Should Theists Demand Evidence?

[(Q)]

Why is that theists demand evidence? They never offer evidence themselves for ANY claims they make, other than the usual reference to scriptures.

And of course, when the evidence IS produced for them, they balk at it.

Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?

 

[lightgigantic]

Why is that theists demand evidence?

evidence is a contribution to discerning truth

They never offer evidence themselves for ANY claims they make, other than the usual reference to scriptures.

and if the scriptures offer indications of how to arrive at the position of being able to discern evidence, what then?

And of course, when the evidence IS produced for them, they balk at it.

I'm yet to meet an atheist who doesn't balk at the prospect of explaining how the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause (noumenal), which is the basis behind holding empirical claims as absolute

Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?

it appears that atheists are doing just that

 

[VitalOne]

Why is that theists demand evidence? They never offer evidence themselves for ANY claims they make, other than the usual reference to scriptures.

And of course, when the evidence IS produced for them, they balk at it.

Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?

The question should be "what can be considered evidence"....I mean technically there's lots of evidence...just NONE that atheists would accept, which is why I ask atheists "what would be an example of empirical evidence that indicates that God/karma/heaven/hell/a soul, etc...exists?" They are then speechless and spew typical atheistic propaganda, the reason for this is that atheists really don't care about evidence, they simply pretend they do to make themselves appear more rational than everyone else, otherwise they could easily give examples, but they can't...

It's a great atheistic tactic used, ask for evidence, deny and reject any evidence given, then say see's there's no evidence...then when asked what can be considered as evidence they are speechless and say "oh well it doesn't matter, there's no evidence"

 

[SnakeLord]

it appears that atheists are doing just that

Was that a yes or a no?

The question should be "what can be considered evidence"....I mean technically there's lots of evidence...just NONE that atheists would accept, which is why I ask atheists "what would be an example of empirical evidence that indicates that God/karma/heaven/hell/a soul, etc...exists?"

Return question: Lenny the leprechaun exists. I know him well, have spoken to him, have read the Book of Lenny which decribes existence in detail and his function as universal caretaker.

What evidence do you require to believe what I have just told you?

It's a serious question, kindly refrain from personal attacks towards me or my atheism. Many thanks.

 

[lightgigantic]

Was that a yes or a no?



Return question: Lenny the leprechaun exists. I know him well, have spoken to him, have read the Book of Lenny which decribes existence in detail and his function as universal caretaker.

What evidence do you require to believe what I have just told you?

It's a serious question, kindly refrain from personal attacks towards me or my atheism. Many thanks.

you miss the point

If one accepts empiricism as the authoritative standard for discerning truth, then regardless whether I accept or reject things on the basis of that standard, I am doing it on faith.

In other words if I have empiricism as a standard, all I can say truthfully about Lenny is "I have not seen Lenny"
If I say "You are deluded because you have seen Lenny" (on the strength of empiricism) I am deluded.

Does that make sense?

 

[SnakeLord]

you miss the point

Sorry, was that a yes or a no? That is all I asked from you concerning the question that you didn't answer:

"Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?"

In other words if I have empiricism as a standard, all I can say truthfully about Lenny is "I have not seen Lenny"

You dont, you're clearly not a fan of empiricism. So, how can I get you to believe in Lenny?

 

[navigator]

For me its easy...The positive decision always gives a better future.

The Bible represents by far the oldest, largest compilation of ancient historical text known to man. That is enough evidence for me.

 

[SnakeLord]

The Bible represents by far the oldest, largest compilation of ancient historical text known to man. That is enough evidence for me.

Evidence of what? The older the more knowledgeable? :bugeye:

Btw it isn't. The epic of gilgamesh/enuma elish predate it by millennia. As I believe do certain hindu texts.

 

[VitalOne]

Return question: Lenny the leprechaun exists. I know him well, have spoken to him, have read the Book of Lenny which decribes existence in detail and his function as universal caretaker.

What evidence do you require to believe what I have just told you?

It's a serious question, kindly refrain from personal attacks towards me or my atheism. Many thanks.

ROFL!!!!! Another typical expected atheistic tactic, because the atheist knows they cannot answer the question, they instead propose another question to dodge out of confronting the reality of the issue....

