Interestingly, you dont "have" to be shown anything. The burden of proof is on who ever wants proof.

The Christian theist, to use that religion as an example, doesnt bear a burden to meet the atheist's standard of proof.

The Great Commission to spread the Gospel is pretty much a case of...

* do your best

* if that's not good enough for empiricist scientism folks it's not your fault. God wont blame you.

* you cant make people listen if they dont want to

* some people have an ulterior motive for designing their "prove God" science experiments with an artificially high standard of proof.  

And the fact that scientific, rational minds can and DO hold theistic views - sometimes after converting from long-held atheism, means that the God Conclusion isnt a matter devoid of reason/rationale/evidence/logic.  

Show me the false accusation I have made about Dawkins.

Then show me the false accusation I have made about Hitchens.

And then show me the false accusation I have made about Brian37.

Here's how you do it.

Lion IRC wrote..."Dawkins is a blah blah blah"

Brian37 offers Lion IRC proof to the contrary..."XYZ proves you are wrong about Dawkins"

Can you do that? Or do you have a preference for just asserting "stuff"? 

While you're at it, show me the "threats" you allege I made against Brian37

*waiting patiently*

Lion IRC : Hey Louis, Come over here, I want to show you something you've never seen before.

Louis_Cypher : WOW, thats interesting. Thanks Lion IRC. You learn something new every day.

Lion IRC : I know. I was amazed when it was first shown to me.

Louis_Cypher : No one is gonna believe me when I tell 'em what I saw.

Isn't revelation just another form of sharing information?

The information itself might be true or false. It might be important or trivial. It might be interpreted correctly or misunderstood. The source of the information might be terrestrial or extra-terrestrial. The source might be dubious or trustworthy. It might be corroborated by others and shared or it might be kept in confidence.

But why would it be invalid simply by virtue of the fact that the information/knowledge was unsolicited by the recipient?  Surely, revelation (information/knowledge) offered freely is at least as valid as information which has to be "beaten out of" the suspect.

When someone sees a miracle, has a road to Damascus, voice of God, burning bush, zen-like satori moment, sees a ghost, or whatever, and they actually do find themselves having experienced an event which meets their own skeptical threshold of "undeniability", the irony is that nobody will believe them.

According to the former atheists OWN standard of empirical, material proof, their epiphany, however real, will be dismissed like those of every other "Saul of Tarsus" as an epileptic fit, wishful thinking, delusion, psychosis... or just something which science will hopefully one day work out had nothing to do with God. 

Feel free to ignore stuff you think is a waste of your precious time.

(I thought it was salient enough. Sorry you didnt. *sniff*)

 

If I reveal to you that you owe me $100 is it true?

I am not sure when the idea of "revelation" was invented but I have not found it prior to the 5th c. AD. It does exist in the Koran. There is a healthy difference between "trances" where all manner of things are disclosed (revealed) that go far beyond the immediate circumstance and the Septuagint and New Testament recitations.

The former lays out the terms of a contract with Moses and then diktats to the Israelites. The latter is a matter of teachings whose real meanings were only understood by the apostles after the death of the teacher. They centered on the imminent end of the world. These do not pretend to be more than they are.

To be equivalent to a Koranic revelation we have to look to the imitators of Mohamed who learned things in similar/imitative trances. Those were revelations. Mohamed invented a good scam. Others trying the same thing is to be expected. The man don't get no respect in the west. After all, he did invent monotheism. Although not in the same category as inventing Xenu it was widely immitated in the "us too" mode.

The prohibition against putting G-d to the test has nothing to do with demanding proof that G-d does, or doesn't, exist, but rather with compelling G-d to act.  It is putting =us= in charge of G-d.

What Deut 6:16 says is that we are not to test G-d the way we tested G-d in Massah -- G-d had just brought us out of slavery in Egypt, showed us miraculous signs and wonders, and we =still= insisted G-d provide proof by providing us with water in the desert.

The proof text that the Christian bible in Luke references is Psalm 91:11 --

What Jesus responds with is the verse in Deuteronomy --

The experience at Massah starts at Exodus 17:1 --

So, what's going on BEFORE that verse?  Is it really fair to say "Hey, could use some water down here?"

If you back up a chapter, you find this one --

There are the Ten Plagues, getting Pharaoh to finally agree to let us go, the parting of the Reed Sea and drowning Pharaoh's army, G-d giving us manna every day, and =now= they want water, too?

There's a pattern here and sooner or later the pattern has to be broken, because it goes over and over and over like this -- either we get to tell G-d what we want, when and where, or G-d does.

