Do you believe in God?

[FoRiZon]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

Sorry. But while some are very reasonable, some others are, honestly, like this.

Not that i approve hardline religious people, but some thing are meant to be said.

 

[Mike458]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

Sorry. But while some are very reasonable, some others are, honestly, like this.

Not that i approve harline religious people, but some thing are meant to be said.

I will check that out as soon as I get home.

Off topic: My schools wifi BLOCKED the sight for this reason: Tasteless.

WHY?!?!?! I WANT TO SHOUT AT STUFF THAT MAKES NO SENSE!

This has been posted in the Homosexuality Discussion Thread, but I will post it here because it makes absolutely no sense for this to exist: http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/

I have no words.

 

[Carbonox]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

Sorry. But while some are very reasonable, some others are, honestly, like this.

Not that i approve hardline religious people, but some thing are meant to be said.

I should've known the word "Islamophobia" would eventually pop up. Why not "Catholicphobia"? The Catholic Church is, after all, a rather popular target for outspoken atheists (all for the right reasons though) but people don't seem to jump into its defence quite so eagerly that they'd invent a whole word with negative connotations to diminish its opposition.

 

[Hun200kmh]

From all I see and read the catholic church doesn't care much ... well, I'm a catholic and I don't care much on whatever attack is made, regardless of how insulting it might be. As long as it's only words I will dismiss an insulting atheist (or anti-catholic theist) as I would to any annoying insulting debater on any other issue, from the benefits to cooking of microwave ovens all the way up to the importance of the Ukraine unrest in the Eurozone crisis.

When people to start to get killed, or just discriminated, because of their religion (catholic or not), that's when I do mind.

 

[FoRiZon]

I should've known the word "Islamophobia" would eventually pop up. Why not "Catholicphobia"? The Catholic Church is, after all, a rather popular target for outspoken atheists (all for the right reasons though) but people don't seem to jump into its defence quite so eagerly that they'd invent a whole word with negative connotations to diminish its opposition.

Its probably because its the problem faced on the world caused of the whole politics thing, so its easier to pull off by the writer.

But that is off topic. I agree though. In this atheists case, its more prevalent on the Christian world, though in Islam world its also much pronounced.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I should've known the word "Islamophobia" would eventually pop up. Why not "Catholicphobia"? The Catholic Church is, after all, a rather popular target for outspoken atheists (all for the right reasons though) but people don't seem to jump into its defence quite so eagerly that they'd invent a whole word with negative connotations to diminish its opposition.

Most probably because "Catholicphobia" isn't a word. Christophobia is though. Perhaps the people you've read using extractions of Islamphobia (myself included) actually meant to use the word in context.

 

[MatskiMonk]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

Sorry. But while some are very reasonable, some others are, honestly, like this.

Not that i approve hardline religious people, but some thing are meant to be said.

Certainly describes the way I perceive this thread sometimes.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

This statement basically invalidates all of your arguments based on the Bible against god.

?

Well, if you find evidence, then scientists can help you test that proof. Otherwise, there is not enough evidence for such a god.

No Science has never been able to conclude anything about it and IMO never will.
It can only be known personally or individually.

Now aside from the middle part of that being gibberish all this does is confirm that we have a control group that shows a deity is not needed for morality, and have had one that has been around longer that Christianity.

Perhaps, but it has had little if any comparative influence on Europe and the Americas, in relation to Christianity.
So as a control group it is irrelevant in that respect.
More importantly the point is not that some moral standard exists in the absense of a deity, but that there is nothing to differentiate and distinguish on higher authority what the moral standard should be.

Therefore Buddha's standard has no basis of higher authority.
So his moral standard is equal to anyone elses and vice versa.

The differing strengths of evidence is not another matter, its the key matter.

When we have no evidence favoring either proposition, we must suspend belief in both."

No, as clearly shown repeatedly now, that is only one of two acceptable approaches.
They can both be considered true.

We have evidence favoring one and you are still relying on the existence of Jesus as a divine being for evidence at all for you argument (of which we have none).

I asked you about this earlier.
If you have subjectively prejudged the documented testimonial evidence invalid to start with please explain the logic in attempting to compare something contained in it as evidential.
That makes your argument of no logical value.

