Throw Lawrence Krauss on the pile

What's more mind-boggling about these fanatic modern atheist, who are far to often obsessed with Islam and Muslim and who've become completely engrossed up in the glorification of themselves and literally have become blind to reality, neither able to see the fault with themselves and unfit to recognize differences and views. Is how they are indifferent to their own domestic issues. Ignoring the fact that 50 million Americans live in miserable poverty, 38 thousands Americans are killed each year by guns and that America houses 25 percent of the world's total prison population. However, their wet dreams and delusions of self-proclaimed "enlightened" and "liberators" not only of the "backward muzzies" in the east but the whole world, is what previously has committed millions of brutality, persecution and death. Such delusions provided us with the scientific racism, Nazi eugenics, pogroms, the persecution and massacre of theist in the 20th century and more.

@shootER

I thought the unwritten rule was that duals had to be interesting and funny to avoid a swift ban hammer?

Or are we supposed to believe this idiot is a real new poster?

Smells like shit and quacks IMO.

FTFY.

Call me when you refer to Christians as "animals" for choosing prayer over medicine to save their kid, or white collar criminals as "animals," like you do with illegal immigrants. When you rage against a guy like EPA head Scott Pruitt, who thinks Gawd tells him to rape the Earth, with the same level of vitriol as you do a suicide bomber, we'll talk. Until then, you're a bigot in my book. Because Pruitt's policies are going to lead to more deaths in the long run, than will the actions of any individual suicide bomber that causes you to shit your pants on any given day.

While I don't care for atheism (of course) there is little reason to blame Krauss's atheism. More like basic jerkism.

Is he one of the ones that wrote a book about science and Star Trek? If its the one I'm thinking of, good book.

Atheism isn't an ice cream flavor you can reject for being icky poo to your personal taste bud pattern.
Either it's true, or it isn't.
Either there's a God, or there isn't.
If there's a God, where's the evidence?
And you don't get to use the Bible, because the Bible isn't evidence for itself.
Evidence doesn't work that way.
Otherwise, you could convince yourself a rainy day is a sunny day, and also poof away the resulting pneumonia.

You don't get pneumonia from rainy days or cool and damp weather.

You don't miss the point, the point whizzes by you like bullets in "The Matrix".

I know what you're talking about. Just don't know why you included the clearly false statement about pneumonia in it.

I've asked this of atheists many, many times. What kind of evidence would it take for you to accept there is a God?

The opposite of the flimsy evidence you accept.

This shit where God reveals himself to one guy, and no one else sees it?
Yeah, none of that shit.
I need a crowd to see it, and everyone to have their cellphones out.

This shit where a supernatural miracle happens that everyone can allegedly see, but no one writes it down in their diaries, or in history books, or paints it on a wall or a clay pot?
Yeah, none of that either.
Everyone has to remember it, like fucking 9/11.
If just one guy saw 9/11, that's a hallucination.
Or a lie.

If the magic boogeyman writes a book, I wanna see him write it.
Or, at the very least, plug his work on Steve Colbert.
I'm not going to let some middleman tell me to stone gay people, or slaughter Midianites.
If I'm going to be commended to murder, I want the fucko to look me in the eyes.
None of this Chinese telephone shit.

And no special pleading.
"God's countenance is too brilliant to look upon!".
Bullshit, that's a cop out.
Turn into a form I can look at.
Turn into George Burns.
George burns is dead, so a walking around talking George Burns would be a miracle in itself.

In other words no evidence will ever be accepted by you because everything you listed has happened.

In a book of Bronze Age fairy tales corroborated by no one.

We accept other accounts as historically accurate from further back than the Bible.

Are they also depictions of magical events?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not mundane evidence.
Mundane history doesn't require extraordinary evidence.
Historical records of Julius Ceaser don't say he could turn horse poop into delicious strawberry cupcakes before people's eyes.
The Bible kinda has that problem.

The Bible never claims that either.

Wait, what? God has appeared to a crowd that recorded it with cellphones? And on Colbert? And with the face of George Burns?

I assumed the "cellphones" comment by "Diacanu" was a sarcastic one.

As well as all of the other ones? What did you mean then when you said that any of it had actually happened?

For the record, if I am to believe that an almighty being wants me to know it exists, I would expect direct evidence, simply because there is absolutely no reason why that being should settle for anything else. Not vague feelings, not second-hand reports, much less reports that are centuries old in languages most of the living don't understand. Because whenever an almighty being wants something to happen, that thing happens, by definition. This would, for a being that wants to be known, include direct evidence; no less than, for a benevolent being, a complete stop to little children dying of cancer, to helpless women being raped, to reruns of Star Trek: Voyager, and to famines.

I understand what you "expect" or "wish for" but don't you think providing that level of "evidence" would basically be "forcing" people to believe whether they wanted to or not?

The best evidence will always force rational minds to learn whatever knowledge it proves to be true. That's what evidence means. Knowing things is not about what you want -- if you only know what you want to know, that's an (admittedly very common) fallacy.

I'm saying if God is providing incontrovertible evidence of his existence then where does free will come in? If you have no choice to believe?

Yeah, cuz looking out the window and seeing that it's raining steals your free will all the time.

I know when I look at a peanut butter sandwich, touch it and feel bread, and put it in my mouth and taste bread and peanut butter, all that evidence steals my free will, and the peanut butter sandwich controls me.

Belief is not a matter of choice. You get to choose what you do. You don't get to choose what appears true to you. I could not -- rationally, at least -- choose to believe in God.

Poop into cupcakes, water into wine, sticks into snakes, what's the difference?

Free will comes into play if you decide to worship him or not. Just like while we have no choice but to accept that gravity is real, we can choose to dislike it when it makes us fall out of a tree.

Which happens to be exactly how my Catholic priest, back when I was a child, would explain "our" reaction to Protestants. Oh, you have accepted Christ as your personal saviour? How nice of you. Have you also accepted gravity as the force that binds you to this planet? And if so, did you make sure to inform gravity of this decision? Daily?

And if it were otherwise, we would have to accept all of the supernatural accomplishments of the Olympians along with Jehova's.

I think your original question is answered at this point, right? You asked what evidence we would accept for the existence of God. We would want evidence that proves his existence, as opposed to a situation where you have to believe in him against all rational evidence, or not at all.