Atheist Double-Standard Demands for (Empirical-Only) “Evidence”

You thumb your nose at philosophy and yet you are obviously spewing empiricism-only, which is precisely a philosophy. This kind of massive confusion and philosophical naivete is simply beyond the level of my patience (or even intellectual ability to crack). A person has to be thinking logically and rationally if any progress in discussion (about anything) is to be made at all.

By your viciously self-refuting nonsense [and I am using that word quite literally] you have placed yourself beyond the capacity of rational discourse (especially with anyone who disagrees with you).

Vicious? I disagree with you. I have asked for evidence that would support your claims. I have not accepted that arguments, rationalizations or philosophical posturing constitute evidence. I have not insulted you or called you names.

Meanwhile, you have insulted me, my intelligence and made statements that “all atheists” possess certain characteristics.

I never said a word about “all atheists” (either with those words, or in expressing the idea). I made one reference to “That’s what atheists always do”: which was clearly a generalization, in context (a thing she does times without number, regarding Christians). I am talking about her alone.

vicious
ADJECTIVE

1 Deliberately cruel or violent.
1.1 (of an animal) wild and dangerous to people.
‘the dog was vicious and likely to bite’
1.2 Serious or dangerous.
2 literary Immoral.
3 archaic (of language or a line of reasoning) imperfect; defective.

I have provided a link to the Oxford English Dictionary should you find it useful.

Cheers.

And here is an example (since you seem unfamiliar with the phrase) of “viciously self-refuting” from The Oxford Handbook of German Philosophy in the Nineteenth Century.

I’ll ask you what I’ve asked several atheists: What is an example of what you think is “compelling evidence”? Two actually answered it. Herald Newman wrote: “On the idea that Christianity is true, I don’t know if there could be any evidence to convince me.” Then he said even if Christianity were proven to be true, he wouldn’t become one, and gave three reasons why.

Anthrotheist gave the sort of answer I have heard before from atheists: “Pick any miracle out of your Bible. Perform it in full view of the world, recorded for posterity. Repeat if for curious folks who want to see if for themselves, or who hope to debunk it.”

You likewise did not answer, address or in anyway acknowledge my question on what type of evidence would convince you that Islam is true. If you would honestly think about that for a minute, you would understand the dilemma and appreciate where others are coming from.

What would convince me that Jesus existed at all? How about a record from a reliable historic source written at the time of Jesus, describing Jesus and his ministry. This would need to be a record that Christian could not have altered or forged. For example, if something like the Dead Sea Scrolls was discovered that written in the early first century and that described Jesus, his teaching and his miracles and did not show Paul’s later influence on christian thought.

What would convince me that this person Jesus, having existed, was actually half god and immortal. How about DNA left from when Jesus was alive, and a person walking the earth today claiming to be Jesus with that exact DNA. And this DNA would clearly be the product of a human mother and no human father.

Islam doesn’t even claim to be defensible through rational, secular means. Christianity does. Islam is non-rational fideism. One of its main schools is literally opposed to reason. Thus, there is no applicable analogy there.

There are some secular records of Jesus: not much, but some.

At least you finally give something that you think might convince you. I predict that you’re not gonna get that, so I guess you’re stuck with unbelief.

Personally, from what I’ve seen of how you think, I don’t think any evidence or arguments whatever will convince you. I believe many atheists are of the same mind.

I was a christian for 35+ years. I believed it all. Then I read the Bible again and paid attention. I realized it made no sense and there was no evidence for any of the claims of christianity,

It’ll take, I suspect, something like a person saving your life or doing some profound act of love that moves you at a heart-level.

And there it is. When it gets down to the core, religion is based on emotion not evidence. This statement is totally nonsensical. How could a life saving action or an act of love prove the existence of any deity, much less your special deity? Life saving actions and acts of love happen all the time in every human culture, and some non human ones. This says nothing about the validity of deities. This week a dog spontaneously pulled a drowning fawn out of a lake and after pulling it to shore licked it to help it wake up. When the fawn woke up, it ran back into the river in panic. The dog went back out and brought it back again. Mammals can be compassionate. Mammals can be cruel. It is what it is.

