The "What will you accept as evidence" dodge / eva

[Zzyzx]

.
Often it these debates when someone is asked to substantiate / verify / support claims or stories the response is "What will you accept"?

My response:

When I present an idea it is my responsibility to provide verification, NOT ask "what will you accept"?

In fact, I don't care what a debate opponent will or will not accept because I present ideas for READERS to consider. Many of our threads receive tens of thousands of views. Those are the people I address while debate opponents are single individuals (who are often locked into an ideology that they attempt to defend – and are often not apparently interested in seeking truth, particularly if it conflicts with preconceived notions or beliefs).

Thus, when I take the position that long-dead bodies do not come back to life I am prepared to cite forensic biologist studies from several sources that detail the decomposition processes that occur after death and the irreversibility of those conditions.

If someone wishes to claim that long-dead bodies DID come back to life a long time ago I challenge them to provide evidence that their claim of knowledge is true. 1) If their response is "This book says so" I ask if the book can be shown to be truthful and accurate. 2) If they claim "it isn't impossible" I ask for demonstration that is a true statement – such as showing that it IS possible. The typical response is "Well, you can't prove that it is impossible" – which is a dodge / evasive maneuver that I trust is transparent to readers (though it may be convincing to fellow believers).

[AdHoc]

.
Often it these debates when someone is asked to substantiate / verify / support claims or stories the response is "What will you accept"?

My response:

When I present an idea it is my responsibility to provide verification, NOT ask "what will you accept"?

In fact, I don't care what a debate opponent will or will not accept because I present ideas for READERS to consider. Many of our threads receive tens of thousands of views. Those are the people I address while debate opponents are single individuals (who are often locked into an ideology that they attempt to defend – and are often not apparently interested in seeking truth, particularly if it conflicts with preconceived notions or beliefs).

Thus, when I take the position that long-dead bodies do not come back to life I am prepared to cite forensic biologist studies from several sources that detail the decomposition processes that occur after death and the irreversibility of those conditions.

If someone wishes to claim that long-dead bodies DID come back to life a long time ago I challenge them to provide evidence that their claim of knowledge is true. 1) If their response is "This book says so" I ask if the book can be shown to be truthful and accurate. 2) If they claim "it isn't impossible" I ask for demonstration that is a true statement – such as showing that it IS possible. The typical response is "Well, you can't prove that it is impossible" – which is a dodge / evasive maneuver that I trust is transparent to readers (though it may be convincing to fellow believers).

Zzyzx,
I'm not so sure I totally agree with you...

While I do think saying "You can't prove its impossible" is a dodge, in my opinion asking what evidence you would accept isn't.

First because I personally have used that "dodge". I didn't knowingly intend it as a dodge but I still believe the conclusion that it suggests. There is no evidence that could prove the existence of God... At least not to me.

Secondly lets consider someone asserts the existence of say, faeries. I would be very skeptical of that assertion as fact and would say as much. If they asked "What evidence do you require to change your belief?" I would be honest and say no evidence would make me change my belief.

But if there was some evidence that would convince me, which there isn't, I would tell them to go and get it.

E.g. Go and get me a live faery so I can see it for myself in person.

And also bring a straitjacket and a set of gravity boots 'cause I'll need them right afterwards.

Why can't atheists just say what evidence they would accept or admit that there is no evidence that would convince them?

[Divine Insight]

I personally have no problem with the question, "What evidence would you accept?"

I have a very solid reply to that.

To start with (and this would only be a beginning), the first "evidence" I would accept would be to have ancient scriptures that were not extremely self-contradictory, unintelligent, and absolutely absurd, but instead were actually coherent and intelligent.

Since that's not the case with the Biblical scriptures, then we don't even have a valid place to start much less to build upon.

I would further remind (or bring to the attention of the religious proselytizer for the first time) that my beef is with any supposed supreme creator who might have been associated with the Biblical scriptures.

There is nothing that a proselytizer or evangelist can do to correct the failings of this supposed supreme being.

In short, if the "God" of the Bible and/or Jesus has failed to convince me, then no mortal proselytizer or evangelists could ever possibly convince me. In fact, if they were to succeed in doing so that would make them superior to both Jesus and God in terms of being a better communicator/teacher.

Therefore no proselytizer or evangelist can help the Bible.

So that's my answer to their challenge, "What would it take to convince you?"

My answer:

It would have taken God or Jesus, and they both failed miserably and have fallen flat on their faces in the mud. (of course I say this metaphorically since I'm convince that both of these characters were indeed nothing more than fictional characters to begin with). This is not to say that some guy named "Jesus" never lived, but rather than the rumors of him being the son of Yahweh are total baloney.

Therefore there is nothing any evangelical mortal can do to help them short of going back and having the whole Biblical canon rewritten in a manner that actually displays some sort of intelligence and coherence.

So that's what they need to do. They need to go back several thousand years and fix this God up.

That's what it would take to convince me.

And nothing they can say today would change the absurdities and stupidity of the Biblical canon, IMHO.

Even if there actually existed a God who was precisely as the Biblical Canon describes, that so-called "God" wouldn't be worthy of my worship or respect. He would have no choice but to damn me precisely as his demonic character demands.

