They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[skepticalbip]

I don't feel persecuted at all. So please drop all the emotional projecting.

I'm pointing out an overt blind spot in your reasoning.


Precisely my point. You are not going to accept a reasonable position on faith. Strict modern dictionary definitions only. (like atheism is the belief that no God/gods exist.) We ignore all common historical understanding.

Ok......Fine.......I'll go with that.

"Faith" has no reason, evidence or science.

SO.....
If
You know that for certain
Then
Why is it at all reasonable for you ask a theist for reason, evidence and science when you know none can exist?


Your own words................

If you are not relying on faith but instead are reasoning then it does not apply to you. So offer your reasoning if you have reasoned that there is a god that created the universe.

........expose your absurd reasoning.


Look at that again..... right there you are backing into fact of my point. Think about it.
Because
Theist = Blind faith

If I'm not a theist it does not apply. So I can NOW as a non-theist give reasons for my belief why God exists. (ABSURD?)
AND............ not but............AND...........
If I'm a theist then it would be disingenuous for you to ask for reasons you know don't exist.

So you really don't want to have a discussion then. I understand that declaring victimhood has become the ultimate "winning argument" for many today but I have no interest in or sympathy for such nonsense.

 

[remez]

I don't feel persecuted at all. So please drop all the emotional projecting.

I'm pointing out an overt blind spot in your reasoning.


Precisely my point. You are not going to accept a reasonable position on faith. Strict modern dictionary definitions only. (like atheism is the belief that no God/gods exist.) We ignore all common historical understanding.

Ok......Fine.......I'll go with that.

"Faith" has no reason, evidence or science.

SO.....
If
You know that for certain
Then
Why is it at all reasonable for you ask a theist for reason, evidence and science when you know none can exist?


Your own words................

If you are not relying on faith but instead are reasoning then it does not apply to you. So offer your reasoning if you have reasoned that there is a god that created the universe.

........expose your absurd reasoning.


Look at that again..... right there you are backing into fact of my point. Think about it.
Because
Theist = Blind faith

If I'm not a theist it does not apply. So I can NOW as a non-theist give reasons for my belief why God exists. (ABSURD?)
AND............ not but............AND...........
If I'm a theist then it would be disingenuous for you to ask for reasons you know don't exist.

So you really don't want to have a discussion then. I understand that declaring victimhood has become the ultimate "winning argument" for many today but I have no interest in or sympathy for such nonsense.

So you really don't want to have a discussion then. I understand that declaring victimhood has become the ultimate "winning argument" for many today but I have no interest in or sympathy for such nonsense.

I'm NOT declaring victim-hood.
I do NOT feel persecuted.

I'm directly addressing the question of the OP.
thus.......
I'm precisely telling you where you are wrong.

You are the one running away with your psuedo-concerns over my feeling victimized.
Please Address my reasoning in the quote above.

 

[remez]

You have all the chances you want. But you’re not really using reason, you know. Nevertheless, you’ve had pages and pages of chances to do whatever it is you are doing. I’m not stopping you.
Nor am I to blame for your arguments being hollow.

Your conclusion that my arguments are hollow is what is hollow. You have yet to address anything in that area. No reasoning. No evidence. No science……..just blind faith in your emoted conclusion.
So defend your conclusion there
and.........................................
Tell me why...............

THIS...............

Sir Tom,
I think Steve is finished proving my point. So very briefly…………

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with.

Indeterminism does not mean uncaused. That counter fails.
Further.....
to deny the law of causality is to deny reasoning. To deny science. How does that render your position more logical?

Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

The pedagogy is a mess there. So my guess is you are trying to challenge PREMISE 2 with a oscillation model of the universe. Thereby creating and eternal past causing p2 to fail.
Well..........your science fails you there..............
It is your counter that fails. The oscillation models have been discarded into the trash bin. 1. The conservation of entropy would still infer a beginning. Thus you only just kicked the can down the road. 2. There is not enough matter in space that could allow gravity to re-collapse the universe. 3. It fails the singularity theorem. This counter fails again and again and again and again and again.
Note how you were motivated to construct a model with an eternal past. Because that would mean that the universe has no cause. Because that which is eternal has no cause.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result.

