Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

From my experiences, the only reason that theists claim that the supernatural can not be verified by objective evidence is that they don't have any objective evidence for the supernatural. If we start with no assumptions, I see see no reason why the supernatural would not produce objective evidence.What we have are claims that are indistinguishable from something that is made up. Speaking as an atheist, I can completely respect that. Life is too short, and who am I to tell you what to believe.Much of the friction between the theist and atheist camps is due to history. Atheists have long been the minority, and many theists have acted as if atheists don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to a reasoned position. Us atheists do think we have a good argument for our position, and thus the debate rages on.However, I also think it is worth mentioning that we atheists (or at least a massive majority of atheists) celebrate your freedom to believe as you wish, and would defend your right to be a theist. I think this point is often clouded over in heated discussions.

That is what humans say about God, and there is no evidence to back it. I wasn't aware that disbelief was a freedom. Is the Moon taking away my freedom of disbelief because it is so obviously sitting in the sky?

A lame excuse for not having evidence.Imagine if you were on a jury, and the prosecutor made the following argument:"I contend that the defendant, John Smith, is guilty of murder. How do I know that? Easy. If John Smith had committed this crime, then he would have cleaned up all of the evidence. We found no evidence at the scene of the crime. Therefore, John Smith must have committed the murder."Would you find that argument convincing?

That is just another human using the same lame excuse you are using. We are rejecting claims that have no evidence to back them, just as you do all of the time. Also, knowing requires evidence by its very definition. Belief is not knowledge. That is an argument that you would reject for any other claim.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Have you read the Gospels? Pretty sure there are instances where Jesus' disciples did just that.

Exactly what we would expect from a non-existent deity.Is there anything that would distinguish the God you believe in from a deity that doesn't exist?

How does that distinguish the God you believe in from a deity that doesn't exist?

Can you please explain how people are incapable of believing in a deity that doesn't exist? If the supernatural is real, why couldn't we have evidence of it?

If people are capable of believing in deities that don't exist then how is your belief evidence that your preferred deity exists? The lack of evidence for a deity isn't a belief. It is a fact, by your own admission. Do you understand what the burden of proof is?

In order for that to be a fact you would need to present evidence that Jesus is a reality. Otherwise, the only fact is that you are a representative of a human created religion.

Perhaps you should reread my question?Can you please explain how people are incapable of believing in a deity that doesn't exist?Also, you are the one who is claiming that the "Beast" exists. The burden of proof lies with you to demonstrate that the Beast exists. Do you still not understand how the burden of proof works? The tests that would distinguish the supernatural from something that is made up.

Betrand Russell did a nice job of explaining it:"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
Russell's teapot - WikipediaThe burden of proof lies with those who make the positive claim. It isn't up to us to disprove claims that leprechauns, Bigfoot, or deities are real. The burden of proof lies with those who claim that these entities are real.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Is it correct to claim it is a fact that the Elks represent the wishes of a cabal of reptilian overlords simply because you believe it to be true? Is it correct to claim that since there is no evidence to show that this claim isn't true that it must therefore be true?

Do you still think that if you believe something fervently enough that it becomes a fact?

What is that a counter-argument to?All you have done is erect a strawman. No one is saying that deities don't exist. What we are saying is that there is no evidence for any deities, therefore we don't believe that one exists. We are skeptics, not deniers. Stories in books have never been evidence. That isn't openness. That is gullibility. Openness is the willingness to allow EVIDENCE to change your mind.