If god were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, there would be no atheists.

[lightgigantic]

The question was what is the evidence for the claim not what is the claim. Scriptural mythology can only be the claim itself. What is the evidence for the claim?

Are you asking what is the evidence that religion demands that absolutely everyone be situated immediately on the same level of performance or something else?

(the original passage I was responding to is

The way the make religion sound, there should be only one religion world wide, one ideology, one god, not one interpretation against another, but all in the same page, not many religions advocating to be "the one" but one religion that is accepted to be the truly "the one")

 

[lightgigantic]

There you go. If you believe something, you will see it. That's the power of the mind.

therefore the successful performance of scientic an religious principles involves qualifying one's observations by applying processes

(If I say "I feel so hot and sweaty after sitting in a fridge for three hours" then obviously I have altered the normal understanding of the process or misapplied the terms for my observation)

 

[SkinWalker]

Are you asking what is the evidence that religion demands that absolutely everyone be situated immediately on the same level of performance or something else?)

Obviously there was some comprehension difficulties. I suggest looking back at post #75 and comparing my question of evidence to your positive claim which I quoted. Clearly you're stalling because you stuck your pseudo-intellectual foot in your mouth and haven't an answer since that post was very concise and very clear with regard to what I was referring.

 

[lightgigantic]

Obviously there was some comprehension difficulties. I suggest looking back at post #75 and comparing my question of evidence to your positive claim which I quoted. Clearly you're stalling because you stuck your pseudo-intellectual foot in your mouth and haven't an answer since that post was very concise and very clear with regard to what I was referring.

its still not clear what you are asking for evidence of, since I provided evidence that scriptures grant concessions for a variety of levels of performance
(are you arguing about something different than the proposal that "Religion does/does not grant a variety of level of performances" or are arguing something else - or are you just trolling?)

 

[SkinWalker]

You said, "god gives concessions for gradual advancement, and so does proper religious principles."

I asked what your evidence was for this positive claim.

You responded, first, by using the claim (scriptural mythology) to provide evidence. The second time you responded was to say you "weren't clear."

I think we've got you sorted, LG. Play the dumb role or simply refuse to answer questions that you don't like, eh? And then, when you don't like being called up front, you accuse the questioner of "trolling." Typical, pseudo-intellectual bullshit that we've come to expect, LG.

 

[lightgigantic]

You said, "god gives concessions for gradual advancement, and so does proper religious principles."

I asked what your evidence was for this positive claim.

You responded, first, by using the claim (scriptural mythology) to provide evidence. The second time you responded was to say you "weren't clear."

I think we've got you sorted, LG. Play the dumb role or simply refuse to answer questions that you don't like, eh?

so is your question "What is the basis for scripture?" or "what is the basis for scripture/god granting concessions" (by concessions I mean the opportunity of gradual advancement as opposed to the strict insistence of immediate perfection)

BTW - trolling/flaming doesn't make one appear more coherent or intelligent

 

[SkinWalker]

More stalling. Face it, you don't have the answer.

What is the evidence that "god gives concessions....?" I'll keep it simple.

 

[lightgigantic]

More stalling. Face it, you don't have the answer.

What is the evidence that "god gives concessions....?" I'll keep it simple.

then I will give a simple answer

"There is a range of persons on the planet from the lowest to the highest"

 

[SkinWalker]

So in other words, you have no evidence.

 

[lightgigantic]

So in other words, you have no evidence.

I think the question, in fact your only question on these threads, is "what is the evidence for god" since you seem incapable of working with even the notion of god as a philosophical idea.

The answer to this "absolutely none" just like there is absolutely no evidence for an electron for a high school drop out who has an attitude problem towards physics text books and physicists

 

[SkinWalker]

None of the philosophical ideas of gods work out. Not the ontological argument; not the cosmological argument; not the teleological argument or any of the other minor off-shoots.

They all fail. But thank you for finally conceding the point. So, now its up to you to revise your positive claim that "god gives concessions..."

 

[superluminal]

The answer to this "absolutely none" just like there is absolutely no evidence for an electron for a high school drop out who has an attitude problem towards physics text books and physicists

But there is. Electricity is evidence of electrons. Something causes electricity. If you ask the student what causes electricity, he may say "who gives a fuck, mate!" But if he's interested, he can study the mounds of evidence and can go to a lab and actually see electron beams. If he's still skeptical, he can be shown the laws that govern electricity and can even do conclusive tests in his own garage.