The simple fact of the matter is, "it is true, or, it is false."
Objectively, there is no evidence from without to support either side sufficiently enough for any logical determination.
In that respect it is inconclusive as to either one.
That is the only objective and logical conclusion to be drawn.
So consequently it is open to individual interpretation as to belief.

I think I know where you stand on that.

Circular logic, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, this has been explained countless times over the years and yet you still ignore it.

Oh yes I see, and attempting to use the Bible to disprove the Bible is magically non circular logic?

I don't get this, when I document for example that my pen is made from plastic and thus not e.g. made from stone, how could you use that as evidence that it is in fact made from stone?

If in your example there was no conclusive evidence to determine which material it was made from, someone from without could not discount the fact that it could be plastic or stone.
If you document that it is made from plastic, then you have testified to that as valid and it stands alone as evidential.(not conclusive however)
If you didn't mention that it was plastic in an earlier document, but later you did, that would not conclusively prove it wasn't plastic, nor that your documented testimony is not valid.
It would evidentially support a percieved inconsistency in your documented testimony.

 

[Danoff]

I asked you about this earlier.
If you have subjectively prejudged the documented testimonial evidence invalid to start with please explain the logic in attempting to compare something contained in it as evidential.
That makes your argument of no logical value.

The simple fact of the matter is, "it is true, or, it is false."
Objectively, there is no evidence from without to support either side sufficiently enough for any logical determination.
In that respect it is inconclusive as to either one.
That is the only objective and logical conclusion to be drawn.
So consequently it is open to individual interpretation as to belief.

There is an invisible pink unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.

There is no support for it, and there is no support against it. What is the conclusion to be drawn? That it's just as valid to believe in the pink unicorn as it is to not believe in it?

There is an invisible orange unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible blue unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible purple unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible red unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible blue sea mist spray colored unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible copper unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible oriental perl metallic unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible silbergrau unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible imola red unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible morning dew colored unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.

All of them are standing right next to you (and 11,765 more). There is no support for it, and there is no support against it. What is the conclusion to be drawn? That it's just as valid to believe in them as it is to not believe in it?

It is only logical to accept things for which evidence exists.

 

[Scaff]

Perhaps, but it has had little if any comparative influence on Europe and the Americas, in relation to Christianity.
So as a control group it is irrelevant in that respect.
More importantly the point is not that some moral standard exists in the absense of a deity, but that there is nothing to differentiate and distinguish on higher authority what the moral standard should be.

How much and how often do you want to try and move the goalposts on this?

That moral standards could not exist without a deity and specifically the influence of a Christian deity was exactly what you claimed, I've already cited you saying as much.

Therefore Buddha's standard has no basis of higher authority.
So his moral standard is equal to anyone elses and vice versa.

No one other than you started the basis of higher authority so I'm not sure why you are now attempting to prove you own invalid standard to yourself?

No, as clearly shown repeatedly now, that is only one of two acceptable approaches.
They can both be considered true.

Anything can be considered true, that's not the issue in question, its the evidence for them. As such this point is pointless.

I asked you about this earlier.
If you have subjectively prejudged the documented testimonial evidence invalid to start with please explain the logic in attempting to compare something contained in it as evidential.
That makes your argument of no logical value.

The simple fact of the matter is, "it is true, or, it is false."
Objectively, there is no evidence from without to support either side sufficiently enough for any logical determination.
In that respect it is inconclusive as to either one.
That is the only objective and logical conclusion to be drawn.
So consequently it is open to individual interpretation as to belief.

I think I know where you stand on that.

Only if you're quite frankly unable to separate the claimed source of the content (for which we have no evidence) from either the writer of the content (that we have evidence to support being a mortal man/men) or the document itself (which we have evidence of the existence of and for the changes made to it).

You are attempting to use the Bible as proof of the first, that Jesus as a divine being is the source of the Bible because the Bible says he is the Source of the Bible. That is circular logic and has no external evidence to support it.

That men edited the Bible, added sections to it and have done so over the years has a significant body of evidence to support it, as does the existence of the work itself.