You have yet to counter the Kalam in anyway. Your presented counters fail logic and the science. No Theology required there. Thus your conclusion is based on nothing reasonable.
and this.......

That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

....also leads you nowhere. For that is a counter suggesting special pleading. A case you cannot make after revealing your motivations earlier to construct a cosmogony with and eternal past. See, you understand the reasoning. That which is eternal is uncaused.
Further………….
The counter of special pleading here is ignorant of history. The cosmological argument has been around for over two thousand years. It predates the SBBM. Prior to the SBBM the universe was also a very plausible candidate for the eternal uncaused cause. It wasn’t special pleading then. Only now that science has plausibly eliminated the universe from that list of the first cause you now emotionally desire to assert your pseudo fallacy.
Conclusion…..Nothing you presented comes close to refuting or rebutting the Kalam.

........IS NOT REASONING.

Give me some reason, evidence and science as to why your unsupported conclusion is true.

You said I was not reasoning.
You said my arguments were hollow.
You offered no reasoning, evidence or science yet were certain of your conclusion.
So...............
Is it a trick question for me to ask you why you believe that?

 

[atrib]

Dont worry remez, this is just the butt hurt thread by the type of person who starts a 'sincere' game of chess then knocks all the pieces off the board declaring stuff like;

Chess is a dumb game
That's not a real castle
These rules suck
Oh, I didn't know you wanted to play a serious game

There's no "trick questions". There's just insincerity and disingenuousness.
And there's no refusal to answer "trick questions". I just prefer to play chess with folks who actually want to play chess.

It's like atrib calling me a liar then acting like he wants to have sincere dialogue with a liar.

If you want to stop people from calling you a liar, stop lying. It really is that simple.

 

[Kharakov]

I think that the overwhelming majority of theists don't try to prove what they believe. "Knowing" is sufficient for them.

It's because of English. Seriously. tee hee is tease t he is ts. They're laughing at you, because ts are crosses, so every time you say t he is ts they are teasing you with crosses while laughing. cross he is tease.... get it? Christianity is a joke.

Hi guys. I'll send my son for you to crucify, because he is me, and you know... He's annoying. Definitely crucified my son. Good job.

Thx, God

 

[Rhea]

Sir Tom,
I think Steve is finished proving my point. So very briefly…………


Conclusion…..Nothing you presented comes close to refuting or rebutting the Kalam.

bump for Rhea

Um, not sure why you are bumping “for me” a massive derail between you and soe other person in a thread that wonders why someone would say atheists who ask questions about religion are always being disingenuous.

If I’d wanted to talk about this “Kalam argument,” I’d have entered that thread. But that argument is uninteresting to me because it supposes things and then pretends it isn’t supposing.

So this thing you are discussing as proof of your reason is a weird choice. First, it’s a complete non-sequitur, that requires massive quotes from other unrelated threads to deploy. Second, it’s about some obscure apologist topic for which the “reason” has been a thoroughly trod path by generations before you.

So it it reasoning? Or parroting?

Are you claiming to have discovered some new, novel, revolutionary reasoning for this Kalam? Is that your claim of yoour personal “reasoning”? That this is new and you just reasoned your way into by sheer brute force of reason-ey superpower? That it was all you and you alone? Even though none of your “reasons” are novel or couldn’t be found with a quick google?


Eh. This thread’s about how Lion claimed to know that when atheists ask about religion, it’s from malintent.
But, he’s wrong.
It’s just curiosity about a curiosity.

It makes him feel good, maybe, to think people are picking on him. But I guess that means it’s his own religion picking on him, because that’s the only source of persecution going on.

However, if that makes him feel good, probably he’ll continue to thnk it, no matter what the humans talking to him reveal are their real motivations.


It’s curiosity. Fascination with a tale that doesn’t make any sense. It’s really as simple as that.

 

[abaddon]

To make theistic beliefs seem reasonable, it's necessary to get extremely abstract and strip the imagery out.