Now, there are Atheists here who say "If god exists, why is there this bad thing?", and they ignore everything positive about the Universe -- they expect the Laws of Nature to work the way =they= want.  They expect Gravity to be turned on and off, so that if they fall from the top of  some building, they don't get killed.  But if they jump really, really hard, they don't fly off into space.  They are upset that their puppy died when they were 4 or 5, but not upset that they aren't up to their necks in all the puppies ever born, forever and ever.  For those Atheists, their problem isn't that G-d created an entire Universe, but that they aren't the ones making the rules.  They'd believe in G-d, but only if G-d works the way =they= want.

If you look at the pagan religions that surrounded us, and that many of us participated in before, during and after the Exodus, and that many people participated in even until now, those religions put the people in charge of the gods -- bring the god and/or gods something and then the god and/or gods are supposed to do tricks.  Need an abundant harvest?  Go pour some wine on top of a rock that was shaped into the form of their god that's placed out in the middle of the field or under a tree.  Or better yet, go find some child or a virgin and have yourself a human sacrifice -- that'll get the harvest going, that's for sure. 

I don't know if you've been in on a thread when I mentioned this, but when I was a Charismatic Christian, I belonged to a church that did the whole "If you can name it, you can claim it" thing.  Every Sunday morning people would come up and say what it was they wanted Jesus to do for them.  This one young couple (they were mostly all young couples ...) kept wanting a refrigerator.  I'm 14 years old, I had a job, I was putting money in the money box every Sunday, and this couple still doesn't have a refrigerator.  Somewhere along the line I realize -- all the church had to do was pass the plate and this couple really would have had a refrigerator.  If the answer is that simple, why are people insisting Jesus give them a fridge from heaven?

Depends.

I don't believe that certain events surrounding the death of my grandfather or father was "proof of G-d's existence", thought I have to admit that both were pretty cool events.

The difference between, say, Judaism and Christianity or Islam is the nature of the "revelation".  In Christianity you have claims that not only aren't at all borne out by history (where is the record in Roman history of Jesus existing, being executed, all the dead Jews buried around Jerusalem coming back to life, the earthquake that supposedly happened, the parting of the Temple veil, etc.), but when compared from one source to the next, can't even agree with each other?  Let's look at the timeline of the crucifixion and resurrection --

Roman soldiers arrest Jesus sometime late in the evening Thursday, he's passed around between the priests and/or Sanhedrin in the Temple (impossible) then over to Herod and/or Pilate, then there's a show trial Friday morning, a nice bit of torture, and he's finally crucified Friday sometime between noon and 3pm.  Sometime around 4 or 5pm (keep in mind -- crucifixion is a =multiple= day form of execution, and it's still Friday ...) he says some things that aren't consistently attested to, and by 5pm people are asking for his body so he can be buried by 6pm when the sun is going to set because Jews don't bury people on the Sabbath, even to this very day.

The sun goes down around 6pm (it's the vernal equinox on account of it being near Passover) and everyone goes home and has a good cry over their unleavened bread.  The next day, which =started= at 6pm Saturday evening, Mary, Mary and Mary go to the tomb, and his dead body isn't there.  Twenty four or 25 hours earlier -- dead body.  The next day, no dead body.

A bunch of people who can't count and don't know when Jewish days begin and end then claim -- "He was in the ground for THREE DAYS and THREE NIGHTS!  It's a miracle, just like Jonah!"

Except ... he wasn't.

How's that for a "revelation"?

Then you've got the Islamic version -- man goes in cave, has vision, tells vision to some friends, friends write the vision down.  This keeps happening, over and over and over again until there are 114 "chapters" worth of visions.

Man runs around with a growing bunch of friends and tells people "Here's my vision -- believe it, or we kill you."  Some people accept the vision and don't get killed, others don't accept the vision and do get killed.  This sets up a pattern, which we still get to experience today.

But what of that vision?

In Sura Al-Qamar (that's chapter 54, for anyone who doesn't read Arabic or hasn't read the Qur'an), from the first verse, it claims that the moon was split in two, and that this miracle was used to prove to the surrounding tribes that The Prophet was the messenger of Allah.  Anyone else have a record of the moon being split in half?  Does the =moon= have a record of the moon being split in half?  No?  Didn't think so.

This doesn't keep Muslims from pointing at cracks on the moon and claiming that the moon was split in half.  They apparently haven't looked at the rift valley a couple of countries over, the one that runs up between Israel and Saudi Arabia (for example ...) and claim that the earth was split in two.

Ah, Saul.

The problem with Saul is that private visions =never= trump the Torah.  For that matter, neither do public visions, or even loud voices from Heaven.  It can't be added to, it can't be subtracted from --

Saul is stuck between a rock and a hard place, not that most Christians even have a clue that the verse is in there.  They've heard this one --

but the excuse is, "Jesus fulfilled the law!"