Your utterly bizarre attempt at logic would be the same as claiming that Princess Irulan exists/existed/will exist as a real person because the book Dune cites her as the source of numerous parts of itself, and should that not be accepted then we have no evidence that Dune exists as a book or that Frank Herbert wrote it!

Oh yes I see, and attempting to use the Bible to disprove the Bible is magically non circular logic?

Except that's not what I am doing, something that is both acutely clear and you're oddly utterly blind to.

All of which is on top of the fact that you are still using a psychological argument to true and argue a physical evidence, which invalidates your argument from the off.

 

[sammy neuman]

Science cannot prove that anything doesn't exist, except by elimination of all possible scenarios in which is could exist.

If someone claims there's a cat in this box, then I can prove that not true by observing that there is not a cat in the box. But if someone claims that somewhere in the still expanding universe there is a cat with pink polka dots and the voice of Murray Walker, then by the rules of observation as we understand them it's impossible to make an observation that absolutely rules out the possibility of its existence.

Fortunately, science doesn't claim to be able to disprove existence. If we don't have positive proof of something's existence, then the assumption is that it doesn't exist. As there are uncountable billions of things for which we don't have proof, the statistical likelihood for any one of them is that this will be true. For the ones for which it isn't true, it's a certainty that proof will eventually turn up. And one could reasonably claim that until the object in question is actually interacting in any fashion with a human there's little practical difference for us between it existing or not existing.

As far as God, logic already proves him impossible in the omniscient/omnipotent/omnipresent form. Likewise the Bible is established to be a flawed document.

It's absolutely fine for you (and others) to say that you believe in a god that is however you choose to envision him, and that the Bible is a reference document instead of God's Holy Truth. I think that's quite rational. But it's still never going to be disproven, because it's not based on anything observable, and it doesn't make any predictions that can be tested.

For a scientist, one of the worst things you can do is overly complicate your explanation of a system beyond what is strictly necessary to explain your observations. That is what God is, a complication that doesn't help explain anything. I understand that it makes some people comfortable to believe in God, and that's great. A lot of atheists are former theists and know what it's like, or at least it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to see how the feeling that God is up there looking after you would be comforting. Almost everyone felt like that as children with our parents looking after us, unless you were an orphan or came from a seriously broken home.

But as demonstrated by this thread, a lot of theists don't understand the opposite position. I don't necessarily want to lump you in with them, as I don't know what you understand, I'm just making a general observation about some of the more outspoken theists in here.

They don't understand how people could be comfortable basing their actions purely on what they've seen, and being willing to adapt to changing observations. They don't understand how someone could do without rules, or refuse to acknowledge authority. This is something that some theists have not experienced and cannot imagine, and as such there's a complete disconnect when they attempt to converse with atheists. They simply cannot comprehend why an atheist would think in that way. Or a scientist for that matter, because while the two are not synonyms the thought patterns are remarkably similar.

Science will never challenge your faith, because faith isn't something that science deals with. If your belief in god ever leads you to generate testable predictions, science can help you test them. But that's all it will ever do. It will help you learn, if you wish to do so.

That was well said.
A note on the cat: Even if we know there is a cat in the box, we won't know if it is alive or dead unless we look. But don't over-think this. This does not mean that the cat exists in some indeterminate state until we look, because the cat knows if it is alive, although it will not know if it is dead.
IMO, if I don't understand others' positions, I cannot understand my own, and failing some point of common reference, the only possible type of communication is what is known in diplomacy as a frank exchange of views.
I know what non-falsifiable means, but it tickles me sometimes to have the opportunity to thumb my nose.

 

[Denur]

If in your example there was no conclusive evidence to determine which material it was made from, someone from without could not discount the fact that it could be plastic or stone.
If you document that it is made from plastic, then you have testified to that as valid and it stands alone as evidential.(not conclusive however)
If you didn't mention that it was plastic in an earlier document, but later you did, that would not conclusively prove it wasn't plastic, nor that your documented testimony is not valid.
It would evidentially support a percieved inconsistency in your documented testimony.

No, it is a matter of relevance. Let me change the example a little bit. I could have written: "I'm sitting here sipping coffee from my cup", and continue at one point with: ".. accidentally knocking the cup from the desk, scattering glass all over the place". In the former part, the material was irrelevant. It only became relevant in the latter part. Whether or not you trust these statements, is a whole different matter. There is no perceived inconsistency.

