Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Akhenaten]

That does bring up a good question I have. How many deities have had their non-existence proven and using what methodologies?

All of them, using the tried and trusted 'blind faith' method.

Who were the researchers?

Bleevers in other deities.

Where were they published?

Mecca, Amritsar, Rome - all over the place really.

 

[dafydd]

Which gods don't you believe in, OCaptain? I suspect that you believe in one more god than me.

 

[OCaptain]

What would be the point? The believers would ignore it and the atheists know that no evidence has ever been put on the table.

So , what you're saying is none of them could be bothered to do the minimum required for someone who claims the existence of deities is non-scientific?

So there is no data that disproves the existence of every deity? Hmmm

 

[dafydd]

So there is no data that disproves the existence of every deity? Hmmm

No need for it. The default position is no god. We are all born as atheists. Read Akhenaten's post. Which gods don't you believe in?

 

[OCaptain]

What do you think? Stop dodging. Either post some examples of this near-hatred or retract your statement.

Am posting on an iPod. Give me longer than 10 minutes. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

 

[dafydd]

Am posting on an iPod. Give me longer than 10 minutes. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

You will have a long search. You will find a lot of criticism, questioning, sarcasm and mild mockery but no outright hatred and threats toward theists. For myself, I view believers with a mixture of pity and amusement.

 

[joobz]

That does bring up a good question I have. How many deities have had their non-existence proven and using what methodologies? Who were the researchers? Where were they published?

This is a shift in the burden of proof.
It is the job of the person making a positive claim to demonstrate the veracity of that claim.

Imagine if science worked the way you suggested.
We would have companies telling the FDA, "Prove my penis enlargement pill doesn't work!"

 

[dafydd]

Am posting on an iPod. Give me longer than 10 minutes. Rome wasn't built in a day, you know.

You don't need to do any searching to tell me which gods you don't believe in. Let me prime the pump. Do you believe that Krishna exists and if not, why not?

 

[OCaptain]

You will have a long search. You will find a lot of criticism, questioning, sarcasm and mild mockery but no outright hatred and threats toward theists. For myself, I view believers with a mixture of pity and amusement.

I find many of the posts by atheists in this thread (and not just the ones directed at me) quite hateful in spirit. Civility long ago stripped away leaving mocking, derisions and ultimatums.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215446

 

[Complexity]

And you don't care sooooo much that you simply must respond to me?

I feel so honored.

Something else you're wrong about.

I see something stupid, I stomp on it.

 

[Complexity]

I do not add complexity to explain something when it isn't needed.

I feel so unused.

 

[OCaptain]

This is a shift in the burden of proof.
It is the job of the person making a positive claim to demonstrate the veracity of that claim.

Imagine if science worked the way you suggested.
We would have companies telling the FDA, "Prove my penis enlargement pill doesn't work!"

I, for one, don't think that the existence of any deity is falsifiable.

Period.

 

[X]

Most everyone does this. Its a human characteristic.

The Christians dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
The Jews and Muslims do, as well.
The Wiccans are not as polarizing.
Neither are various varieties of neo-pagans, Taoists, Buddhists, Hinduists, Ba'hai, etc, etc.
The Agnostics tend to quietly and reflectively question everyone
The Atheists dismiss the beliefs of everyone else
And everyone dismisses the Satanists.

Each paradigm uses the tools with which they are accustomed to fortify their own beliefs experientially, sometimes to the detriment of others. Each paradigm - even those whose ostensibly is the absence of belief - is mutually exclusive to a degree, if taken to their natural conclusions.

We've done it since for as long as recorded history, and we'll likely do it until we are no more, unless we make a conscious effort to focus on the elements of our respective theoretical frameworks that we share in common, instead of those which currently divide us, as sadly demonstrated in this thread.

Best Salaams

Yes, but most atheists don't evaluate Christian beliefs on the basis of Islamic standards, or vice-versa (as DOC is doing), or even secular standards. Rather, most rational-secularists evaluate religious claims on their (the claims) own merits.

DOC is not. DOC is saying that Islam can't be true because Muhammed didn't do the things Christians claim their god did. Well, whoop-te-do. Muhammed wasn't Jesus. And establishing that does not in any way provide evidence for the veracity of the New Testament. Any more than establishing that Uhura Mazda is not Krishna provides evidence for the veracity of the truth of Zoroastrianism.

 

[dafydd]

I find many of the posts by atheists in this thread (and not just the ones directed at me) quite hateful in spirit. Civility long ago stripped away leaving mocking, derisions and ultimatums.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215446

I know that thread, I participated it. Mockery and derision are not examples of hatred. Please quote a hateful post made by an atheist in that thread. I saw no atheists wishing death and mutilation upon theists, in stark contrast to the theists in the link that I posted. You are wrong but do not have the courage to admit it.

 

[OCaptain]

Something else you're wrong about.

I see something stupid, I stomp on it.

That's your stomp?

That's the most polite stomp I have received since arriving at JREF.

If you hadn't told me, I would have missed it! Thanks.

 

[dafydd]

I, for one, don't think that the existence of any deity is falsifiable.

Period.

So all gods that mankind has believed in exist? So the Hopi Spider Woman exists? The Chinese Kitchen God? Or did you mean provable?

 

[OCaptain]

Yes, but most atheists don't evaluate Christian beliefs on the basis of Islamic standards, or vice-versa (as DOC is doing), or even secular standards. Rather, most rational-secularists evaluate religious claims on their (the claims) own merits.

DOC is not. DOC is saying that Islam can't be true because Muhammed didn't do the things Christians claim their god did. Well, whoop-te-do. Muhammed wasn't Jesus. And establishing that does not in any way provide evidence for the veracity of the New Testament. Any more than establishing that Uhura Mazda is not Krishna provides evidence for the veracity of the truth of Zoroastrianism.

Yes, but I'm not DOC. Why can't you guys give everyone the benefit of the doubt and allow each to demonstrate who he/she is?

 

[dafydd]

Yes, but I'm not DOC. Why can't you guys give everyone the benefit of the doubt and allow each to demonstrate who he/she is?

Go on then. Tell us which god you believe in, assuming that you believe in a god, and perhaps provide some proof of said god's existence.

 

[joobz]

I, for one, don't think that the existence of any deity is falsifiable.

Period.

I agree.


But then again, the existence of Doctor Who, Captain Picard, Eddard Stark, rectal demons, Invisible Space Monster Burrito, and The Funk aren't falsifiable either.

 

[Akhenaten]

So there is no data that disproves the existence of every deity? Hmmm

Therefore your default position is that all deities exist?

Really???