And in doing so he will have proven me right.

[AdHoc]

I personally have no problem with the question, "What evidence would you accept?"

I have a very solid reply to that.

To start with (and this would only be a beginning), the first "evidence" I would accept would be to have ancient scriptures that were not extremely self-contradictory, unintelligent, and absolutely absurd, but instead were actually coherent and intelligent.

Since that's not the case with the Biblical scriptures, then we don't even have a valid place to start much less to build upon.

I would further remind (or bring to the attention of the religious proselytizer for the first time) that my beef is with any supposed supreme creator who might have been associated with the Biblical scriptures.

There is nothing that a proselytizer or evangelist can do to correct the failings of this supposed supreme being.

In short, if the "God" of the Bible and/or Jesus has failed to convince me, then no mortal proselytizer or evangelists could ever possibly convince me. In fact, if they were to succeed in doing so that would make them superior to both Jesus and God in terms of being a better communicator/teacher.

Therefore no proselytizer or evangelist can help the Bible.

So that's my answer to their challenge, "What would it take to convince you?"

My answer:

It would have taken God or Jesus, and they both failed miserably and have fallen flat on their faces in the mud. (of course I say this metaphorically since I'm convince that both of these characters were indeed nothing more than fictional characters to begin with). This is not to say that some guy named "Jesus" never lived, but rather than the rumors of him being the son of Yahweh are total baloney.

Therefore there is nothing any evangelical mortal can do to help them short of going back and having the whole Biblical canon rewritten in a manner that actually displays some sort of intelligence and coherence.

So that's what they need to do. They need to go back several thousand years and fix this God up.

That's what it would take to convince me.

And nothing they can say today would change the absurdities and stupidity of the Biblical canon, IMHO.

Even if there actually existed a God who was precisely as the Biblical Canon describes, that so-called "God" wouldn't be worthy of my worship or respect. He would have no choice but to damn me precisely as his demonic character demands.

And in doing so he will have proven me right.

Exactly.
And I think if I was an atheist I would have no problem with the question either.

DI, as an aside... I've heard your thoughts about God and the bible and so I wonder why do you belong to the group "Disciple of Jesus"?

If I felt the way you do about God and Jesus I certainly wouldn't want to label myself a disciple.

[Zzyzx]

.
Adding to what AH and DI have said: I could be convinced that a supernatural entity existed without personally witnessing – IF it appeared in public and said "Notice that all your weapons of war have disappeared. Don't make any more or I will be angry; and I know where you live" -- then reports worldwide confirmed the disappearance of weapons. Of course, this would not indicate that the entity was a "god" or was in any way similar to any of the thousands of gods proposed and worshiped by humans. However, I would be convinced that it had abilities we regard as supernatural (and decidedly superhuman).

A response I have used to the "what evidence will you accept" ploy is – Think of the evidence that it would take to convince you that Quetzalcoatl is the real deal and the Bible God is a fake. Present that level of evidence and I am a likely convert. If you cannot, you are just blowing smoke and wasting your time and mine.

[Divine Insight]

DI, as an aside... I've heard your thoughts about God and the bible and so I wonder why do you belong to the group "Disciple of Jesus"?

If I felt the way you do about God and Jesus I certainly wouldn't want to label myself a disciple.

It's a long story, but at the time I joined that group there were many discussions going on about what it takes to be a "Disciple of Jesus", and what it means to be a "True Christian" and so on blah, blah, blah.

I noticed at that time that there were quite a wide range of explanations for why different people claimed to be a "Disciple of Jesus" and what it even meant to them.

So I thought about what Jesus means to me. And my view of Jesus is quite different from the Christian view. At that time I held that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist (I still hold that view today). Therefore I realized that I could abstractly claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus" within the context of what that means to me. In fact, it would be no different from being a "Disciple of Buddha".

And to be a "Disciple" simply means to be a "follower" or even a "supporter" of whatever values you might attribute to your "teacher".

Jesus was indeed a "teacher" even though I had no need to take his classes.

But the main point that I wanted to make with that statement is that there is no need to believe in the Christian dogma to claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus". There is no need to believe in the rumors that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh. There is no need to believe in anything "Christian" to claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus".

All of that depends entirely on how a person views Jesus.

I view Jesus as a grossly misunderstood mystic preacher who was trying to bring the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism into his home culture. Therefore I felt that I could claim to be his "disciple".

I also thought that having that on my list of user groups might cause people to ask me about giving me a chance to explain basically what I've just explained here.

Ironically, after having that on my user group list for several years I think you are the the first person to actually ask why it's there.

I actually do support the moral values that Jesus was said to have taught. I just don't buy into the whole demigod thing. I also reject that Jesus ever said that he supported every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law. I don't accept everything that is printed in the New Testament Rumors.

I think you might notice to that Elijah John also belongs to the user group "Disciple of Jesus", yet he doesn't believe the New Testament claims that Jesus is the only begotten son of Yahweh either.

In short, I figured if everyone else can play these silly games why can't I?