And have you looked honestly at the behavior of christians within religious cultures? Priests pray. Every day. They are surrounded by the prayers of the parish. Every day. Yet in every diocese around the world, when faced with clear evidence that children were being raped, priests protected (and still protect) the rapist rather that the children. Protecting the powerful insider at the expense of vulnerable outsiders is fairly normal human behavior. Police Departments do it. Penn State coaches did it. Christians are just normal people with no special corner on morality or love.

I have seen many acts of love. I have seen many acts of hate. These acts were performed by people who claimed and religion and by people who did not.

I have no objection if religion brings comfort and meaning to a person, as long as they do not use religion to harm others. But acknowledge that religion grows out of emotion, not evidence.

When it gets down to the core, religion is based on emotion not evidence.

I never said that. If I believed that silliness I wouldn’t have devoted my life to apologetics for 36 years now. Get a grip!

I am contending that no amount of evidence or argumentation (realistically speaking) will convince you. That’s not a statement saying that it doesn’t exist or that Christianity cannot be intellectually defended; only that you won’t accept it, due to your fallacious thinking and hard heart.

Of course, emotion is part of religion, just as it is part of atheism and just about everything else. But I don’t pit it against reason, as if they are contraries. And I never claim that emotion is the only basis of religion or anything else.

Someone doing a profound act of love towards you is not even an “emotional thing” at bottom. It is an act that may melt your cold hard heart and make you give up at least part of your ferocious fight against Christian truths and Jesus.

You’re beyond reason on this score. Any trained, experienced apologist’s mind (like my own) can see that.

***

I’ve given you all sorts of arguments that Christians give for our belief-system. None of it is sufficient for you. Obviously, then, your goals here are unmet, and I would urge you to look for it somewhere else.

But nothing is gonna convince you, wherever you go (I would bet much money on) because your problem is in your thinking (epistemology — particularly the naive, simpleton view of empiricism-only — and many false premises). And many of my articles and links do deal with that.

But you have dismissed all of ’em with a wave of your hand.

Be well, then. I hope you find what you’re looking for eventually. God has already found you, but you have to be ready for Him.

I don’t want arguments. I asked for evidence. There is a difference.

Evidence would convince me. Arguments will not. And as you have so clearly demonstrated, there is no evidence. Just talk.

I was a christian for over 3 decades. Then I read the bible.

Cheers

***

Who was it who is purported to have said “by their fruit shall ye know them.”

Look at Christian groups. They are cesspools of gossip, hate, judgmentalism, shunning and every form of human nastiness. In your own church, you have tens of thousands of examples of clan loyalty where powerful insiders are protected at the expense of the vulnerable and powerless. Christianity does not make anyone better or happier.

Full disclosure – The fact that priests surrounded by prayer and jesus consistently protected other priests while children were harmed made me ask “What’s going on here? Christianity is supposed to change lives, but these people protect their own just like every other closeknit group of humans.” Within about two or three years, I had figured out that Christianity is nonsense.

[“Lark62” quoting me in another combox] “I am not questioning the sincerity of these persons or the truthfulness of their self-reports.”

Yes, you are.

Maybe you are trying to tear down these first person accounts to build up your shaky faith. That how it sounds to me.

These are personal stories. Christians may be unable to speak without an ulterior motive, but that doesn’t apply to normal people.

We’re now done discussing anything, because you have refused to accept my self-report as to why I am critiquing deconversion stories, in effect, calling me a liar. It seems to be a common theme in “angry atheist” polemics.

As I said, I have a million reasons for all kinds of things, on my blog, with its 2000+ papers. You dismissed it all, several times. So, go find another apologist who has far more patience than I do with this kind of drivel.

I call ’em as I see ’em. My opinion is based on reading all of your comments on this topic on your own blog and others. I think I presented it pretty clearly as my opinion.

I have not dismissed one piece of evidence you presented for the simple reason you have not presented one piece of evidence to support the existence of a diety [sic] or to support that your version of a deity is the correct one.

*****