I have defined it multiple times. You don’t like the definition then this thread is not for you. Although, you have specifically on several occassions in this thread demonstrated exactly the atheist doctrine I am talking about. When someone tells a story about witnessing a person being dead and then coming back to life, your response is that is not possible and it never happened. You make a 100% positive claim about something you admit you have no knowledge. Is that clear enough for you?
We have already discussed the evidence available. You refuse to admit that any possible evidence exists. There is no possible way to prove God’s existence to you because by your own definition you refuse to acknowledge the possibility of any evidence of God’s existence. Everyone who claims these types of experiences in your mind must either be mad or a liar by your definition.
And each time you’re wrong. How do you feel about that?
And please: stop lying. There is no atheist doctrine. And you’re the one making a 100% positive claim about something you admit you have no knowledge of, i.e. my experience that there is no god. You are a HYPOCRITE.
I’m still waiting, Max. Why can’t you do it?
There isn’t any.
Liar.
Do you enjoy knowing that no one believes anything you say?
Yes: a strawman.
You’re no different from the statist idiots who claim that anarchists are all about bomb-throwing and chaos. You’re an imbecile who thinks the argument from ignorance fallacy doesn’t exist.
How old are you?
Thank you for conceding all points to me. You are dismissed.
False.
Precisely.
False again.
I said he was dead (this is true), and that he came back to life. I never said there was some experienceable existence after life.
No, it’s true.
Then you admit to using a fallacy. Thanks for admitting that your argument is DOA.
Nope, it’s true. You said he was dead and came back to life. So you have to prove that it can happen. Lying does not help you.
Hint: you’re either going to have to admit that all you have for “evidence” is a warm fuzzy feeling, or you’re going to have to just STFU. You can’t win.
“What most atheists don’t understand is that most religious people have had personal experiences that support their belief in God.”
“How many times will you repeat that lie?”
What was being said wasn’t religious people have personal experiences to prove the existence of god but that they have personal experiences to SUPPORT THEIR BELIEF in god.
No, I was mimicing your argument with a fallacy of my own.
I (along with everyone else that was in the hospital) saw it happen.
Yes, I have a warm fuzzy feeling that my eyes work.
And? How many times will he repeat the lie that atheists don’t understand that? You see: I DO UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE HAVE THOSE EXPERIENCES. So you must ask yourself: how many times will MaxLiberty lie?
But you weren’t, since I didn’t use any fallacies.
Lying does not help you.
Then please prove that someone can come back from the dead. Your say-so in the face of all the combined experiences of everyone else throughout history AND that of the biological fact that dead is dead requires evidence of a rather extraordinary nature. Failure to provide it is not my problem.
Thank you for conceding all points to me. You too are dismissed.
It is a very simple question for you. Can human observation be evidence of an event occurring or the existence of something? If the answer is yes, then there is evidence of God’s existence. If the answer is no then we should release everyone from prison.
If you want to argue the quality or reliability of the evidence that is reasonable, but this is only possible if you answer yes to the question above.
Here is the atheist doctrine in full force. Banned details a personal experience in a hospital where a person was considered dead by the doctors for thirty minutes and then came back to life. BAAWA responds that this didn’t happen and says Banned needs to provide evidence. What is more conclusive than a person being dead and coming back to life. For the atheist there is no evidence possible that Banned could provide that would be sufficient because you have declared that what occurred is not possible to have occurred.
I hope Banned’s grandfather is alive and well to this day.
I asked how old you were because your argumentation style is like a 2 year-old who keeps repeating the same thing over and over in hopes that everyone will give in. Obviously, you are not 2 but I was wondering whether you argumentation style was a result of your intellectual immaturity or your physical immaturity.
Since you believe it is, and since I have experiential evidence that there is no god, you must believe me when I say that there is no god. If not, you’re a hypocrite. Simple.
See how your idea gets turned upon you?
Here is MaxLiberty lying once again.
Liar. I said that the experience happened. I merely want evidence that coming back from the dead is possible. Since no one has ever come back from the dead, it’s far more reasonable to conclude that the doctors were wrong about the person being dead.
And what in the world are you still doing in this discussion anyway? You’ve been dismissed, since you do nothing more than repeat your lies, just like a 2 year-old. Is your argumentation style the result of your intellectual immaturity, physical immaturity, or both?
Please, just give up on that strawman.
I’m pretty sure the point of contention was if he was dead or not and it wasn’t a denial of it ever happening.
You still haven’t given any proof that this ‘atheistic doctrine’ you cite exists beyond the confines of your own mind by the way. Are we supposed to accept it as fact because you have personal experience of its existence?
I know it is a lot to ask for you to provide a link to it (and not merely give a definition of ‘atheism’…again) but it would sure be nice.
Here, find the brand of atheism you are claiming is ‘doctrine’ on the wikipedia and get back to us.
There is no requirement that you believe every person’s story. To reject every story related to God as by definition false is what you are doing.
If the event happened, then he was dead and came back to life. So the existence of the event is evidence, there might be other explanations for the event but it doesn’t invalidate the intial observations or make them by definition false.
Are you saying there are no atheists who believe that by definiton God can not exist as per the common defintion of the term? Baawa has claimed in this thread that God can not exist and so have several others.
OMG what a thread! Oops. Well it WILL always start a discussion.
I would like to add two humble thoughts, and one flimsy piece of non-evidence.
1)In my opinion, belief is what we have when we don’t understand.
-
I don’t understand god but there is no better proof of engineering than having the design at hand. i.e. DNA. I don’t believe anything.
-
I have been dead. I was shot in the head. Gods (doctors) revived me and removed the part of my brain damaged by subdural hematoma. I don’t recommend surving the unsurvivable.
There is if every story that there is a god is evidence that there is a god!
THINK!
False. I did no such thing.
See? You just believed everything about the story without question. So now you must believe ME when I say that my experience is that there is no god.
I will just keep hammering your hypocrisy until you relent. Hypocrites never win.
Gee, that’s really nice. Now try addressing what I wrote, rather than what you wanted me to write.
Are you saying that every atheist says that there is no god?
See how your arrogant stupidity gets you in trouble?
I’m not the one making claims about the rationality of someone else’s beliefs now am I? Its not a question of whether atheists believe if god exists or not (be a pretty crappy atheist who believed in gods) but the reasons behind their beliefs which you claim is irrational.
Allow me to quote you again;
You can backpeddle all you want but that’s the claim you are making and from what I’ve seen nobody has made that claim on this thread nor are you able to provide evidence that one single person in the whole world holds that particular belief much less a whole doctrine based upon it.
How hard is it to reference your sources? Hell, man, a whole doctrine should have lots of material to chose from.