[a] Fortunately reality is independent of your thoughts.
[b] So? That atheism requires defending is your opinion, not mine.
[c] You are mistaken about NDEs. That topic was brought up by n8nrgmi, who does not appear to be an atheist. I agree an atheist brought up a diffent topic, which you chose to engage in in stead of ignoring it or steering the conversation back the the alleged irrationality of atheism.
[18] How so ?
[a] Is that why you tell us your thoughts when we ask for reality?
[b] Then your responding here is quizzical.
[c] Atheists can ONLY debate the existence of God. Any theistic topic gets devolved to the existence of God by atheists. It is a waste of time trying to keep them on topic.
[18] Atheism contradicts itself. Self-contradiction is self-evudently irrational no?
[a] You may guess three times.
[b] Interesting, but your bewilderment is off topic.
[c] You are mistaken again. I am an atheist and have debated other topics. I have also observed other atheists debate other topics.
[18] How is atheism self-contradictory ?
[8] I asked for clarification and evidence.
[19] You are mistaken. That is not the reason why I think that and you are wise enough to suspect the real reason.
[20] No. A sound, on topic argument is required. Don't worry. I won't hold my breath.
[21] Your fallacy of choice is the straw man. I have not claimed what you imply I have. Contrary to what you claimed, some atheists have spoken about atheism.
[22] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Strangely enough it would be precisely in a thread on that topic that atheists do not exhibit that behaviour.
[23] If you are sceptical of my claim, then surely you have reasons why, unless your scepticism is irrational, which I would dislike to believe.
No, I don't think that is logic.[d]
[20] What ever you hold, you don't hold the keys to what is required or whether it is sound.
[21] Not one, including you, has defended atheism.
[d] No wonder it's in your toolbox.
[20] You are right. I don't hold the keys to a sound argument for atheism being irrational. No one does.
[21] So what ? I pointed out the fallacy you committed and the mistake you made.
Again, that atheism requires defending is your assumption, not mine.
[22] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with me, but I prefer to believe in reality.
[23] Irrational skepticism is common among Christians.
[d] Dude, I don't use the criterion of something not being logic as a prerequisite for putting things in my toolbox. You are confusing your desires with reality or projecting.
[24] That is kind and tolerant of you, but I'll pass. You too may feel free to be irrational.
[25] Do you expect people to believe you find that amazing ? No, you don't.[e]
[24] Ethan is not a liberal. Irrationality is not an option for him. You go on though.
[25] No, I expect them to find it amazingly close to my comment,
[e] Your skill at observation is impressive.
[24] Ethan plays the irrational Christian well.
[25] Fascinating.
[e] Thanks. Despite it not being logic, it is a useful tool sometimes.
there isn't enough evidence to be an atheist
Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[14] Of course I ignore evidence. So what ? Everyone ignores evidence. No one can take into account all evidence.
[15] OK. Let's forget for the moment that you still have the burden to demonstrate that atheism is irrational.
Should we also consider the evidence to conclude not God or ignore that ? Should we also consider the evidence we expect to observe if God or ignore that ?
[16] So you have the icing. Where is the cake ?
[17] Is the universe's decreasing non-dark energy supposed to be evidence for God ? If so, how and if so, please demonstrate it is decreasing.
[18] That doesn't make sense to who ? You ?
[19] So we don't understand the origin of the universe. Is that supposed to be evidence for God ?
[no response]
[14] Another red herring. What surprise !
[15] You forgot to answer my questions.
[16] How silly of me to conceive that you would foresee a cake with your icing.
[17] Another red herring. Who would have thought that ?
[18, 19] You forgot to answer my questions.
Is this thread about whether theists get more miraculous healings than atheists ? No, it isn't. Suppose we were able to establish they do. Then what ?
[no response]
I could have guessed that you would not have brought it up if there was a relevant point to it.
That God is a good theory is merely an assertion of yours, but suppose you are right. Is it irrational to not adhere to a good theory ?
[no response]
You forgot to answer my question.
atheists have a rebut able presumption. good evidence is provided by theists.[27] bad evidence, or no evidence, is provided by atheists to rebut.[28] that's why i say there's insufficient evidence to be an atheist.[29]
we see people die and come back to tell afterlife stories. we see out of body events being described highly accurately under scientific study. atheists have no good evidence to say what's happening is anything other than what we observe... the best they have are vague theories, but with scant science attached to it.[30]
we see praying theists with inexplicable healings but we have no evidence that these things happen to atheists... atheist healings as far as i can tell are always explicable. all we have is atheists telling us to assume the same things happen to them too.[31]
this is very plain evidence provided by theists.[32] yes it's possible to remain a skeptic, but it goes against the evidence... it's skepticism for the sake of skepticism.[33] you cant come up with coherent counter theories, cause you just dont understand science or logic.