I'd like to see reason applied to salvation, Christ's resurrection, the virgin birth, and similar. Are there theists who can explain those without the farcical expectation that atheists should "allow" that they're not faith-based beliefs?

 

[remez]

Um, not sure why you are bumping “for me”

You emoted an assertion that required evidence. Were we just suppose to believe you on blind faith or authority?

So it it reasoning?

That was my question?

Or parroting?

Like Yahzi and Jobar? Be Fair.

Eh. This thread’s about how Lion claimed to know that when atheists ask about religion, it’s from malintent.
But, he’s wrong.
It’s just curiosity about a curiosity.

Well I'm curious.......

As you emoted in your OP….theists only have blind faith. Blind faith equals no reasoning, no evidence and no science. You really over killed that in your OP.

So if that is your starting point……
Is it then reasonable to ask the theists for reason, evidence and science since you have already emoted there can't be any?

Disingenuous?
Trick question?

Just curious.

 

[Rhea]

Or parroting?

Like Yahzi and Jobar? Be Fair.

This would make sense if all I did was repeat thier argument. But I didn’t. I commented separately on a different angle; that “trick questions wouldn’t even work if one was usng reason. Do I need to explain this again?

Eh. This thread’s about how Lion claimed to know that when atheists ask about religion, it’s from malintent.
But, he’s wrong.
It’s just curiosity about a curiosity.

Well I'm curious.......

As you emoted in your OP….theists only have blind faith.

Yeah, not “only.” Just mostly, in regard to their belief in their god.

Is it then reasonable to ask the theists for reason, evidence and science since you have already emoted there can't be any?

I’m an optimist. Which is why I’m constantly surprised when they don’t use reason, I keep expecting that, as humans, they will.

Disingenuous?
Trick question?

Just curious.

Nope. As I have prepeatedly said (practically ad nauseum, at this point) I am always surprised when they don’t care about reason. So the question is asked when I’m harboring an expectation of a reasoned response. But in the end, it’s helpful and healthy to know I may not get one. Indeed, when they cower and cry, “disingenuous!” I’m further surprised; what, you don’t think that’s a valid question? Or “your faith can’t handle that?” But apparently the answer is “no my faith can’t handle that question, so I’m going to slander the questioner.”

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that this thread is making me have more respect for those honest Christians who respond when asked details about their religion that the detail is true because that is what the Bible says. At least there is no pretense that they figured it out all by themselves. And they don't see it as a 'trick question' because they have no doubts about their answer.

 

[steve_bank]

I m surrounded by Christians, I have no problems. What I have observed is that for many of them it is total emersion. They constantly read and discuss the bible. It is all consuming.

I currently use a computer in the facility library. A bible group of around 10 meet in the library sometimes when I am there. It is the same thing. They spend a lot of time pecking through scripture trying to piece together meaning. It is how they find a way to cope with reality and pedonasl problems.

Some people facing end of life or slow deterioration find a lot of comfort in faith.

I would never on a personal basis try to dissuade or interfere with an individual's faith. I respect it even though it is not always mutual.

I can say with this group there is a bit of an us vs them attitude. Faith shields them from the bad influences in the world. Us against the world.

We tend to accentuate the negative here, but there are benefits as well..

 

[remez]

Is it then reasonable to ask the theists for reason, evidence and science since you have already emoted there can't be any?

I’m an optimist. Which is why I’m constantly surprised when they don’t use reason, I keep expecting that, as humans, they will.

I’m an optimist too. So I’ll try again here on just this one point. I’m not trying to advance any theism here. All I’m trying to do is expose the logic of your OP and question. It is like you are premising the judgement of an artist on their ability to draw a simple one ended stick. That would be a disingenuous test/trick, b/c it can’t be done. Try it.

So again………this is important..... You only quoted my question there and responded to that. But you left out the premise of the question. You are missing the premise to your question which is where half of my contention is based. That is why you don’t understand what I’m trying to say.

Here is YOUR premise….. Your whole OP really over killed this point. Theists do not reason. Theists do not have evidence. Theists do not use science. Theists think differently because….basically they don’t think at all. Theists only have blind faith.