We can all claim to be whatever we so desire. In fact, on this particular forum website it's actually considered uncivil to challenge a person's personal claims concerning how they care to label themselves.

~~~~

And finally, and most importantly, I honesty do believe that if the real Jesus ever did reappear on this earth he would most certainly consider me to be one of his good friends and supporters.

In spite of the fact that I reject the claims that he is the only begotten son of Yahweh, I have always upheld the moral values that Jesus taught. So I see no reason why Jesus would have any bone to pick with me.

So in that sense I feel confident that Jesus himself would be proud to see me proclaiming to be his disciple.

At least I don't preach bigotry and condemnation to others in Jesus' name.

If I ever choose to condemn others I'll do it in my own name.

[AdHoc]

DI, as an aside... I've heard your thoughts about God and the bible and so I wonder why do you belong to the group "Disciple of Jesus"?

If I felt the way you do about God and Jesus I certainly wouldn't want to label myself a disciple.

It's a long story, but at the time I joined that group there were many discussions going on about what it takes to be a "Disciple of Jesus", and what it means to be a "True Christian" and so on blah, blah, blah.

I noticed at that time that there were quite a wide range of explanations for why different people claimed to be a "Disciple of Jesus" and what it even meant to them.

So I thought about what Jesus means to me. And my view of Jesus is quite different from the Christian view. At that time I held that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist (I still hold that view today). Therefore I realized that I could abstractly claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus" within the context of what that means to me. In fact, it would be no different from being a "Disciple of Buddha".

And to be a "Disciple" simply means to be a "follower" or even a "supporter" of whatever values you might attribute to your "teacher".

Jesus was indeed a "teacher" even though I had no need to take his classes.

But the main point that I wanted to make with that statement is that there is no need to believe in the Christian dogma to claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus". There is no need to believe in the rumors that Jesus was the Son of Yahweh. There is no need to believe in anything "Christian" to claim to be a "Disciple of Jesus".

All of that depends entirely on how a person views Jesus.

I view Jesus as a grossly misunderstood mystic preacher who was trying to bring the higher moral values of Mahayana Buddhism into his home culture. Therefore I felt that I could claim to be his "disciple".

I also thought that having that on my list of user groups might cause people to ask me about giving me a chance to explain basically what I've just explained here.

Ironically, after having that on my user group list for several years I think you are the the first person to actually ask why it's there.

I'm always interested in what people believe... I noticed it a long time ago, I'm surprised it took me this long to ask.

I actually do support the moral values that Jesus was said to have taught. I just don't buy into the whole demigod thing.

I don't buy that either.

I also reject that Jesus ever said that he supported every jot and tittle of the Old Testament law. I don't accept everything that is printed in the New Testament Rumors.

I think you might notice to that Elijah John also belongs to the user group "Disciple of Jesus", yet he doesn't believe the New Testament claims that Jesus is the only begotten son of Yahweh either.

I didn't know that Elijah John doesn't believe that but I haven't heard him refer to Jesus Christ as "some guy named Jesus".

In short, I figured if everyone else can play these silly games why can't I?

We can all claim to be whatever we so desire. In fact, on this particular forum website it's actually considered uncivil to challenge a person's personal claims concerning how they care to label themselves.

That seems weird... I thought this forum was all about respectfully challenging and reasoning with people?

~~~~

And finally, and most importantly, I honesty do believe that if the real Jesus ever did reappear on this earth he would most certainly consider me to be one of his good friends and supporters.

In spite of the fact that I reject the claims that he is the only begotten son of Yahweh, I have always upheld the moral values that Jesus taught. So I see no reason why Jesus would have any bone to pick with me.

So in that sense I feel confident that Jesus himself would be proud to see me proclaiming to be his disciple.

Amen

At least I don't preach bigotry and condemnation to others in Jesus' name.

If I ever choose to condemn others I'll do it in my own name.

I agree. Jesus Christ did not come into the world to condemn it and so I don't think so you could condemn the world and be His disciple.

[Paprika]

I agree. Jesus Christ did not come into the world to condemn it

Right, that job was for the Spirit, the one who indwells the believers:

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

[AdHoc]

I agree. Jesus Christ did not come into the world to condemn it

Right, that job was for the Spirit, the one who indwells the believers:

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

Good point Paprika, I would add that the Holy Spirit convicts us but doesn't condemn us. Conviction is different than condemnation. Conviction encourages change and involves our conscience which is aware of everything we've done... Unless we have no conscience.

Condemnation on the other hand brings fear and ultimately despair.

[Zzyzx]

.

I agree. Jesus Christ did not come into the world to condemn it

Right, that job was for the Spirit, the one who indwells the believers:

Good point Paprika, I would add that the Holy Spirit convicts us but doesn't condemn us. Conviction is different than condemnation. Conviction encourages change and involves our conscience which is aware of everything we've done... Unless we have no conscience.

Is this presented as discussion of hypothetical entities or real / existing / actual entities? If the latter, is there evidence other than ancient tales, testimonials, opinions that said entities do any condemning or convicting?

Condemnation on the other hand brings fear and ultimately despair.

What entity (hypothetical or real) is proposed as doing the condemning part (and bringing about "fear and ultimately despair")?