Were you paying attention when I laid out the timeline for the crucifiction and resurrection?  Yes?  No?

Not so much on fulfilling the Law.

As long as you don't claim your God to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, I won't claim that the bad things in this world are evidence against its existence. The "Problem of Evil", as it is called, is only an issue if you claim your God to be both all-powerful and all-loving. As long as you don't make this claim, the Problem of Evil won't be relevant to your God.

The reason many atheists say this is most Christians, Jews, and Muslims do make that claim.

The reason I don't think any God(s) exist outside of people's minds is I have seen very little evidence to suggest that they do. If you're willing to share, I would love to hear your reasons for believing in God.

Oh, I've been wondering: why do you spell God with a dash in middle?

The Torah, which LDS claims is somehow the basis of their religion, makes it very plain what is or isn't "revelation" or "prophecy".

1). It cannot contradict the Torah.  Period.

2). It must be specific enough that it can be tested for accuracy.

LDS doctrine fails the first test -- the LDS Church re-invented all of both Christian and Jewish theology, and Christian theology is a re-invention of Jewish theology.  They sneak around the "polytheism" claim by either saying that Christianity is also polytheistic, so what's the problem, or they don't actually worship the man-gods that they all aspire to become.

The LDS revelations fail the second test as well -- the LDS Church makes claims which are both prophetic, and historic, and except for prophetic claims that aren't significant enough to matter, fails.  The LDS Church has been back-pedaling for years now that genetic genealogy has proven their Native American origin claims to be false.

WE DON'T CARE, please stop trying to move the goal posts.

HOW, not who, not what pet god, not what book.

HOW when you get a thought into your head, HOW do you translate that thought that will transcend any personal whims or holy book quotes that can result in others seeing what you see?

Everyone quotes their respective books. Everyone claims their god is real. SO THE FUCK WHAT.

If there is a way to filter out bias, it has to be OUTSIDE your own head and outside your favorite holy book. Same goes for people of other religions with other pet god claims.

Anyone can buy a claim ON ANY SUBJECT, not just religion. That does not require scrutiny or testing. That merely requires swallowing it.

AGAIN HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW HOW

You have a thought in your head. You translate that thought into communication. WHO THE FUCK CARES.

Anyone can communicate a claim ON ANY SUBJECT.

Where the proof is found is WHEN in the process of that communication the testing and independent review becomes clear to all.

Otherwise we can all make up shit and claim it.

Because we aren't robots.  Sooner or later someone had to do something they weren't "supposed" to do.  As my rabbi put it, "It moves the story along."

And it wasn't a "magical" tree -- just a tree.  Just a tree that wasn't "supposed" to be eaten from.  The existence of "free will" implies the ability to make the "wrong" decision.  No great showdown between G-d and Satan.  Just ... free-will being exercised.

Thank you Thomas Jefferson.

I don't know why I am wasting my time typing the following but here goes.

That ambiguous claptrap explains nothing. You, like Furry, Like Muslims still have a specific god claim you ultimately want to lead others too.

What you falsely attribute to "revelation is the disclosure of God in nature" is merely the placebo of mistaking "WOW" that is neat, to "it must be magic".

You are conflating human's natural "sense of awe" as being the product of a fictional god. Now, Jefferson did more than you. He rejected the superstition and magical claims of the bible, but like you, also tried to cop out to the "God of nature". i would have if I could have debated him, called BS on this same back peddle you use now.

However, unlike you, if I could say to Jefferson "Bullshit, Jeff, that is merely you saying "that's pretty so therefor something thinking did it". He would be concerned, not with my delivery, or blasphemy, but my reasoning.

Nature is nature and not just the pretty stuff. Cancer, ecoli, tsunami's, black holes ect ect ect. None of the good or bad need to be explained by comic book super heros vs super villains.

Furry, please. All this amounts to is "I am not like the others"

When you claim "my books say and science says" that is nothing but retrofitting.

Otherwise Gene Roddenberry invented the modern cell phone.

Did a woman pop out of a mans rib? Nope. Were Jews slaves to Egyptians, NOPE. Dp animals become zombies in pairs so one family can survive the fact that their puppet master failed to set up his utopia? And then because of his own failure allows an act of genocide?

Hebrews did NOT invent modern science any more than Egyptians invented geometry because of their ability of building.

Protest all you want Furry, you worshiping the Hebrew fictional god is as arbitrary as being a Saints fan. Modern NFL football did not pop out of thin air. It was a spin off of rugby. Your religion was no different. And none of that unscientific claptrap is any more credibly than when a Muslim or Christian attempts it.

