Poll: Whaddya reckon about God's existence?

[Svartalf]

It can be hard, thinking out of the box.

I get hard thinking about boxes...

touché, I'm not used to using it in that meaning...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

No. My position is that an absence of evidence is ample justification for not giving a shit about something. Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence.

You'll feel that way about Ebola right up until you start bleeding from your eyeballs.

Strawman. There is plenty of evidence for Ebola. It could all be faked (as could the moon landings and 9/11) but it is compelling enough to take seriously. The same cannot be said of god IMO.

Just because YOU cannot (or have not) perceived and correctly interpreted the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Where did I make a claim of existence or non-existence? ONCE AGAIN, you read my words and see what you WANT to be there! I'll repeat the relevant part... "Until there is evidence of a god or gods, I will continue to treat them as if they don't exist, whatever their actual status vis a vis existence."

For fuck's sake, if you can't argue with the points I actually fucking make, don't bother.

It's your comprehension that's at issue. You see, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God, you just don't believe any of it because it doesn't meet your personal criteria as "evidence" that you will accept as showing the truth of the proposition that God exists. That's quite different from there not being any evidence. Quite different indeed.

So, in essence what you are saying is "I deny and reject the evidence that God exists because it conflicts with my own religious doctrines and dogmas."

And that's every bit as rational and logical as any fundamentalist's proclamations about Creationism, which means not at all rational or logical.

And so we return to the point we always reach: the inane wankery of your dogged claims that there is "plenty of evidence" for the existence of god coupled with your equally dogged refusal to state the precise nature of that evidence.

Your machine never delivers anything worthwhile. Sometimes it is interesting simply to hear the sound of the buttons clanking for a while but I've had enough of that now. Present your evidence, else fuck off.

[tattuchu]

There's this book...

[Xamonas Chegwé]

There's this book...

Read it. Found Wally. So what?

[Svartalf]

There's this book...

I know Ph'nglui mglw nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah nagl fhtagn.

[Animavore]

Here's evidence there is a god.

[Svartalf]

I see better evuidence for shit every morning in a porcelain bowl.

[Animavore]

I see better evuidence for shit every morning in a porcelain bowl.

Your reflection off the toilet water?




Zing!

[Svartalf]

No, the image of [insert politician of your choice] I just deposited there

[Hermit]

And so we return to the point we always reach: the inane wankery of your dogged claims that there is "plenty of evidence" for the existence of god coupled with your equally dogged refusal to state the precise nature of that evidence.

Oh, Seth stated the precise nature of that evidence quite some time ago:

No, an assertion doesn't "become evidence" it IS evidence, if it's an assertion of an observation of an actual event. You disbelieve that certain claims of actual events are factual, but you cannot provide any countervailing evidence to prove that Jesus did not exist or that he did not perform the acts which the observers recording the acts claim. You know full well that written accounts of observations of events are without any question held to be evidence of those events. Whether they are true accounts is another matter, but they are absolutely evidence that the events written of occurred.

Linkie

Explains a lot, don't you think? About him, I mean.

[Svartalf]

An assertion is not evidence until a,nd unless the observation can be independently verified.
I can assert that I am a genius therefore, god, but that's not evidence of either my intelligence or the involvement of the deity in my being so, even though I've had plenty obnservation of my own mental prowess.

[Seth]

When did I ever say abiogenesis proves that God doesn't exist. Point it out. Go on. Find the exact sentence where I said this.

I'll wait.

I never said you did, but the theme of the thread is "Whaddya reckon about God's existence?"

Do try to keep up.

[Seth]

You're not challenging anyone's assumptions. You're challenging your own assumption on what you think others are assuming, as you've demonstrated yet again in the post right above.

Quit trying to squirm out of your preconceptions and bigotry. You know perfectly well that you, and everybody else here, positively believes that God does not exist, loathes and despises theists, and denies being religious about deriding, demeaning and disrespecting religion, theists, God, Jesus and anybody else that doesn't toe the Atheist party line.

All this wibble about "having no belief" is just Atheis evasionist crap and you know it. That's why you are so desperately trying to derail the debate with irrelevancies and ad hom.

[Seth]

Yeah, you're right. I should take my own advice

Disengaging.

Yes, that's an excellent illustration of what the intellectually deficient do when they run out of excuses and evasions trying to defend their indefensible, irrational and illogical arguments. I really like it.

[Seth]

And so we return to the point we always reach: the inane wankery of your dogged claims that there is "plenty of evidence" for the existence of god coupled with your equally dogged refusal to state the precise nature of that evidence.

I've stated it many times, you just refuse to accept it as evidence because, as I said, it doesn't meet your personal metric for reliability. But that's a personal problem, not an indictment of the evidence.

Your machine never delivers anything worthwhile. Sometimes it is interesting simply to hear the sound of the buttons clanking for a while but I've had enough of that now. Present your evidence, else fuck off. [/quote]

The miracle of Fatima.

Prove it didn't happen as described by hundreds of witnesses or prove how it was a mass delusion or something else to your own standard of scientific acceptance. No speculating allowed, only hard science with falsifiable results.

Otherwise, fuck off.