Why do the God-haters persist?

[MrMax]

you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.

Your evidence was that billions of people are religious. Which is no evidence at all.

 

[Boss]

I accept that life on earth is evidence of a creator.

That's accepting evidence of something I don't believe in.

I'll believe in it when there's enough evidence to form a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Until then,

Believing in something's possibility is not believing in it. Not even close. Your argument fails there.

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.

I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.

Life on earth is evidence of a creator.

Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.

There is evidence that I'm Irish.
(my skin color).

I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.

I do not believe I'm Irish.

Your statement was profoundly flawed.

If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!

 

[G.T.]

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.

I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.

Life on earth is evidence of a creator.

Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.

There is evidence that I'm Irish.
(my skin color).

I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.

I do not believe I'm Irish.

Your statement was profoundly flawed.

If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!

Actually, not.

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish


And still accept my skin color as evidence.




You can collect evidence at a crime scene that points one way, and knowing that your analysis is not complete, not YET BELIEVE the outcome just yet.

It's not that hard a concept. What you said was dumb. No wiggle room, it was dumb.

 

[GISMYS]

Demanding proof before you will believe has a high cost==One of the twelve disciples, Thomas (nicknamed the Twin), was not with the others when Jesus came. 25 They told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he replied, “I won’t believe it unless I see the nail wounds in his hands, put my fingers into them, and place my hand into the wound in his side.”

26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!”

28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed.

29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”
john

 

[Boss]

you haven't shown any scientific evidence, ever.

Of course, this isn't actually true, either. I have indeed shown scientific evidence to support the validity of human spiritual worship. You didn't agree with my evidence.

Your evidence was that billions of people are religious. Which is no evidence at all.

Nope. Went into a LOT more detail than that. Actually got to invoke Darwinian Natural Selection as well. My scientific argument starts thousands of years before ANY religion. Back to the dawn of human civilization. Humans are naturally spiritual creatures, it's in our DNA, we can't help it. We are intrinsically drawn to awareness of a spiritual power greater than self.

This behavioral attribute is not present because we invented it or had to concoct some explanation for the unknown or console ourselves about death, and we know this because we don't see the anomaly anywhere else in nature. No other life form needs to create placebos of imagination to cope... none. Besides, if it were imagined, the species would have abandoned it long ago as it would not be fundamental to survival, while remaining alive and free from religious persecution would have been far more important.

So there is the scientific evidence for the validity of human spiritual worship.

 

[Boss]

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish

You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.

 

[G.T.]

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish

You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.

Do you not know what "I could" means?

It means I was giving you a hypothetical, genius.

Wow

 

[G.T.]

I could give ya 6, 000 more examples of how you could NOT believe in something, yet still accept evidence for it.

Because the statement is retarded.




My flag is ripped off its pole.

I accept that that is evidence that the wind blew it off.

Doesn't mean I believe the wind blew it off - there's not enough evidence.

It being off its pole could also mean someone cut it off.

I don't believe someone cut it off.

But I accept that it being off is evidence that someone could have.

Its literally a derp thing to say. congrats brah

 

[G.T.]

I accept that my computer's existence is evidence that god made it.
I accept my computer's existence is evidence that science made it.
I believe neither, because that's just not enough evidence to decide.

 

[thebrucebeat]

But really you DON'T believe life on earth is evidence of a creator because you don't believe in said creator, and you constantly rationalize how life on earth doesn't require one. So what you are doing now is lying deliberately so you can have a "gotchya moment" on me. It's cheeky, it's clever, but it's totally dishonest horseshit and you know it.

Except you're wrong, and not at liberty to tell me WHAT I believe.

I am agnostic. The correct answer is, I do not know.

Life on earth is evidence of a creator.

Having evidence towards something does not mean believing in it.

There is evidence that I'm Irish.
(my skin color).

I accept that there is evidence that I'm Irish.

I do not believe I'm Irish.

Your statement was profoundly flawed.

If you don't believe you are Irish, you don't believe the evidence you are Irish is valid evidence. Accepting something is invalid evidence is not accepting evidence. Sorry!

