Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[thedoc]

How dare he "proselytize" by refuting something we want to believe...

You've got this arse-about. "To proselytise" is a verb which means to attempt to convert a non-believer to a belief. A non-belief is not itself a belief because these terms are antonymous.

Actually this is incorrect because proselytising is also trying to convert someone to a different belief and Atheists believe there is no God which is a belief in itself. So the Atheists on this thread are proselytising just as much as anyone else. If you insist that Atheism is not a belief it could also apply to trying to convert someone to a different opinion, if you object to the word "belief".

From an article,

Proselytism /ˈprɒsəlᵻˌtɪzəm/ is the act of attempting to convert people to another religion or opinion.[1][2] The word proselytize is derived from the Greek language prefix προσ- (pros-, toward) and the verb ἔρχομαι (érchomai, to come) in the form of προσήλυτος (prosélytos, a new comer).[3] Historically in the Koine Greek Septuagint and New Testament, the word proselyte denoted a gentile who was considering conversion to Judaism. Though the word proselytism originally referred to Early Christianity (and earlier Gentiles such as God-fearers), it now refers to the attempt of any religion or religious individuals to convert people to their beliefs, or any attempt to convert people to a different point of view, religious or not. Proselytism is illegal in some countries.[4]

the article,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism

[thedoc]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

[Dalek Prime]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm talking about yours in case you missed it. I've been replying to YOUR posts.

No, I didn't miss it: it was off topic. This is not my thread. I did not choose the terms of debate for it. The issue in question is the original poster, and whether or not what he said was a philosophically tenable argument. He put it out there: I didn't. His is the debate we're having.

It's interesting that absolutely nobody has tried, let alone been able to defend his approach. That speaks eloquently, it seems to me. Is it an embarrassed silence that I hear? How did anyone who calls themselves a philosopher let him get away with such manifestly bad thinking? Never mind if one was a Theist or not: how can the Atheists stand to see their own view so badly represented, and not speak up?

If I were cynical, I would suggest that it seems some Atheists are quite prepared to relax all their standards of evidence, just so long as they're hearing a tune they like.

[Immanuel Can]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

In kindness, I say be sure to deal with it while you may. People don't get unlimited time, and the opportunity may not be open so long as you might hope.

But to paraphrase the great philosopher John Bon Jovi, "It's your life."

[Dalek Prime]

Welcome back, IC. Haven't seen you around lately. Been busy?

[Dalek Prime]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

In kindness, I say be sure to deal with it while you may. People don't get unlimited time, and the opportunity may not be open so long as you might hope.

But to paraphrase the great philosopher John Bon Jovi, "It's your life."

I have many theist friends, including pastors, and always take advice and prayers in the good vein they are meant. So, know your advice is appreciated as such, IC.

I still believe though that the postulator bears the onus of proof, and not the other way around.

[thedoc]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

To my knowledge most Christians don't claim that the existence of God is a matter of empirical proof but of faith, so proof is not a factor. It is Atheists who claim that "there is no God" is a fact and thus subject to empirical proof

[thedoc]

In kindness, I say be sure to deal with it while you may. People don't get unlimited time, and the opportunity may not be open so long as you might hope.

But to paraphrase the great philosopher John Bon Jovi, "It's your life."

Many years ago I heard an older man giving advice to a group of men, he said "Don't get old, but then, what's the alternative."

[Dalek Prime]

If "There is no God" is an empirical fact rather than a belief, then prove it with evidence.

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

To my knowledge most Christians don't claim that the existence of God is a matter of empirical proof but of faith, so proof is not a factor. It is Atheists who claim that "there is no God" is a fact and thus subject to empirical proof

In which case, I'll never have to prove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. Excellent.

[thedoc]

I still think the onus is on the believer to prove existence of God, since they are the ones insisting on it. Personally, it doesn't matter to me either way. I'll deal with it later, if I must.

To my knowledge most Christians don't claim that the existence of God is a matter of empirical proof but of faith, so proof is not a factor. It is Atheists who claim that "there is no God" is a fact and thus subject to empirical proof

In which case, I'll never have to prove the existence of the invisible pink unicorn. Excellent.

I never said they don't exist, I just don't know.

I'm trying to remember, but I believe someone claimed the existence of invisible fairies that tied his shoes.

[Immanuel Can]

Thanks, Dalek: nice to be back, for however long. Busy days.

I still believe though that the postulator bears the onus of proof, and not the other way around.

I don't deny this. The Theist does, of course, have a responsibility to prove his case to be inductively strong. And for your own purposes, I happily concede that, since I think it can be done very well.

However, all that is beside the point, so far as this strand goes. What seems quite clear now is that the original poster "went froggin' without a light," as they say in the South. He claims he can show us that "Christianity fails in terms of the evidence." This claim reverses the burden of proof, and makes him responsible to make his case. This, I suggest, he is very far from having done.

[Immanuel Can]

Many years ago I heard an older man giving advice to a group of men, he said "Don't get old, but then, what's the alternative."

I heard, "Despite the high cost of living, it remains popular."

[Dalek Prime]

Thanks, Dalek: nice to be back, for however long. Busy days.

I still believe though that the postulator bears the onus of proof, and not the other way around.

I don't deny this. The Theist does, of course, have a responsibility to prove his case to be inductively strong. And for your own purposes, I happily concede that, since I think it can be done very well.

However, all that is beside the point, so far as this strand goes. What seems quite clear now is that the original poster "went froggin' without a light," as they say in the South. He claims he can show us that "Christianity fails in terms of the evidence." This claim reverses the burden of proof, and makes him responsible to make his case. This, I suggest, he is very far from having done.

Fair enough. I haven't waded through the whole thread. And to be honest, I don't understand why he chose to focus only on one religion. Do the other faiths pass his test, whatever test that may be?

[thedoc]

Thanks, Dalek: nice to be back, for however long. Busy days.

I still believe though that the postulator bears the onus of proof, and not the other way around.

I don't deny this. The Theist does, of course, have a responsibility to prove his case to be inductively strong. And for your own purposes, I happily concede that, since I think it can be done very well.

However, all that is beside the point, so far as this strand goes. What seems quite clear now is that the original poster "went froggin' without a light," as they say in the South. He claims he can show us that "Christianity fails in terms of the evidence." This claim reverses the burden of proof, and makes him responsible to make his case. This, I suggest, he is very far from having done.

Fair enough. I haven't waded through the whole thread. And to be honest, I don't understand why he chose to focus only on one religion. Do the other faiths pass his test, whatever test that may be?

I believe that you are correct that any religion could fail in terms of evidence, but that doesn't seem to stop millions or billions of people from believing. So what is the basis for denying religion at all, other than a lack of empirical proof, that seems to be a very poor basis for not believing in something that doesn't claim to have empirical proof in the first place.