Religion is a hypothesis.

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

I asked you a simple question.
I defined "God" for you.
Now it's time for you to answer the question.

"What evidence is acceptable to you, (proving God's existence)?"

Irrefutable evidence, what else? And none exists, unless your "pearls before swine" horseshit is that irrefutable evidence and not just another theistic nitwit's delusion of grandeur.

The odds are overwhelmingly against you.

There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of natural explanations accurately supplanting supernatural ones, and exactly zero supernatural explanations accurately supplanting natural ones, so any given unexplained phenomenon is far, far more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one.

Your God of the gaps has been shrunken to the size of a dust mite. Nuff said.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

"What evidence is acceptable to you, (proving God's existence)?"

Irrefutable evidence, what else? And none exists, unless your "pearls before swine" horseshit is that irrefutable evidence and not just another theistic nitwit's delusion of grandeur.

The odds are overwhelmingly against you.

There are thousands upon thousands upon thousands of natural explanations accurately supplanting supernatural ones, and exactly zero supernatural explanations accurately supplanting natural ones, so any given unexplained phenomenon is far, far more likely to have a natural explanation than a supernatural one.

Your God of the gaps has been shrunken to the size of a dust mite. Nuff said.

Nice try,at deflection.
Once again I ask you to simply state what would suffice to you as evidence that God does exist?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

Nice try,at deflection.
Once again I ask you to simply state what would suffice to you as evidence that God does exist?

What deflection? I answered your question. The evidence would be miracles -- acts that only a god could perform. Events that couldn't be duplicated by a competent illusionist.

What miracles convince you that there is a god?

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

What deflection? 1) I answered your question. 2) The evidence would be miracles -- acts that only a god could perform. Events that couldn't be duplicated by a competent illusionist.

What miracles convince you that there is a god?

1) You lie or consider "Irrefutable evidence, what else?" a sufficient answer.

BE SPECIFIC DEFINE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

2) BE SPECIFIC WHAT MIRACLES DO YOU DEMAND?

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

1) You consider "Irrefutable evidence, what else?" a sufficient answer.

Yes. There's not a shred of evidence for your god and expecting me to come up with a reason for believing in it is exactly assbackwards. It's your job to come up with convincing evidence. Mine is to be smart enough to not believe in things for which there is no evidence.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

<IMG SRC=http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/atheist-sex.jpg>

 

[Index piker]

You see folks this is the deal.

Atheists (or whatever they want to call themselves) like kut2, kill , stu and the myriad of others out there.

1)Pretend science somehow invalidates the existence of God.


2) Pretend that no evidence exists that proves God exists.


3) Apparently only accept only information gleaned through rigorous peer reviewed scientific method.


I'll give them slack on 1 because it's impossible to prove a negative.


2A) Of course this is where they just fall all apart, give ridiculous answers, red herring diversionary tactics, go into attack mode or otherwise attempt to change the subject.

They pretend to worship at the feet of the scientific method but run away like vampires to sunlight at the thought of actually designing the conditions that would actually refute their hypothesis that "there is no God" on at least a personal experiential level.

This is highly inconsistent or shall we say egregiously hypocritical because one of the central tenets of the scientific method is to attempt to invalidate your own hypothesis.

They absolutely either cannot or will not define the conditions under which they would change their belief or nonbelief or whatever semantic games they want to play.

I contend this is simply because they have too much personal identity at stake in the matter .

The really strident ones invariably have anger issues as the root cause such as:
mommy & daddy issues
anger at previous encounters with believers.
anger at church not condoning their desired behavior Homosexuals
rejection of authority etc etc


3A) Of course we know this is complete bullshit because of their other belief systems on politics,economics, and other domestic and cultural attitudes.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from kut2k2:

Yes. There's not a shred of evidence for your god and expecting me to come up with a reason for believing in it is exactly assbackwards. 1)It's your job to come up with convincing evidence. Mine is to be smart enough to not believe in things for which there is no evidence.

Giving up so soon.

I'm not asking you to prove anything .

I'm just simply asking for what you consider admissible evidence.

Can you or can you not do this?

1) Odd how you demand this "convincing evidence" but are dumbfounded and perplexed at defining it. It really shows you're essentially another shallow thinker making a lot of noise.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Index piker:

Giving up so soon.

I'm not asking you to prove anything.

I'm just simply asking for what you consider admissible evidence.

Can you or can you not do this?

You are a liar. I've already answered your question. If you don't like the answer, tough.

It is not my job to come up with evidence for YOUR belief. That is your job.

If you can't , just man up and admit it. Don't hide behind the fact that intelligent who don't share your particular superstition don't bother to play your childish game of "Disprove it."

It is the duty of the claimant to prove the claim. I don't believe in your claim because you cannot or refuse to prove it.

I don't believe in your Creator. That doesn't mean your Creator doesn't exist, it simply means, as you've been told before, that there is no logical reason to believe in it. No evidence supporting belief.

If I said your god doesn't exist, then you could reasonably demand evidence supporting my belief in its nonexistence. But since neither I nor anyone else (including you) is expected to explain why we don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, your silly little thought experiment is exposed for the sophistry it is.

Odd how you demand this "convincing evidence" but are dumbfounded and perplexed at defining it. It really shows you're essentially another shallow thinker making a lot of noise.

Extremely odd how you refuse to provide evidence for your belief, but demand that disbelievers make your case for you.

Very childish and illogical behavior.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"It is the duty of the claimant to prove the claim."

Fascinating...

There is no proof of a big bang, there is no proof of macro evolution, there is no proof of so many things the atheists claim...

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

Richard Feynman (1918-1988).

"A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration."

Bertrand Russell, Grounds of Conflict, Religion and Science, 1953.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."

Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

Quote from kut2k2:

You are a liar. I've already answered your question. If you don't like the answer, tough.

It is not my job to come up with evidence for YOUR belief. That is your job.

If you can't , just man up and admit it. Don't hide behind the fact that intelligent who don't share your particular superstition don't bother to play your childish game of "Disprove it."

It is the duty of the claimant to prove the claim. I don't believe in your claim because you cannot or refuse to prove it.

I don't believe in your Creator. That doesn't mean your Creator doesn't exist, it simply means, as you've been told before, that there is no logical reason to believe in it. No evidence supporting belief.

If I said your god doesn't exist, then you could reasonably demand evidence supporting my belief in its nonexistence. But since neither I nor anyone else (including you) is expected to explain why we don't believe in things for which there is no evidence, your silly little thought experiment is exposed for the sophistry it is.