How would you respond to this common argument from atheist?

[PRmerger]

I wonder if he can produce a number of alleged proofs for Nogod comparable to the number of alleged proofs for God.

If not, his atheism is considerably less credible than the incredibility he alleges for theism since the basis of atheism is pure assumption without proof.

Indeed.

If he asserts that God doesn’t exist, then he has to offer proof.

If he asserts that there are no good reasons for him to believe that God doesn’t exist, then he needs to digest and extract *each and every argument *for God’s existence, and explain why he rejects these reasons.

Or, he could do the simpler thing and do what I asked: tell us which of the myriad arguments he finds the most compelling, and we can discuss from there.

I certainly hope that I am wrong about the intransigence and am actually able to engage in dialogue.

We shall see. We shall certainly see.

 

[Solmyr]

Just to clarify: I asked which of the arguments you found the most compelling. But I again am asking which you find to be the most compelling. The “best of the worst” as it were.

Of all the 666+ arguments I linked to? (Because they are correct, if playful representation of the different approaches.) Do you really expect me to spend a few days (possibly weeks?) of “sorting” them from “least irrational” to the “most irrational”? What would be the point? And it would be impossible, even if I would invest days into the analysis, since the errors in them are not linear. To use the runner analogy, not all of them use the same starting line and not all of them run in the same direction on the same racetrack.

I already gave the “order” for two attempts, which you presented. The Kalaam is better than the Bach.

That is all I am willing to do. If you have something to say, I will listen. But I am not interested in going on a wild goose chase to order the attempts on the scale of “errors”. If that is your demand, then you have your “excuse” to withdraw. Your choice.

 

[PRmerger]

And if you are going to stick with your “NONE of them have even a scintilla of reason to them”, then, sadly, I am going to have to end our dialogue.

For, as I stated earlier, that type of statement belies an obduracy that is so contrary to facts and reason that it is extremist thinking.

And I don’t dialogue with extremists.

I wonder if he can produce a number of alleged proofs for Nogod comparable to the number of alleged proofs for God.

If not, his atheism is considerably less credible than the incredibility he alleges for theism since the basis of atheism is pure assumption without proof.

Imagine if you were in dialogue with a person who asserted, “I don’t believe that smoking is linked to cancer.”

You respond by asking if he’s examined the evidence that there is indeed a link.
You provide him with this:

http://www.nicoleawebb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/stack-of-papers.jpg

He responds: "Yeah. I read every single one of the alleged ‘evidence’ you gave me.

NOT A SINGLE one has even a modicum of science or proof."

You would realize that you are not talking to a man who is capable of setting aside his own personal desires or agenda in the pursuit of truth.

His mind is made up.

And no amount of science or facts is going to convince him otherwise, yeah?

#otiosepursuit

 

[Bradski]

I wonder if he can produce a number of alleged proofs for Nogod comparable to the number of alleged proofs for God.

How does that tie in with this:

…if you say there is no God, that too must be an assumption since there is no evidence whatsoever.

Which is it?

 

[PRmerger]

Of all the 666+ arguments I linked to? (Because they are correct, if playful representation of the different approaches.) Do you really expect me to spend a few days (possibly weeks?) of “sorting” them from “least irrational” to the “most irrational”? What would be the point? And it would be impossible, even if I would invest days into the analysis, since the errors in them are not linear. To use the runner analogy, not all of them use the same starting line and not all of them run in the same direction on the same racetrack.

I already gave the “order” for two attempts, which you presented. The Kalaam is better than the Bach.

That is all I am willing to do. If you have something to say, I will listen. But I am not interested in going on a wild goose chase to order the attempts on the scale of “errors”. If that is your demand, then you have your “excuse” to withdraw. Your choice.

deep sigh.

Buh-bye.

 

[Solmyr]

He responds: "Yeah. I read every single one of the alleged ‘evidence’ you gave me.

Except that you adamantly REFUSE to present an exhaustive list of arguments that YOU find compelling.

You DID provide two arguments, the Kalaam and the Bach. I explained WHY they are unacceptable. Both are wrong, but not for the same reason. In my eyes the Kalaam is better, the Bach is idiotic.

deep sigh.

Buh-bye.

Bye.

 

[tp3192000]

Except that you adamantly REFUSE to present an exhaustive list of arguments that YOU find compelling.

You DID provide two arguments, the Kalaam and the Bach. I explained WHY they are unacceptable. Both are wrong, but not for the same reason. In my eyes the Kalaam is better, the Bach is idiotic.