But to actually answer your question (doing something atheists refuse to do), I would have to know the attributes of "Lenny the Leprechaun" in order to answer the question...also why do you ask me to refrain from attacks from atheism when atheists are allowed to freely attack theists and theism?

Oh yeah, BTW, your argument is non-sequitur, and 100% illogical and irrational, the existence or non-existence of "Lenny the Leprechaun", FSM, an INvisible Pink Unicorn, etc...tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, and does not the existence or non-existence less likely....typical atheistic argument "Even though the existence or non-existence of FSM, Thor, Zeus, Lenny the Leprechaun, an Invisible Pink Unicorn has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God/karma/heaven/hell/soul, we can just pretend it does...checkmate!!!"

Your argument is equivalent to someone asknig "Well what can be considered as empirical evidence of the many-worlds interpretation?" and someone replying "Well what would be an example of evidence for the superstring theory or theory of relativity, even though they're completely different, lets just pretend they're the same...checkmate!!! See that means you're wrong some how..."

 

[lightgigantic]

Sorry, was that a yes or a no? That is all I asked from you concerning the question that you didn't answer:

"Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?"

:shrug:
unless you can offer an alternative to empiricism, what other alternative is there?

You dont, you're clearly not a fan of empiricism. So, how can I get you to believe in Lenny?

lol - you tell me

 

[SnakeLord]

ROFL!!!!! Another typical expected atheistic tactic

I did actually, (very politely), ask you to leave the atheist attacks out of it.

because the atheist knows they cannot answer the question, they instead propose another question to dodge out of confronting the reality of the issue....

It has been answered rather well on the last thread you brought the issue up.

But to actually answer your question (doing something atheists refuse to do), I would have to know the attributes of "Lenny the Leprechaun" in order to answer the question...

Well, he's omniscient, omnipotent and while not omnipresent can actually go anywhere in an instant, about half a foot tall, wears a nice green hat and smokes a pipe.

also why do you ask me to refrain from attacks from atheism when atheists are allowed to freely attack theists and theism?

Maybe they are, maybe they do. I am not. Surely you have little reason to launch attacks against me on the basis that some atheists might do it to you?

Oh yeah, BTW, your argument is non-sequitur, and 100% illogical and irrational, the existence or non-existence of "Lenny the Leprechaun", FSM, an INvisible Pink Unicorn, etc...tells us nothing about the existence or non-existence of God

I don't get the statement.. I never said anything other than to state that Lenny exists, which he does. I am simply asking you, very politely, what it would take for you to believe me.

See, many believers in gods will say they take it on faith, (which implies that even they don't know the truth of the matter). I don't have a belief in Lenny, I know Lenny. He's a close pal. All I'm asking of you is what it would take for you to believe in him - and given the OP whether, given your faith, you should just have faith that I am telling the truth.

Don't feel you need to answer the question if it stresses you out.

---------

unless you can offer an alternative to empiricism, what other alternative is there?

So that's a yes?

lol - you tell me

Why would I tell you? You're the one espousing that there are greater things out there.. the 'telling' would therefore have to come from you. See?

One more time: How, (negating empiricism), can I get you to believe in Lenny?

 

[lightgigantic]

Snakelord
“

unless you can offer an alternative to empiricism, what other alternative is there?
”
So that's a yes?

if the game rules is that empiricism is the be-all and end-all of inquiry, yes

“
lol - you tell me
”
Why would I tell you?

because you are the one trying to get me to believe in Lenny

You're the one espousing that there are greater things out there.. the 'telling' would therefore have to come from you. See?

You're saying that Lenny is great. You want us to believe. So go ahead

One more time: How, (negating empiricism), can I get you to believe in Lenny?

with empiricism as your one and only ally, according to the logic presented by Karl Popper, no

At no stage are we able to prove that what we now know is true, and it is always possible that it will turn out to be false. Indeed, it is an elementary fact about the intellectual history of mankind that most of what has been known at one time or another has eventually turned out to be not the case. So it is a profound mistake to try to do what scientists and philosophers have almost always tried to do, namely prove the truth of a theory, or justify our belief in a theory, since this is to attempt the logically impossible.

if you don't have anything else to offer aside from empiricism for establishing the reality of Lenny, that's your problem not mine

 

[VitalOne]

It has been answered rather well on the last thread you brought the issue up.