What is the convincing correlate for god LG? What have you got that begs explanation that I can see for myself is better explained by a god rather than a physical mechanism?

 

[lightgigantic]

But there is. Electricity is evidence of electrons. Something causes electricity. If you ask the student what causes electricity, he may say "who gives a fuck, mate!" But if he's interested, he can study the mounds of evidence and can go to a lab and actually see electron beams. If he's still skeptical, he can be shown the laws that govern electricity and can even do conclusive tests in his own garage.

that's the point - he doesn't

What is the convincing correlate for god LG? What have you got that begs explanation that I can see for myself is better explained by a god rather than a physical mechanism?

consciousness

 

[lightgigantic]

None of the philosophical ideas of gods work out. Not the ontological argument; not the cosmological argument; not the teleological argument or any of the other minor off-shoots.

They all fail. But thank you for finally conceding the point. So, now its up to you to revise your positive claim that "god gives concessions..."

actually I was conceding the limits of your comprehension

 

[Sarkus]

consciousness

Then your God is evidenced by nothing more than the current lack of absolute knowledge in the field of neurology, neuroscience, chemistry, biology etc.

If this is not your admittance that it is nothing other than a "God of the Gaps" then I fail to see what evidence "consciousness" actually gives for the existence of God.

I suggest you provide something more, or even another correlate entirly, that is not merely a gap in knowledge.

 

[mindtrick]

He wouldn't punish someone for only not believing him. Also he wouldn't like to be called as "he" or "she" And I don't think god would need to test people

 

[VitalOne]

Most atheists say there is no compelling reason to believe in soul/god/afterlife. Theistic people make positive claims of these concepts and refuse to provide evidence. Actually, "refuse" may be the wrong word, they appear incapable of providing evidence. This is indicative of a made up/fantastical/deluded explanation rather than an explanation that exists in reality. So, of course, many atheists refer to the religious as deluded. They would appear to be so since they make thousands of positive claims to which none have supporting evidence.

So your misrepresentation isn't just of atheists but of theists as well.

Actually most atheists say they "know" there's no God, no soul, no afterlife and everyone else is a delusional fool believing in fairy tales.

As for incapable of providing evidence, you're right, just as how an ancient person is incapable of providing evidence for the existence of a blackhole, electromagnetism, quark, etc....similarly how can one design an experiment that would verify if a soul/God/afterlife is true or false? Atheists say nothing to this they just say you're living in fantasy and escape the question. Similarly there is also no experiment that would verify if the many-worlds interpretation or the copenhagen interpretation is correct, but that doesn't mean they're false, it just means in our current time there is no way to test it.

If there's a positive claim to which there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe the claim. It is, necessarily, probably false. Those that continue making the claim are doing so, knowing that there is no evidence to support their claim and are, therefore, necessarily deluded. What reason is there to go on believing wild claims of those that refuse or are incapable of supporting them

You say I'm misrepresenting atheists yet you seem to agree with the very same notion I presented...

Also through your logic a physicist who believes in the many-worlds interpretation must be delusional since there's no experimental evidence that distinguishes if its true or false....

Because religious nutters go on and on about wild, speculative claims without any supporting evidence: virgin births, zombie saviors, transubstantiation, witches riding banana leaves, volcanoes that require virgin sacrifices, etc, etc. Delusion is the only logical explanation for such claims.

How different are atheists from theists who condemn others? You possess the same mentality, ridiculing and judging others for their beliefs.

Most theists simply say this is their personal belief, atheists on the other hand don't say that, they say everyone else is delusional and lives in fantasy, except for them....

And along with that is every fantasy and imaginative poppycock belief that man has devised, many of which are completely contradictory, and will remain delusions and lies WITH or WITHOUT evidence.

The one thing that you and I agree on is that there exists and objective and potentially knowable truth. I just don't see how the delusions of theists apply or need to apply. I do, however, see how theists *hope* their fantasies and delusions are a part of this "truth." They've got a lot banked on it. And, should the evidence ever be revealed that supports one or more of their claims, I'll revise my statements. Happily. Until then, I see no reason to give equal weight to the positive and unsupported claims of religious nutters as I do those that have evidence.

Thanks for verifying the same point I just made, atheists insist they're right, with our without evidence, and everyone else is just a delusional fool...

Again you dodge what I stated, the actual truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence, atheists seem to believe that evidence causes something to become true, but it doesn't, its true with or without evidence....so someone who believes in the idea of a soul or a mind independant of matter isn't neccessarily a delusional fool like atheists believe, they could indeed be correct...and also if there is a mind or soul independant of matter then there would likely be an afterlife or consciousness after death of the body.....