No, there was no tree that was put there by a god. There is merely you trying to dodge the trap your literary character you falsely believe to fact set up.

BULLSHIT! In the story AND IT IS JUST A STORY, the bet happens between God and his minion. The lab rats have no clue they have been set up.

Strip all the books of Abraham down to the core motif and you have the shallow motif of a comic book.

"Good vs evil"

STRICTLY as a fictional story IT SUCKS, morally.

You have yet to explain how Adam and Eve prior to the bet between God and Lucifer, had any say into the rules and the game they had no say in setting up. Tell me how Adam and Eve took place in the set up of the bet they knew nothing about.

Free will in a sucker bet is as as moral as steeling a lolly pop from a baby.

It would make more sense if Adam and Eve were involved in setting up the parameters prior. But that is not how the story goes. So it merely amounts to a bully taking advantage of the weak.

You worship a mafia boss, a dictator. Adam and Eve were not involved in the decision making in the set up prior to the alleged story. They were mere props, pawns all to glorify a dictator god.

When you say that Adam and Eve's sin moves the story along, it sounds like they didn't have free will, or at least not total free will.  It sounds like they were puppets that had to do what they did in order to fulfill God's plan, or "move the story along." 

I want to know exactly why they decided to eat the fruit.  With Eve it seems the serpent tempted her using trickery, and she was convinced.  If the serpent wasn't there she might not have eaten.  Since God created the serpent He's responsible for lowering Eve's free will, even though He didn't eliminate it.

What the fuck does that have to do with her god existing vs yours?

My friends and family have a range of beliefs, but just because I like them does not make magic men real.

My mom is a neat freak and it has taken her far too long to stop being a neat freak. I have always loved her and she still spoils me rotten. But that does not make her Catholic god real any more than it makes your god real anymore than it makes a Jewish or Muslim God real.

You like Furry. So? I like her too. So?

Same crap, "I am not a bad person" which is NOT the argument the skeptic makes.

The argument we make is not one of labels, but one of evidence. I am sure outside this debate all three of us could have a party and have fun.

But that does not change the REALITY that people who make claims about gods and utopias, even in the form of political utipias, cause division and fuck up humanity.

I am not accusing you or anyone here of being bad. I am accusing you of having bad claims.

Argh.   Ok, total derail.  And this isn't focused just on you, Furry.   This just happens to be the most recent example of an honest mistake among several people when listing the latin names of species.

Ok, first, in the brief time I have started coming back here I have seen people call us sapient and sapien.  The species name is sapiens.

Second and last, in binomial nomenclature the first element, the genus name, is capitalized.   The second element, the species name, is not.

So it would be:

Homo sapiens & Felis catus

Sorry to be anal and most people probably don't even care.  But it doesn't reflect well on those doing it incorrectly.

Thanks.

Not a problem -- I aim to please =and= bring humor.

I will note that you gave me a pass on the small bit of Cat Worship   Wise choice, that!

More like there was no free will in either case. Can't make a knowledgeable choice without knowledge. If they already had they knowledge of good and evil why test them with te tree?

The God of Abraham is like Richard Nixon, "It's not illegal when the President does it"

The claimants of this "all powerful" God have no choice to back peddle away from the truth of the motif that he is as written as a fictional character, falsely to be believed as fact, is the final authority. It owes no one anything, and does what it wants, and we cannot remove it from power when we object.

As a mere false claim it is horrible. As a mere false claim people act on, falsely believing it to be fact,  to affect politics and education, it has real impact. If it were just a si fi convention, or comic book convention, that would be one thing. But the Abraham god/s are tyrants and can only be viewed as such, or watered down to a figurehead like the Queen of England. It still would not change that as written, cruel or kind, this figurehead is immovable and unchangeable.

It is a reflection of the tribal kingships of the polytheism and monotheism of the ancient past.

If you have that little control over your life, I'd suggest you either call a cop or learn how to exercise more control over your life.

I mean, I realize that your purpose is to attack concepts like "Free Will" so you can blame G-d for your choices, but seriously -- pick a better bogus argument.

But more to the point, G-d DOES NOT have "control" over what you do, that's what "Free Will" is about.  You have a choice -- be a robot, or be a mature adult and accept that when you do something, =you= did it.  Your dog did not eat your homework and that hottie you saw at work did not force you to have sex with her in the mailroom.

Nah, I'm pretty sure I have a better grip on reality than a bronze age goat herding savage in the Sinai...
But, I'm not sure about you.
LC >:-}>

Never mind the guys who planted, harvested, pressed, barreled and bottled the wine - it was all freaking' magic?

So you prayed to God for providing nothing - still meets the definition of taking God's name in vain..