Do you get that?

Now examine FROM THAT PREMISE…… You ask them to give you reason, evidence and science for their belief. How can they possible do that if you have already set the parameters that rule out all reason, evidence and science?

Therefore you are asking for something you know in advance you can't get.
So.............. How is that a fair question?

That's it.

but for this last caveat.......
I completely disagree with YOUR premise. But we can't talk about that b/c that would derail your thread. I tried and you chastised me for it. So I’ll leave that out. I only mention it so that you don't conclude that I agree with YOUR blind faith premise. But given YOUR premise I reason that your question is unfair and Lion is correct.

 

[remez]

I think that this thread is making me have more respect for those honest Christians who respond when asked details about their religion that the detail is true because that is what the Bible says. At least there is no pretense that they figured it out all by themselves. And they don't see it as a 'trick question' because they have no doubts about their answer.

Fine. But when you are ready to move past beating up straw men, I'll be here.

 

[Lion IRC]

I think that this thread is making me have more respect for those honest Christians who respond when asked details about their religion that the detail is true because that is what the Bible says. At least there is no pretense that they figured it out all by themselves. And they don't see it as a 'trick question' because they have no doubts about their answer.

Fine. But when you are ready to move past beating up straw men, I'll be here.

Yep.
I'll be here too - happy to engage in civil discussion about God, apologetics, counter-apologetics, theology, atheology, etc with atheists who, without conceding the actual existence of God, are capable of sincere arguendo.

This thread started as a back-pedalling defense of a few atheists here at TFF who were called out NOT because they ask "trick questions" but because they feign sincere interest in a topic then trash the thread with off topic stuff like...
"how can God be omnipotent if He doesn't exist"
"oh Lion, come on, I know you secretly agree with me"
"Dunning Kruger...blah blah blah....Jesus never existed...blah blah blah...you're lying...blah blah blah...priests are pedophiles...blah blah blah...there's no evidence for God...blah blah blah...that's not evidence...blah blah blah...no preaching rule...blah blah blah

Ask a 'sincere' question, don't get the answer you like, then knock over the chess pieces.

It's not a "trick question" to ask how Noah managed to feed all those animals, and then when you get an answer you respond with the claim that there was never a global flood. That's not a gotcha. It's just trolling.

Similarly, it's not a "trick question" to ask about omniscience versus free will, then when you get back a definition of omniscience you don't like, you stamp your feet and say there's only one allowable definition of the word omniscience - your definition. That's not a gotcha. It's just strawman intellectual dishonesty.

How hard is it to say..."well I don't use that definition of omniscience but I can see how your definition might resolve the paradox. How hard is it to say..."well I personally think miracles are impossible and that there's no God but I'm interested in a debate about the hypothetical nature of God and hypothetical miracles"

Even if you concede the hypothetical coherence and internal consistency of theological doctrine, (or a Harry Potter storyline,) nobody like me or remez or Learner are going to say AHA! GOTCHA!!! Checkmate atheists!

 

[skepticalbip]

I think that this thread is making me have more respect for those honest Christians who respond when asked details about their religion that the detail is true because that is what the Bible says. At least there is no pretense that they figured it out all by themselves. And they don't see it as a 'trick question' because they have no doubts about their answer.

Fine. But when you are ready to move past beating up straw men, I'll be here.

Yep.
I'll be here too - happy to engage in civil discussion about God, apologetics, counter-apologetics, theology, atheology, etc with atheists who, without conceding the actual existence of God, are capable of sincere arguendo.

... snip ...

Great. But first, I need to understand what you specifically are claiming your belief is. I wouldn't want to ask you questions about some belief that you specifically don't hold.

Do you accept chapter I of Genesis as literal truth? Many Christians do. If you do, do you accept it as truth because it says so in the Bible or are you relying on some other independent evidence?

 

[Rhea]

Is it then reasonable to ask the theists for reason, evidence and science since you have already emoted there can't be any?

I’m an optimist. Which is why I’m constantly surprised when they don’t use reason, I keep expecting that, as humans, they will.