No it hasn't, no one could actually give me an example of empriical evidence only things like "Well if one day God came down and appeared to everyone at once" or "Well if someone revived an amputee's leg"...none of this is empirical evidence...

Well, he's omniscient, omnipotent and while not omnipresent can actually go anywhere in an instant, about half a foot tall, wears a nice green hat and smokes a pipe.

Your attributes aren't detailed enough, unlike the attributes of God or the soul....

So I would simply conclude that Lenny the Leprechaun is unverifiable, and make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of it

Also you're still riding on a logical fallacy "Well if Lenny the Leprechaun doesn't exist, even though its completely unrelated to existence or non-existence of God or a soul, that means God doesn't exist!!!! Checkmate!!! We win, even though it doesn't show anything at all regarding the existence or non-existence of God"

Maybe they are, maybe they do. I am not. Surely you have little reason to launch attacks against me on the basis that some atheists might do it to you?

I don't get the statement.. I never said anything other than to state that Lenny exists, which he does. I am simply asking you, very politely, what it would take for you to believe me.

No, you're a liar, a pretender, just like the other atheists, you don't sincerely believe Lenny the Leprechaun exists, you simply made it up in order to ridicule theism, using nothing more than irrationality and logical fallacies to prove your point...

You used this tactic in order to dodge out of actually answering my question, another great atheistic tactic, when unable to actually answer a question, quickly change the subject to ridicule theists, then act as if it proves that you're right...

See, many believers in gods will say they take it on faith, (which implies that even they don't know the truth of the matter). I don't have a belief in Lenny, I know Lenny. He's a close pal. All I'm asking of you is what it would take for you to believe in him - and given the OP whether, given your faith, you should just have faith that I am telling the truth.

Don't feel you need to answer the question if it stresses you out.

Atheists take on faith that abiogenesis occured, no evidence of abiogenesis means nothing to atheists..."oh well, we know something with innumerable design features could've formed by some unknown means...checkmate!!! We don't need empirical evidence that it happened, because we know it could've happened some how, although we NEED empirical evidence of God/karma/heaven/hell/soul, we don't know that it could be possible"

Likewise, with other atheistic tactics:
"Energy doesn't need a cause, its causeless and always existed...but God cannot be causeless, God could not have always existed? How it possible? Checkmate!!! Another reason God doesn't exist"

"If God exists why do bad things happen? Even though no religion says since God exists, only good things should happen in this world, we can some how blindly pretend religions say that...checkmate!!!"

"How can God and free-will exists? Even though us atheists say that free-will doesn't exist, its just non-determistic chemical reactions, the reason God does not exist is because free-will exists, even though free-will does not actually exist..that makes sense some how...checkmate!!!"


The hypocrisy of atheists is amazing...

 

[SnakeLord]

if the game rules is that empiricism is the be-all and end-all of inquiry, yes

Is that the game rules? (I'm just following your lead.. offer an alternative and we'll go from there). Of course none of this is you answering the question as it is asked.

because you are the one trying to get me to believe in Lenny

Incorrect. I was asking what it would take for you to believe, I wasn't trying to make you do anything.

if you don't have anything else to offer aside from empiricism for establishing the reality of Lenny, that's your problem not mine

Well no, ultimately it's your problem, for those that don't believe in Lenny end up meeting a rather horrible fate. However, I have gone through some of your posts to try and see what I can do to convince you. On your other post to me you mentioned that a valid alternative is authority. I am an authority on the subject. Is that better?

-------

No it hasn't, no one could actually give me an example of empriical evidence only things like "Well if one day God came down and appeared to everyone at once" or "Well if someone revived an amputee's leg"..

I personally remember it being slightly more than that - however, if that is all these people are capable of, what more can you ask from them?

Your attributes aren't detailed enough, unlike the attributes of God or the soul....

Tell me what else you require. The Book of Lenny is 3,000,000 pages long, I gave you but a brief glimpse.

