Religion

truebrit71

(20,805 posts)

36. Sorry, but "miracles" that happened 2000 years ago don't cut it.

Reply to rug (Reply #32)

Sat Feb 7, 2015, 10:18 PM

Feb 2015

Verifiable evidence means exactly that. Evidence that is verifiable.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Six reasons why I think Stephen Fry is Absolutely Fabulous [View all] Cartoonist Feb 2015 OP

That was said about the printing press in the fifteenth century. rug Feb 2015 #1

Agree Cartoonist Feb 2015 #2

Not as laghable as your pronouncements. rug Feb 2015 #4

And those defenders and apologists skepticscott Feb 2015 #3

Lol! rug Feb 2015 #5

Perhaps you missed this thread Cartoonist Feb 2015 #6

Perhaps you missed my post in that thread. rug Feb 2015 #7

Post removed Post removed Feb 2015 #8

"They breed like rabbits"? rug Feb 2015 #9

Lol! You got us believers on the run! hrmjustin Feb 2015 #10

Well, we're doing better in Europe, to be honest. Still. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #41

Its not the popularity of the issue, its the simple fact that no theist has yet to come... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #11

Not counting Basil, Athanasius, Hilary, Irenaeus, Nektarios, Chrysostom, Gennadius, Tertullian, rug Feb 2015 #12

Not sure what the point of the name drop is supposed to be, are any of their arguments compelling? Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #50

Never mind good, I'm still waiting for someone to show... truebrit71 Feb 2015 #14

Of course it would, but skepticscott Feb 2015 #16

And how do you propose "religionistas" prove the existence of God? hrmjustin Feb 2015 #18

Some evidence maybe... truebrit71 Feb 2015 #19

You know I can't provide that. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #20

You could at least provide evidence that the natural universe bears the tool-marks of a AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #42

No I can't and you do know that. my faith is not science and nor do I attempt to make it that. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #45

Design the experiment then. rug Feb 2015 #24

Okay. How about that walking on water thing? truebrit71 Feb 2015 #29

It is a matter of faith for me. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #30

I understand that works for you Justin. truebrit71 Feb 2015 #33

I understand. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #35

Convenient. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #43

Actually not always. In arguments like this in real life it is not convenient. hrmjustin Feb 2015 #46

Well, those are particular claims about miracles done by God. rug Feb 2015 #32

Sorry, but "miracles" that happened 2000 years ago don't cut it. truebrit71 Feb 2015 #36

That's what I said. Specific, ancient claims say nothing about the existence or nonexistence of God. rug Feb 2015 #39

I don't think a "test for God" is the right thing to try to design... Humanist_Activist Feb 2015 #47

I agree. That's why I think the demand for evidence is hollow. rug Feb 2015 #48

Tsk, you haven't been listening. rug Feb 2015 #26

There is one simple reason that material evidence of God does not exist. Leontius Feb 2015 #21

Because he/she/it isn't real.... truebrit71 Feb 2015 #22

Nope, Go reach back into your bag. rug Feb 2015 #23

So he/she/it is real... truebrit71 Feb 2015 #25

Nope, try again. rug Feb 2015 #27

Still not seeing proof or evidence... truebrit71 Feb 2015 #31

See #32. rug Feb 2015 #34

Still not seeing verifiable evidence. truebrit71 Feb 2015 #37

I'm still not seeing an experiment that will provide the data. rug Feb 2015 #40

I'd be quite surprised if you can provide skepticscott Feb 2015 #38

The freedom to speak one's opinions is the big winner. trotsky Feb 2015 #13

You wouldn't be referring to the jury, would you? rug Feb 2015 #15

Yes, but the people speaking their opinions skepticscott Feb 2015 #17

Such thin skin. rug Feb 2015 #28

Speaking of thin skin, you sure got quiet in that thread Cartoonist linked. AtheistCrusader Feb 2015 #44

I change trains when the first one runs out of steam. rug Feb 2015 #49

Winner: Stephen Frye. Loser: God. Iggo Feb 2015 #51