Bye.

You are so smart. You are way smarter than me. But, I have faith and you do not. You lack conviction in your lack of faith and that is why you troll these message boards. I suggest you quit arguing and say a few Hail Marys and humbly ask for the grace of faith. You will feel a lot better.

 

[PRmerger]

deep sigh.

Buh-bye.

I have, over the years, put a few atheists on “ignore”.

One was clearly a teenage boy (despite his denials) who was essentially trying to channel this guy:

http://www.1055theriver.com/sites/g...mages-featured/325191-23411.jpg?itok=MDbyDaz0

(Look it up–bratty kid ruins Thanksgiving.)

Another was an atheist who said so many things which strained credulity (he once told me he never did anything he didn’t want to do, including waiting in line. That’s what he paid people to do. Yeah. I’m not even kidding. (I’ll give you the link to the conversation if you PM me.)

And another was a guy who clearly didn’t have both oars in the water.

And the rest have been extremists.

And dialogue with extremists is about as inutile as a conversation with spam.

However, I continue to enjoy immensely dialoguing with thinking, conversant atheists, some of whom are my favorite peeps here on the CAFS
(Hi, Bradski! )…and I am hopeful that the discourse will produce much rich fruit.

 

[Bradski]

Except that you adamantly REFUSE to present an exhaustive list of arguments that YOU find compelling.

Does it work the other way? Are there multiple arguments against, for example, Hinduism, that a Christian could list? Is there a Top Ten Arguments against Hinduism?

It seems that the believer states his or her belief and gives the reasons why and the disinterested observer either accepts the totality of the arguments or rejects them (or puts matters on hold until such time more info is forthcoming).

Put enough info on the table and a decision will eventually be made. Not all the arguments will carry the same amount of weight (for the believer as well as the disinterested observer) but they all have to be taken as a whole.

Just like in a trial, it’s the sum total of evidence, some weak and some strong, that decides the outcome, not just individual items considered in isolation.

And going back to the amount of weight for each piece of evidence, I have also been asked which is the most compelling piece of evidence (or, as I would put it, least weak). It seems to vary with me because, as in the case of this thread, someone will say that music is evidence or a shroud or an NDE. In each case, that particular piece of evidence is moved immediately to the top of the pile. But it still forms part of the whole (and detracts from it remarkably in those cases).

I can’t actually believe that any given Christian believes all the evidence that’s put forward anyway. Has the question been asked: Which do you find least compelling?

 

[PRmerger]

Has the question been asked: Which do you find least compelling?

Oh yeah. I find this the least compelling: “I just feel it in my bones”.

 

[Bradski]

Oh yeah. I find this the last compelling: “I just feel it in my bones”.

No, I mean evidence that you would put forward yourself. Some of it you must consider stronger than others so there must be one that can be considered the weakest.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I mean evidence that you would put forward yourself. Some of it you must consider stronger than others so there must be one that can be considered the weakest.

I do use that as evidence, luv.

It’s compelling to me, but I understand that it might not convince anyone else.

 

[PRmerger]

No, I mean evidence that you would put forward yourself. Some of it you must consider stronger than others so there must be one that can be considered the weakest.

And another one is: there is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God.

Either you get that one or you don’t.

 

[Bradski]

I do use that as evidence, luv.

It’s compelling to me, but I understand that it might not convince anyone else.

Well something that you do consider might be worth putting forward to convince someone. Nothing touchy feely. Evidence such as been discussed. Which is the least compelling that you would actually use?

 

[PRmerger]

Well something that you do consider might be worth putting forward to convince someone. Nothing touchy feely. Evidence such as been discussed. Which is the least compelling that you would actually use?

I use a variety of arguments, depending upon where the receiver wants to be scratched.

For example, if I’m in dialogue with an ex-Catholic turned atheist, the evidence I provide might be different than what I would give a person who has never heard of Christ or the Catholic Church.

Some folks ask for things which I, frankly, find odd, but if that’s what they want to know about, and are asking about it, that’s where I go. I may not find it very compelling, but that’s what moves the receiver, so off we go in that direction.

 

[Bradski]

I use a variety of arguments, depending upon where the receiver wants to be scratched.

So any given atheist posting here. Are you prevarcating? There’s no ‘Gotcha’ coming. It may be worth discussing but no more than that.

 

[Solmyr]

And the rest have been extremists.