So I would simply conclude that Lenny the Leprechaun is unverifiable, and make no claims regarding the existence or non-existence of it

That's fine and good, but do you believe? Should I inform you of the punishment if you don't? (you don't wanna know).

Also you're still riding on a logical fallacy "Well if Lenny the Leprechaun doesn't exist, even though its completely unrelated to existence or non-existence of God or a soul, that means God doesn't exist!!!!

All due respect Vital one, but where did I imply anything of the sort? Not trying to be funny, but the use of extra exclamation marks wont make your claim any more truthful. I simply asked you what it would take for you to believe in Lenny in the hopes that you would understand what it would take for an atheist to believe in gods. Not once did I espouse non-existence of gods.

Your apology is accepted.

Checkmate!!! We win, even though it doesn't show anything at all regarding the existence or non-existence of God

Win what? The existence or non existence of a being is not a competition.

No, you're a liar, a pretender, just like the other atheists

I do not appreciate your needless attack on my character.

you don't sincerely believe Lenny the Leprechaun exists

You're right, I don't believe he exists... I know he exists. Like I explained to you, he's a good friend. Kindly do not insult me.

you simply made it up in order to ridicule theism

Ok, I will take your statement on board. Where did I ridicule theism?

Your apology is accepted.

Atheists take on faith that abiogenesis occured

Some might do. Is this to imply that you consider faith a bad thing?

The hypocrisy of atheists is amazing...

Quite possible. Why you're taking it all out on me is anyones guess.

[edit] I would like to quickly ask why you mock my knowledge, (or if you prefer, 'belief'), in Lenny while seemingly getting distraught over the fact that atheists mock yours? That is hypocrisy my friend - and it smells bad - even more so when you go to such length to call atheists hypocrites.

 

[(Q)]

I need a little help, snakelord. Could you please ask Lenny to divert the path of a massive asteroid currently on a trajectory with Earth? No pressure.

Thanks a bunch. :worship:

 

[(Q)]

evidence is a contribution to discerning truth

And it should play the primary role while supporting said claim.

and if the scriptures offer indications of how to arrive at the position of being able to discern evidence, what then?

Scriptures ARE those claims that lack evidence or have anything to do with evidence, therefore cannot be used to support theists claims. A very common misconception amongst theists who often turn to scriptures for supporting evidence.

I'm yet to meet an atheist who doesn't balk at the prospect of explaining how the senses (phenomenal) can reveal the cause (noumenal), which is the basis behind holding empirical claims as absolute

You are mistaken. Claims are not held as absolutes.

If empirical evidence is constant and relevant to what is measured by our senses, we hold a better understanding of the phenomena as it pertains and affects us and our surroundings.

Whatever may be "outside" our senses, if such a concept existed, wouldn't affect us nor have any relevance.

it appears that atheists are doing just that

You've been here long enough to know atheists make tremendous demands for evidence of theists claims and take very little on faith alone.

 

[Tnerb]

Where're the books? I demande evidence!

all praise allah (jk)

 

[lightgigantic]

Is that the game rules? (I'm just following your lead.. offer an alternative and we'll go from there). Of course none of this is you answering the question as it is asked.

:shrug:

Incorrect. I was asking what it would take for you to believe, I wasn't trying to make you do anything.

already answered - empiricism

Well no, ultimately it's your problem, for those that don't believe in Lenny end up meeting a rather horrible fate. However, I have gone through some of your posts to try and see what I can do to convince you.

an obvious indication the the whole Lenny thing is merely a device of rhetoric, I guess

On your other post to me you mentioned that a valid alternative is authority. I am an authority on the subject. Is that better?

more rhetoric ....

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Why is that theists demand evidence? They never offer evidence themselves for ANY claims they make, other than the usual reference to scriptures.

And of course, when the evidence IS produced for them, they balk at it.

Shouldn't they just simply take it on faith?

**************
M*W: But you know, they're not going to do that! Theists, in factuality, don't want to know the evidence. All they need is their own questionable faith.

Anything that proves theists might have any microcosmal ideal of being wrong will fight with all might to prove it wrong.

 

[Kadark]

Theists demand evidence because atheists claim they have it.