I’m an optimist too. So I’ll try again here on just this one point. I’m not trying to advance any theism here. All I’m trying to do is expose the logic of your OP and question. It is like you are premising the judgement of an artist on their ability to draw a simple one ended stick. That would be a disingenuous test/trick, b/c it can’t be done. Try it.

Lollipop. (squash racket) Done.

So again………this is important..... You only quoted my question there and responded to that But you left out the premise of the question. You are missing the premise to your question which is where half of my contention is based. That is why you don’t understand what I’m trying to say.

I read the whole thing. You're jumping around. You pulled in all these quotes from some other thread. You pulled in this weird theological argument that makes assumptions and then pretends it doesn't. Then you repeat tired old arguments from it and call that a proof of your ability to reason. You call people names and sling insults. I'm not inspired to engage deeply in any of that. No big deal, it just isn't my cup of tea, thanks anyway.

.

Here is YOUR premise….. Your whole OP really over killed this point. Theists do not reason. Theists do not have evidence. Theists do not use science. Theists think differently because….basically they don’t think at all. Theists only have blind faith.

Do you get that?

You don't.
No, that is not an accurate accounting of my OP. My OP describes ways in which theists think DIFFERENTLY, and the fact that this causes misunderstandings.

For example, theists talk about faith and obedience and loyalty and then get all upset when people point out that they believe in things they can't see and are religiously loyal to it. They beam about how they follow a shepherd and get butthurt when people call them sheep. They melt like hot butter over how it is to "be as little children" since "the children will lead the way," and then they rage about being called child-like. It's weird, man.

So no, I did not say that theists don't think at all. And your proclamation that theistic attitudes are not at all to blame in misunderstandings is hollow.

Now examine FROM THAT PREMISE…… You ask them to give you reason, evidence and science for their belief. How can they possible do that if you have already set the parameters that rule out all reason, evidence and science?

This is the martyrdom piece. I have ruled out nothing. My OP involves a discussion of what may be behind the behavior when they don't. But they may, at any point they wish, start using the scientific method (hypothesize a mechanistic root cause, propose and experiment that would refute that hypothesis, execute the experiment, publish the results with honest treatment of the data)

It is NOT POSSIBLE for me to deny them the use of reason, any more than a public school can prevent you from praying.
Because I listen to evidence, I listen to them with an open mind to see what comes out. IF nothing but faith and emotion come out, the points raised in this discussion are part of how I understand the gap, as opposed to frustration or confusion.

Therefore you are asking for something you know in advance you can't get.

I'm not actually asking for anything here. I made a post stating that the questions I ask are conceived of genuine curiosity, and that misunderstandings that claim they are "disingenuous" may be a product of the kind of misunderstanding that springs from different ways of thinking.

Note Lion's return to insist that the very language of asking, "how can God be omnipotent if He doesn't exist" must be mocking in some way. I am not sure how else one would word that question any other way. But I think we can probably agree that he misunderstands how I think.

So.............. How is that a fair question?

Which question, again?

I completely disagree with YOUR premise.

You don't appear to understand my premise.

But we can't talk about that b/c that would derail your thread.

Martyrdom again? You think my premise was the Kalam argument? Oh, "but we can't talk about that..." sound like a line from a bad sit-com about a whiny passive aggressive character.

I tried and you chastised me for it.

My tongue is like a lash that burns with the fire of a thousand sons.
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!

So I’ll leave that out. I only mention it so that you don't conclude that I agree with YOUR blind faith premise. But given YOUR premise I reason that your question is unfair and Lion is correct.

The question, "Is it disingenuous for an atheist to ask questions about religion" is unfair?
By logic then, the claim that "it is disingenuous for atheists to ask about religion" would be equally "unfair," yes?

 

[Lion IRC]

Yep.
I'll be here too - happy to engage in civil discussion about God, apologetics, counter-apologetics, theology, atheology, etc with atheists who, without conceding the actual existence of God, are capable of sincere arguendo.

... snip ...