Do you regularly accept evidence you find invalid? Would that be rational?

 

[Montrovant]

Are you too defensive to see the difference?

Look, there is no difference. If my argument is, you can't accept evidence of something you don't believe in... and you can't provide proof that I am wrong by showing me something you don't believe in but accept evidence for... that proves my point.

And I am almost always defensive when some fucktarded moron starts telling me what I mean to say and don't mean to say... sorry about that, just how I am.

Says the fucktard moron who's spent most of this thread telling people what they do believe and don't believe.

 

[Montrovant]

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish

You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.

Those are not contradictory statements. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.

So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.

I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.

 

[G.T.]

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish

You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.

Those are not contradictory statements. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.

So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.

I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.

He's an idiot.

I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.

And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"

As opposed to I am?

Oh, I dunno gee willickers

 

[Boss]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

 

[G.T.]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

You're a dummy.

Evidence is not legitimate or illegitimate until the CONCLUSION is KNOWN.

WOW, I cant tell if you really think you're smart or if you're just trying to pass it off that way on the internet.

Evidence is evidence. When its debunked, its illegitimate, when its not, it's up in the air.

GET ******* REAL.

You said ppl who don't believe in the spirit cannot accept spiritual evidence.

That is asinine. You can accept all kinds of evidence for things that you don't know their conclusion......

and conversely, dumbass, if you ALREADY BELIEVE IN THE SPIRIT, you no longer NEED evidence.



Not sure if serious, but damn.

 

[Boss]

He's an idiot.

I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.

And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"

As opposed to I am?

Oh, I dunno gee willickers

Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.

If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.

 

[thebrucebeat]

None of you are giving legitimate evidence of something you don't believe is possible, yet accept there is valid evidence to support it. You are doing everything but backflips to try and find a way to prove me wrong, and you're failing all over the place. It's quite the comic tragedy.

You're right.
Everyone is saying they would accept valid evidence of something they don't currently believe in if it was provided.
Your construct is assinine.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I could not KNOW if I were Irish or not.

Also not believe one way or another IF I were Irish

You said "I do not believe I am Irish." Now you are saying "I don't know if I am Irish." These are contradicting statements. Both positions cannot be true at the same time. You can either be certain or uncertain, you can't be both at the same time.

Those are not contradictory statements. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. So believing or not believing something does not mean that you know something.

So I could say I believe in ghosts and also say I don't know if there are ghosts and not be making contradictory statements.

I could say I believe in life on other planets but also say I don't know if there is life on other planets and not be making contradictory statements.

The very basis of agnosticism.

 

[G.T.]

He's an idiot.

I wasn't literally contradicting myself, I was giving him the hypothetical REVERSE scenario of my first statement, to make a point.

And he thought I was still being literal, because he doesn't understand the nuance of the English language I guess, like how I started the second post with "I could"

As opposed to I am?

Oh, I dunno gee willickers

Well, no I'm not an idiot... jury is still out on you. Yes, if you believe it is possible you "could be" Irish, then you could logically examine evidence that you "may be" Irish and find it credible without "believing you are Irish". That doesn't refute my point, it makes my point.
If you KNOW for a clinical fact through DNA testing or whatever, that you are absolutely NOT Irish.... then it does not matter if someone shows you shamrocks and lucky charms spewing from your ass, you will not accept it as valid evidence. Nothing they can show you will convince you unless you believe it could be possible first.

The big part?

It doesn't make your point.

You said exactly: if you do not believe something you cannot accept evidence of it.



Be a man. what you said was dumb.

 

[Boss]

Evidence is evidence.

NO! Evidence is NOT evidence! We've covered this in preceding pages. Evidence is SUBJECTIVE! What YOU may view as valid and legitimate evidence for something, I may totally reject as evidence at all. It has a different value to me than it has to you. So evidence is NOT evidence.

This is part of the damn problem with you people, you think YOUR evidence is above reproach and no one can disagree with it. Therefore, it becomes "PROOF" that you have faith in and believe with all your heart, and anyone who disputes you is a "moron" or whatever name you wish to call them.