Requiring collateral is not the same as requiring evidence. I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be some amazing stuff. Puff, puff, pass, bro.
If you are making a loan and you require evidence, that means that you will want to know where the money will be spent. You will want proof that the person has the income he is stating. You will want to review his credit. You will evidence to indicate that he is going to keep his job.
Having collateral, on the other hand, is essentially saying, "As a policy, we don't lend money. Sell us your collateral and, on the indicated day, you can buy it back with interest. If you fail, we'll just sell it to someone else." No evidence is required.
No. A philosophy forum has nothing to do with evidence. Have you never heard of skepticism or rationalism? Have you never heard of Mary the Super Scientist or other Knowledge Arguments for the non-physical world? Your claims that evidence are required are akin to having a science forum but saying that all arguments must be rooted in the Bible. It's ridiculous!No, if I t remind you of such Christians, then you are wildly wrong. The fact is that this is a philosophy forum, where claims are expected to be backed by evidence. Otherwise people will make any manner of claims, so unsubstantiated claims must be challenged.
Yes, I've heard this argument plenty of times. I note, however, that your argument is not backed up by any evidence. Shame on you — demanding evidence from others but exonerating yourself.Pacal's wager is absurd. If God exists, it won't be clueless enough to be fooled by a post-ape's transparent manipulations?
Your argument is basically this: God will know you don't really believe in him. So, he'll give you zero reward for your efforts. What's the assumption? The assumption is that God saves people who believe. What backing does the atheist offer? Nothing at all. But, I give you Matthew 19:16-19, which I will paraphrase. A certain man comes to Jesus to ask what he should do to "have eternal life." Do you think Jesus said, "Just have faith in me?" Nope! He said, Keep the commandments. The man questions which ones? Jesus says, "Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal. Don't bear false witness. Honor your father and mother. Love your neighbor."
So, according to mainstream Christian theology, which you mischaracterize, belief is not required only obedience.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I, too, have gained impressions over the years of the blatant stupidity of evidentialism. I have presented the argument here and offered you the chance to back up your claims with evidence. When are you going to start doing so? I mean, I know it's fun to get emotional and rail against Christians, but that affects me no more than a tirade against Buddhists would affect you.We gain impressions over the years. So often I have have seen examples of blatant stupidity, dishonesty and manipulativeness in many, many Christian claims over the years. And every time their dodgy claims are disproved, they NEVER admit being wrong! It's always just a quiet revision of claims so that the God of the Gaps remains possible.
I doubt that. Most arguments in favor of evolution usually break the basic rules of logic from the get go. Here's a sample argument in favor of evolution:Evolution is obviously real, so what anyone thinks of it doesn't matter. Evolution is indisputable in every possible way - with literal mountains of evidence for and absolutely zero evidence against.
Atheist: Evolution is indisputable.
Zosimus: What exactly is evolution?
Atheist: Evolution is change! For example, if one animal is genetically defective, it will die without offspring. So, the genetic makeup of the population changes over time.
Zosimus: That makes sense. I believe that.
Atheist: Great! So, God doesn't exist! Life started without any supernatural intervention! We are descended from apes! Our closest cousins are chimpanzees, with whom we share an ancestor.
Zosimus: That's quite a leap! You went from 'the genetic makeup of a population changes over time' to all of that?
Atheist: You said you accepted evolution.
Zosimus: Sure, but you said evolution was just change.
Atheist: That was then. Now that you have accepted evolution, I'm changing the definition to mean dozens of other things that you don't believe in and for which I have no evidence! Sucker!!!!!
Oops. Here we go down the road... I'm supposed to accept that evolution is just change and, in a few sentences or posts, you will violate the law of identity and evolution will mean something different. Am I right?Evolution is basically the same process as biological development to maturity, albeit writ large, applying to the entire biosphere. Imagine life without evolution. It would be like being conceived and never changing, never growing from zygote to embryo to foetus to baby to child to teen to adult to dead meat.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... oh, I'm sorry. I nodded off. When are you going to stop railing against Christians and answer the question: What is the evidence for evidence?If a gods exists, evolution is its main tool. In fact, fundamentalist Christian denial of evolution is one of the best examples of the inherent naiveté of Abrahamic religions as compared with more thoroughly developed and more sophisticated far eastern counterparts, which pragmatically acknowledge natural dynamics. Fundamentalist Abrahamics, on the other hand, pretend that the phenomena don't exist to justify their literal reading of obviously metaphorical passages of the Bible.