Since your definition of “extremist” is a chemist who examined all the available evidence for and against alchemy and decides against it; and also the astronomer who examined all the available evidence for and against astrology and finds astrology unacceptable, I will gladly join their company.

And neither the chemist, nor the astronomer is under obligation to enumerate WHY he finds those proffered “arguments” invalid. Only the one who makes a positive assertion is under obligation to support his stance. If and when you meet a strong atheist, who explicitly says that God does not and cannot exist, THEN you can demand proof or evidence from that person (which is of course childishly easy). But if one simply asserts that he finds the offered evidence unconvincing, then there is no need to continue. If he also gives an explanation (which I duly provided) then you cannot demand to dig into some more, unspecified arguments. If you provide some specific ones, fine. But you would like to have some open-ended line of one sided “conversation” (what an oxymoron that would be), where only YOU can demand evidence… and instead of presenting YOUR evidence you can keep on playing the role of the “inquisitor”. Very convenient, but the inquisition is sort of out of fashion these days. And the usage of “iron maidens” is also disallowed.

I use a variety of arguments, depending upon where the receiver wants to be scratched.

That is a cop-out. I gave you all the freedom to present which evidence YOU find most compelling. If I would try to limit you to conform to MY standards, you would complain that its unreasonable to place artificial limitations on you. So I did not, and now that is the problem… damned if I do, damned if I don’t?

The only limitation I present is that the evidence - whatever it might be - must be objective and must be personally verifiable by me, if I so choose.

 

[PRmerger]

So any given atheist posting here. Are you prevarcating? There’s no ‘Gotcha’ coming. It may be worth discussing but no more than that.

Not sure what you mean?

 

[chris62]

Hey, Chris, I am normally a pretty amenable type of guy. Honestly. I take offence very slowly and I try not to give it ever …

Well, that’s a lie. Sorry, fabrication.
Here are some Bradskiisms.

Post #54: You seem to have a very low threshold when it comes to skepticism.
Post #41: My exact response to sigh, slowly shake my head for a few seconds, write this sentence and then get back to work.
Post #45: I loved the bit about people seeing groups of figures reflected in the eyes. I wonder if anything like that has happened before…
Post #86: It seems that pointing out that those who are doing the investigating are far from what you would describe as being unbiased and are not qualified in their areas of so-called expertise is the sign of an immature mind.
Post #141: You must read the bit about the images in the eye. One eye was magnified to such a resolution that they could apparently make up 13 figures reflected in the iris. Pretty good, eh?

Not giving offence, ever?
Oh PALEEZE!!!

And then, when he is done offending the eminent professors, scientists,ophthalmologists, biochemists and doctors who have put their names to their independent findings, and can offer not even a feeble response, the anonymous atheist says how dare you say that to me, I’m not going to talk to you anymore.

“Chris, I’ll be ignoring your posts for a while. I think it’s only fair to let someone know that what they post isn’t worth a response.”

Who’s got the low threshold?
Anyway, at least we know what we are dealing with.
Disgraceful, but predictable.

 

[humble_catholic]

Oh, come on…

The guy is in a roomful of doctors. He’s undoubtedly plugged into a heart monitor and everyone would have known the instant his heart stopped of its own accord.

Now what honestly do you think they all would have done? Declare him dead straight away? Shrug their shoulders and carry on with what they were doing? They IMMEDIATELY would have started CPR while making a very fast decision as to the best action (shot of adrenalin, defibrillation etc).

So his heart had stopped beating but it had not stopped pumping. The guy confirms this himself:

"My next recollection was looking up at a doctor doing chest compressions.” planetzion.wordpress.com/tag/dr-sam-parnia/

His brain wasn’t starved of oxygen. He wasn’t dead. He had a vivid dream, almost certainly exacerbated by the drugs he had been given.

Try to be a little bit more skeptical, Humble. It will serve you well.

Brad it’s amazing how you skipped through some vital details .

1. Doctor parnia who is an agnostic and a sceptic himself said that we know that 30 seconds after cardiac arrest the brain stops functioning yet this man had full conscious awareness for a full 3 minutes .

The second problem with your dream hypothesis is that dreams don’t bring back independently verifiable objective perception .

You really skimmed through the article didn’t you brad . Parnia and the staff confirmed that what the patient recalled happening during his cardiac arrest really in fact did happen . It’s called a veridical nde .

Ndes really scare you don’t they brad . Or more accurately put they scare your atheism enough to make you ignore and distort the details of the study

Good this means we are getting somewhere .