Great. But first, I need to understand what you specifically are claiming your belief is. I wouldn't want to ask you questions about some belief that you specifically don't hold.

Do you accept chapter I of Genesis as literal truth? Many Christians do. If you do, do you accept it as truth because it says so in the Bible or are you relying on some other independent evidence?

Skep,
For the record, I don't regard you as a disingenuous interlocutor. You, and many (perhaps most) most non-theists here don't troll (for want of a better word,) with bait and switch, insincere questions. Most of the contest-of-ideas dialogue here is as it should be - robust, fearless and tenacious. Yes, it's a predominantly atheist board and nobody like me should come here expecting deferential respect for their religion. Of course many of the threads are sprinkled with expletives and abusive ad hominems. But these don't bother me and neither do any supposed "trick" questions or tactical debating 'gotchas'.
My sole complaint is about the PZ Myers Courtiers Reply type of atheist who pretends that they are interested in discussing what they regard as the Emperors New Clothes. (Theology, hermeneutics, biblical historicity, theistic cosmology, etc)

When Christians debate theological doctrine they don't use "that's not evidence" as a slam dunk argument. They don't say "Jesus never existed" when arguing about The Trinity. When they're debating the meaning of a bible verse, neither side claims the bible is an irrelevant pack of lies.

...anyway, the answer to your question, yes I think you can adopt a literal interpretation of Genesis chapter 1
I also think you can view it as largely allegorical at the same time as being also literally true.
These are not mutually exclusive positions and neither is heretical.

Jesus' parables can be taken both literally and allegorically. If He says there once was a man who had two sons, one of whom wanted his inheritance early, this story actually happened. Jesus wasn't lying. He didn't need to. The real life Prodigal son and his brother and their father couldn't have known that their real life story was always the one Jesus was going to use to expound upon God's love for both His chosen people Jews, the first born, (eternal Israel) and the gentiles.

 

[Rhea]

My sole complaint is about the PZ Myers Courtiers Reply type of atheist who pretends that they are interested in discussing what they regard as the Emperors New Clothes. (Theology, hermeneutics, biblical historicity, theistic cosmology, etc)

I had to look up what the "courtiers Reply" is, since, if I'm reading you right, you think I'm the perp here.

The courtier's reply is an alleged type of logical fallacy, coined by American biologist PZ Myers, in which a respondent to criticism claims that the critic lacks sufficient knowledge, credentials, or training to pose any sort of criticism whatsoever. It may be considered a form of argument from authority.

I'm not seeing how this fits, though. It is readily stipulated that you have complete credentials to describe what you believe in and what makes you believe that it is believable.

The questions are curiosities that ask your opinion on... what you believe in and what makes you believe that it is believable.

The fact that you and others dance around and don't answer it and we keep pointing out that you haven't answered and we remain curious about the answer, is not a form of criticizing your "credentials," it is following up on the discussion.

You complain about this statement from skepticalbip:

If you honestly believe that you have "scientifically concluded" that the universe had a beginning then I would certainly encourage to write a paper and submit to some scientific journals. If valid, it would make you world renowned, eclipsing such notables as Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, etc. and likely bring you the Nobel Prize and the more than million dollars U.S. that comes with it.

And you need to be aware that it does not question your credentials, it offers you credentials if you can provide the evidence to back up such an incredible claim of knowledge. Or even your thought process to enjoy a discussion about it. But you just claimed "It Is So!" as if that is an answer that belongs in an evidence based discussion. A scientific discussion.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.
I think...
I believe x...
I believe otherwise...
I understand x...
I understand otherwise...
These are all valid epistemic positions. Atheists have beliefs. Scientists have beliefs. We all have beliefs based on our understanding/interpretation of what we regard as "the evidence".
What's wrong with theists drawing on secular/scientific sources of evidence to support their position?

Nothing at all is wrong with it as long as they understand the definition of "evidence" and use it accordingly. But going back to the OP, which presents some quotes from a discussion about how fundamentalists use the word "evidence" and how it causes them much consternation when it is not accepted as "evidence" (because they are defining it differently than science does), we have here an example, right? You say that you have "scientifically concluded" something that has not used the scientific method. And you are unhappy when someone says, "but that is not a scientific conclusion, you will need to add more."