[27] Good evidence is irrelevant. Good on topic evidence would be relevant, but alas, no one can provide that for some reason.
[28] On what grounds do you classify the evidence provided by theists as good and the evidence provided by atheists as bad ? Your bias, perhaps ?
[29] The problem is that you are unable to demonstrate a correspondence between your sayings and reality.
[30] We see a Christian presenting a red herring to distract from the fact that he doesn't have a case. What else is new ?
That atheists ought to be able to explain NDEs is an ASSUMPTION of yours. Assumptions must be demonstrated. Go ahead !
What is your explicit theory for NDEs ?
[31] OK. You admitted that you know of no studies that demonstrate that God is responsible for miraculous healings. What studies can you show then ? How about ones that show that miraculous healings happen more often to theists than to atheists ?
[32] Is this thread about NDEs ? No. Is this thread about miraculous healings ? No. Again, read this thread's title to discover what it is about.
[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
Here is some evidence that atheism is not irrational : In a thread with the title 'atheism is irrational' Christians are unable to present any evidence for that claim. If atheism were truly irrational, then surely there would be evidence to support that ?
Something Christians are missing is that atheism is expected to have less evidence than theism because it is more specific.
Suppose there are 26 potential beliefs : A, B, C, … Z, standing for no god (A) belief and the belief in each of 25 mutually exclusive gods. Suppose each of these beliefs are equally supported by evidence. So A, E, P and Y are equally well supported and equally likely. Consequently, A is unlikely and, taken together, all the other beliefs (theism) are much better supported. However, any specific theistic belief is also poorly supported. D, O and T are just as unlikely as A. Hence if belief in A is irrational because it is unlikely, then so is any other specific theistic belief. The only rational belief would then be one of agnosticism.
Assuming all hypotheses are equally supported, the only theists that could rightfully call atheists irrational (i.e. less irrational than themselves) would be the vague theists and that is assuming it is irrational to believe something poorly supported by evidence. Most theists on the other hand believe in specific gods.
the evidence theists provide indicates something.[34] they indicate that there's an afterlife and that miracles happen to theists.[35] i can understand if someone wanted to remain a skeptic, as if they needed more evidence to embrace the conclusions fully. but to pretend there's no evidence for the supernatural or God or any of that, is objectively wrong. that's why atheism is irrational.[36]
[34] Indeed. It indicates they don't have a case.
[35] The problem is that the existence of an afterlife or miracles are extraordinary claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not indicative evidence.
In 1950ies there were in the USA many reports of flying saucers with hammer and sickle symbols. That indicates that already back then the Soviets mastered flying saucer technology.
[36] How is that supposed to follow ?
"people die and tell us of their afterlife experience" this is a fact.[37] i realize ya'll like to poke holes in it, but it's still a fact. a stubborn fact. i think ya'll can't deal with it, cause it's so blatantly clear evidence that contradicts your worldview.
[37] Is that so ? Then please demonstrate that fact.
all you've shown is that you are good at creating elaborate theories to deny basic observation, basic evidence. ockam's razer is that if people die and tell us of the afterlife, the most simple explanation is that they died and experienced the afterlife.[38] you have a tendency of defining yourself to be right by definition... "nothing can't exist outside the universe" "the supernatural can't exist". i can relate to thinking experiencing the afterlife is too good to be true, but that's what it looks like. and, all your counter ideas for why it's not authentic experience, is that you have a hunch. that's all the skeptic counter arguments amount to, a hunch.[39] there's scant science attached to it. read 'evidence of the afterlife' by dr long or read studies on out of body experiences... we have lots of science on the pro authentic side,[40] and mere hunches with scant science attached to it on the anti authentic side.
[38] Of the thausands of UFO observations that were investigated, how many do you think turned out the have the simple explanation, the one perfectly in line with Ockham's Razor, that those were alien craft flown by aliens ?
[39] You are mistaken. Others have also presented counter-evidence, that you have skillfully ignored.
[40] Great. Please present that science.
Is that science limited to reports of afterlife experiences or is there independent scientific evidence ?
