherwise are mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or possibly a combination of all three.

False. Neither atheism nor theism are subject to scientific falsification. However, the assertion of theism holds up under the laws of logic, under the imperatives of the universally and objectively apparent rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness. Atheism does not. Logically, that brick never even gets off the ground, whether it be ultimately true or not, objectively speaking.

So "mentally feeble or woefully ignorant or malignantly motivated, or possibly a combination of all three" fits you to a tee.

Try again.

Suggestion: either go on being ignorant or ask me why that's so. Now that would be the intellectually honest thing to do . . . wouldn't it?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

I suggest you look up the definition of "cult" because you clearly don't know what one is.

The only difference between a religion and a cult is the number of members

Wrong, libtard, but don't let that slow you down, lol.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Thank (insert your preferred Deity here) that education and critical thinking is shrinking the prospect base for the selling of religion in general.

Yes, that is right, the reduction in the publics ability to think rationally has led to a loss of members in the main stream Protestant denominations and a growth in Ignorant Atheists.

 

[Hollie]

"The world is so complicated" is not "evidence" of the existence of a God.

Right. Of course. The complex and marvelously rational configuration of the cosmos and the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness are not evidence of God's existence. Oh, no. Not at all.

LOL!

No need to repeat myself:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9714944/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719783/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9719880/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9720164/
http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/9726377/

I'm afraid that screeching such absurdities as "golly gee - rational cosmos", does nothing to support your claims to partisan gawds.

Your revulsion for science, knowledge and rationality is noted, but it is based more on wistful nostalgia, willful ignorance and uncompromising allegiance to fear and superstition. Every point you attempt to make in furtherance of your revulsion for true knowledge is at best polemically skewed and at worst demonstrably false.

Your lies and repetitious sloganeering is duly noted. Tells all about that energy and matter that existed before the Big Bang again. You know, that embarrassingly stupid rash of pseudoscientific claptrap you apparently endorsed.

Better yet, since of you atheists never discuss the pertinent issues, as they utterly destroy your insanity, let's do another a man/duck walks into a bar joke.


A man walks into a bar and bellys up.

Moments later, just when the man is about to order, a duck walks into the bar, picks up a chair, smashes it over the man's head and quacks.

Moments later, a monkey walks into the bar, grabs the duck and drop kicks him through the glass window and into the street. The duck shacks it off, flies back into the bar through the broken window, grabs the monkey by his tail, and throws him out the window.

The man struggles to his feet, grabs the duck and throws him across the room. The duck hits the wall head first and is knocked out cold. The man then staggers to the bar and orders a shot of whiskey.

Flabbergasted, the bartender exclaims, "What in the world was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the man. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke that duck shows up."

Minutes later the duck comes to.

"Hey, duck," says the bartender. "What in the world was that all about?"

"Don't know, exactly" says the duck. "But every time someone tells a man walks into a bar joke, I'm suddenly walking into a bar somewhere in the world behind that man right there. I got better things to do with my time. I figured if I killed the man the nightmare would end."

"So what's the deal with that monkey?" asks the bartender.

"Don't know," says the duck. "That's the first time that lunatic walked into the bar behind me."

Moments later, the monkey walks back into the bar and glares at the duck.

"So what's your story?" the bartender asks.

Says the monkey, "That duck dropped a load on my head as he flew over, landed and walked into this bar.
__________________________________________

LOL! That's a real knee slapper. Made them one up myself!

Right. I see you're so befuddled you're back to cross posting / spamming this thread with the same cut and paste nonsense you spammed another thread with.

You fundie zealots really are pathetic.