You further complain that when someone replies,

*The bible is all lies
*There's no God
*Thats not evidence
*Theres only one allowable definition of [insert abstract metaphysical/theological concept here]
…then we are reasonably allowed to conclude that such a person isn't/wasn't ever really committed to a sincere arguendo dialogue in good faith. We are entitled to question why they bothered asking in the first place. Why raise the topic of how many animals Moses took on the Ark if your debating checkmate argument is - the Flood never happened / miracles are impossible?

Since when is "that's not evidence" a gotcha? Evidence has a real definition, you know. If you don't have any, it's not a "Courtier's Reply" to point it out. It's not a question of your credentials, it's asking you to finish your sentence.

And again, provides an illustration of how much misunderstanding can occur if someone has a different understanding of what evidence even is. You get upset when someone says, "that's not evidence!" ?

Why? Just provide some real evidence. Keep adding evidence as all scientists have all spent their lives doing. Add more evidence until it stacks up to scrutiny. If someone says, "that's not evidence," you ask them, "why not? Where's the flaw?"

That's not an appeal to authority. That's an appeal to you to realize your 1500-word essay only has 25 words in it. That's not a gotcha. That's not disingenuous. That's your opportunity to understand what parts of your "argument with evidence" aren't getting through and shore them up. Or admit that you are not able to convince others of your truth. Although to recall, most of us are not asking in order to be converted - which is okay, conversion is not needed for a discussion, right? - we are in a discussion of curiosity to try to understand what YOU believe and HOW you believe it.

When my daughter says she likes to read Manga, and I ask her "why?" she responds to let me know exactly what she likes about it and what about it appeals to her good feels. She may ask, perhaps, "don't you want to read it?" and I might respond, "from your description, it won't hit on my feels, so you go enjoy your feels and I'll read SciFi." It's not disingenuous for me to ask, even though I already know I haven't enjoyed Manga, I'm genuinely interested in know what SHE likes about it. And she can understand that context.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since when is "that's not evidence" a gotcha?

I think a major problem is that theists often try to use the bible as evidence for the bible, which is a sticky wicket, of course.
Then, after a few such exchanges, we may just get in the habit of disallowing that book of unattributed, uncorroborated magic tales of no clear provenance, or unsure adulterations, agenda-based editing, produced by political committees.

And they get pissed that we ask for their evidence for god, jesus, miracles, etc., then point and giggle at what they submit...

Our bad.

 

[remez]

Yep.
I'll be here too - happy to engage in civil discussion about God, apologetics, counter-apologetics, theology, atheology, etc with atheists who, without conceding the actual existence of God, are capable of sincere arguendo.

... snip ...

Great. But first, I need to understand what you specifically are claiming your belief is. I wouldn't want to ask you questions about some belief that you specifically don't hold.

Do you accept chapter I of Genesis as literal truth? Many Christians do. If you do, do you accept it as truth because it says so in the Bible or are you relying on some other independent evidence?

Your answer regarding “literal” is no short answer and smells like a trap……So here is a quote and link regarding my position……..

A short “yes” or “no” response to the “Do you take the Bible literally?” question, then, would not be helpful. Neither answer gives the full picture. In fact, I think it’s the wrong question since frequently something else is driving the query.

https://www.str.org/publications/do-you-take-the-bible-literally#.XEM07FVKhnQ

…….. that would be my answer to “Do I take the Bible literally?” Sorry for the links here but your questions do not have short answers. Thus it saves space.

So……………
Yes I believe Genesis 1 is true. Yes I take it literally where it was meant to be taken literally. Yes I also have “some other independent evidence.”
Now………………
Can you adopt more reasonable position on biblical faith vs blind faith?
https://www.str.org/articles/getting-faith-right#.W_1p0-j261s


For that is where I coming from. I will fight you every step of the way on you dictating that my reasoning is blind faith. And remember your standard that knowledge must be absolute certainty is a trap for you as well.