The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Sparko]

not good enough! Waaaaaa! I can't be bothered to actually read something. You do all the work so i can ignore it!

fify.

[One Bad Pig]

So based on my posting history which gives you the impression that I am likely to disagree, you are reluctant to go to further detail and share the proof I asked for?

No. Based on your posting history, I'm skeptical that you're as interested as you pretend in seeing the proof. And, despite that, I pointed you to where you can find the proof unfiltered through my presentation. Reading the book would certainly serve you better than uncritically relying on Tassman's uninformed presentation of it. You can also find an extended discussion of the book (through where Gary quit reading, anyway) beginning here.

[One Bad Pig]

The bold is not true. He admits that some of his reports may have plausible natural explanations. He also says that, in his judgement, others are explained far better through extra-natural causes.

You're making it look like he says that all of his miracle accounts are naturalistic.

Tassman hasn't actually read the book himself. He's just going by reviews he's read. I've already told him he's making an incomplete statement regarding the miracle in question from Ghana, but I see that hasn't stopped him from repeating the claim.

[Jedidiah]

So still there is not argument in favor of atheism except, "There is no scientific proof of God."

[Sparko]

So still there is not argument in favor of atheism except, "There is no scientific proof of God - and even if there were we wouldn't believe it"

There. FIFY

[psstein]

Tassman hasn't actually read the book himself. He's just going by reviews he's read. I've already told him he's making an incomplete statement regarding the miracle in question from Ghana, but I see that hasn't stopped him from repeating the claim.

Of course he hasn't. I've read the book at least twice, and portions of the book several more times (the bibliography is outstanding). It has some methodological issues and some of the miracle claims aren't particularly miraculous (e.g. the regrowth of a spleen).

Those things being said, to dismiss all the claims in the book out of hand is irresponsible at best and borderline dishonest.

[Tassman]

So still there is not argument in favor of atheism except, "There is no scientific proof of God."

If God made occasional forays from heaven into the natural world then there would (or should) be be scientific evidence for him, because the natural world is the province of scientific investigation.

There. FIFY

Or, to rephrase it for you: "There is no scientific proof of God - and even if gods were proved not to exist some would still believe in them...right, Sparko?

[Tassman]

Tassman hasn't actually read the book himself. He's just going by reviews he's read. I've already told him he's making an incomplete statement regarding the miracle in question from Ghana, but I see that hasn't stopped him from repeating the claim.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2...ners-miracles/

[Doug Shaver]

It's not as if you'd believe it if it was happening right in front of you.

If I were to witness someone regrowing a severed limb, I would believe that that person had regrown a severed limb. Then we could discuss whether it could have happened naturally or must have had a supernatural cause.

[Charles]

If I were to witness someone regrowing a severed limb, I would believe that that person had regrown a severed limb. Then we could discuss whether it could have happened naturally or must have had a supernatural cause.

Are you moving away from the honoured tradition of thinking that if we do not yet have a scientific explanation it simply must be God? :-)

I agree with you completely.

[shunyadragon]

Of course he hasn't. I've read the book at least twice, and portions of the book several more times (the bibliography is outstanding). It has some methodological issues and some of the miracle claims aren't particularly miraculous (e.g. the regrowth of a spleen).

Those things being said, to dismiss all the claims in the book out of hand is irresponsible at best and borderline dishonest.

I also have read the book, and do not 'dismiss all the claims in the book out of hand,' but unfortunately the evidence(?) presented in the book does not present sufficient objective predictable evidence for the belief in miraculous causes.

[Sparko]

If God made occasional forays from heaven into the natural world then there would (or should) be be scientific evidence for him, because the natural world is the province of scientific investigation.



Or, to rephrase it for you: "There is no scientific proof of God - and even if gods were proved not to exist some would still believe in them...right, Sparko?

wrong. If gods were proven not to exist, I would stop believing in them.

You seem to be the only one who is stubbornly stuck in your beliefs and will not change no matter what the evidence. A true Fundy. Congrats, you are what you hate.

[crepuscule]

So still there is not argument in favor of atheism except, "There is no scientific proof of God."

there is no scientific proof for God. Rather it is you who still has to answer the OP.

[Jedidiah]

there is no scientific proof for God. Rather it is you who still has to answer the OP.

This is a long thread. In case I missed your argument can you give me the link to that argument?

[crepuscule]

This is a long thread. In case I missed your argument can you give me the link to that argument?

Whoah, I'm clumsy at incorporating links. But it's #20 on page 2.