 

[Godless]

When an individual has his/her head buried up their ass so far, it's hard for them to grasp an insight of light, when living in darkness so long, it's hard for them to define what the hell is truth or not, when truth is presented to them, they rather be in their confort zone, "their truth, their ideals, their way" is the right way any other is a temptation of driving them away of their confort zone. They think they got all the answers "goddidit" with that explanation they use it as weapon and shield, of course they don't know one iota of this god, or if it exist or not, they take the defesive when asked for evidence, as you see above.

I'ts like if an alien were to come here, and we would threaten them with god, "who is this god?" asks the alien, He is the entity responsible for creating us. Where is this god? asks the alien. He's up in heaven. Where is this Heaven? asks the alien. I don't know! Why you believe this? I have faith. Can your god save you now? asks the alien. No I'll be saved after death. So go be with your god! bank,bank, boom. there we go were' doomed. For being idiots!!

 

[Sarkus]

Actually most atheists say they "know" there's no God, no soul, no afterlife and everyone else is a delusional fool believing in fairy tales.

My experience on this site is that most atheists fall into the "weak" variety - i.e. no actual "belief".
But if you'd care to support your claim...

As for incapable of providing evidence, you're right, just as how an ancient person is incapable of providing evidence for the existence of a blackhole, electromagnetism, quark, etc....similarly how can one design an experiment that would verify if a soul/God/afterlife is true or false? Atheists say nothing to this they just say you're living in fantasy and escape the question. Similarly there is also no experiment that would verify if the many-worlds interpretation or the copenhagen interpretation is correct, but that doesn't mean they're false, it just means in our current time there is no way to test it.

One - there is a difference between a theory that is testable but not with current means, and a theory that is entirely un-testable.
Second - if there is no evidence - whether because it doesn't exist or because there is no way YET to provide evidence - then it is still IRRATIONAL TO BELIEVE in the existence of that thing. At a later time that thing might well come to be shown to exist - but until that time it is IRRATIONAL to believe it as truth without evidence.

Also through your logic a physicist who believes in the many-worlds interpretation must be delusional since there's no experimental evidence that distinguishes if its true or false....

To believe the theory as truth would not so much be delusional (one can bicker about the meaning of that word) but certainly irrational. To believe that it is a POSSIBILITY is perfectly legitimate and rational - as long as it fits all known evidence.
God IS A POSSIBILITY - in so much as God is an intelligent creator of the Universe - but there is no rational reason to BELIEVE THAT AS TRUTH as there is no evidence.

How different are atheists from theists who condemn others? You possess the same mentality, ridiculing and judging others for their beliefs.

Atheists do so from a position of logic and reason - logic and reason that everyone should have. Theists, on the other hand, do so merely from the strength of their conviction. THAT is the difference.

Most theists simply say this is their personal belief, atheists on the other hand don't say that, they say everyone else is delusional and lives in fantasy, except for them....

Whether it is "personal belief" or not is irrelevant. If it is a belief without evidence then it is irrational, whether it is just your belief or that held by a billion or more other people on the planet.

Again you dodge what I stated, the actual truth is the truth with or WITHOUT evidence, atheists seem to believe that evidence causes something to become true, but it doesn't, its true with or without evidence...

Again - the actual objective truth is irrelevant. What matters with regard the rationality (or lack thereof) of belief IS evidence.
If there IS evidence - objective evidence (or as close as we can get to that ideal) then this negates the need for "belief" and the evidence becomes fact.

...so someone who believes in the idea of a soul or a mind independant of matter isn't neccessarily a delusional fool like atheists believe, they could indeed be correct...

And they would still be irrational for believing it - whether ultimately right or wrong.

and also if there is a mind or soul independant of matter then there would likely be an afterlife or consciousness after death of the body.....

And if you believe that you would be irrational, given the absolute lack of evidence for it.

To put it another way...
The label of "delusional" and / or "irrational" is not attributed to the end fact (e.g. whether something exists) but to the journey one takes to get there.
If one's journey is one of belief without evidence then this is delusional / irrational (depending on how you define those terms).
If one's journey is to go by the clear objective evidence then this is not.

The objective truth might be X, and the irrational people might have believed X much earlier than the others had evidence for X - but the irrational people would still have been irrational while they believed without evidence.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Sorry pal, I don't make that mistake alot, check the record.