Was Jesus considered relevant at the time he lived? If so, by whom? And can you guide me to documentation supporting this?

 

[Denur]

Circular logic, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible, this has been explained countless times
over the years and yet you still ignore it.

Oh yes I see, and attempting to use the Bible to disprove the Bible is magically non circular logic?

That's actually a pretty good question. But it shows that you're still not entirely sure what circular logic is. That and also this:

... according to Christ the only non faulty axioms, are in him and God the Father.

Did you say this based on the Bible, or did He say it to you personally? If it is the former, than that would be circular reasoning also. In case of the latter, it has as much meaning to a non-believer as little Susie blaming some mischief on her imaginary friend Jake.

Can you see the circular logic in the explanation for this example:

Example #2:

The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible.

Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail.

source: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/67-circular-reasoning.

Do you understand that explanation and how it reflects on you using the Bible to prove the Bible? If you do, then you'll hopefully also understand we are not trying to use the Bible to disprove (something else in) the Bible (that would indeed be circular reasoning). Instead, we are merely discrediting the Bible as a reliable source for pretty much anything. We are doing this by indicating all its internal contradictions (that go way beyond translation errors), its plagiary for many of its stories, what is not being said in the Bible, the lack of corroborating documentation and how much of its content conflicts with reality.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

There is an invisible pink unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.

There is no support for it, and there is no support against it. What is the conclusion to be drawn? That it's just as valid to believe in the pink unicorn as it is to not believe in it?

There is an invisible orange unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible blue unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible purple unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible red unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible blue sea mist spray colored unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible copper unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible oriental perl metallic unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible silbergrau unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible imola red unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.
There is an invisible morning dew colored unicorn that you cannot touch or otherwise sense standing right next to you right now.

All of them are standing right next to you (and 11,765 more). There is no support for it, and there is no support against it. What is the conclusion to be drawn? That it's just as valid to believe in them as it is to not believe in it?

Your example is not similar in comparison.

Something more in line with the Bible would be testimonial documentation of UFOs.

Nevertheless, in view of the fact that there is no evidence currently available of any variety to support existence, it would be logical to believe they do not exist.

However, even in your much more extreme and remote example one cannot inadvertently, declare or conclude with 100% certainty they do not exist.
That is also the logical stance.

Anything that there is no evidence for, logically resides in the realm of possibility and therefore cannot be completely concluded as false.

It is only logical to accept things for which evidence exists.

Evidence, or conclusive evidence?

Evidence abounds for the Christian God, but from without none of it is conclusive.

How much and how often do you want to try and move the goalposts on this?

That moral standards could not exist without a deity and specifically the influence of a Christian deity was exactly what you claimed, I've already cited you saying as much.

It's not that a moral standard of some variety would cease to exist.
"Anything goes" is still a moral standard, such as it is.

But rather as far as a moral standard that is generally in acceptance today, which is regionally the result of Christian influence, would eventually cease to exist.
If you remove the basis of higher moral authority, moral standards become subject to an individual justification and concepts basis.

No one other than you started the basis of higher authority so I'm not sure why you are now attempting to prove you own invalid standard to yourself?

It's hypothetical, but certainly not an invalid concept from a human nature perspective.
Given the option for everyone to make their own rules, logically it is a foregone conclusion that confusion, chaos and anarchy would easily result.

There is nothing to prove.
In the hypothetical Buddha's moral standard is just one among many.
If you like it you can embrace it, if not you can pick some other.
Or make up your own.

Anything can be considered true, that's not the issue in question, its the evidence for them. As such this point is pointless.

Hardly.
This has already been explained.
In proving the negative in question, there is only one answer between two possible choices.
True or false.
Therefore it is acceptable to approach from either side, both are false, or both are true.
Evidence exists for both.

Only if you're quite frankly unable to separate the claimed source of the content (for which we have no evidence) from either the writer of the content (that we have evidence to support being a mortal man/men) or the document itself (which we have evidence of the existence of and for the changes made to it).

The problem with your assessment is you are precluding under illogical assumption what is evidential.
Logically as the above explanation states, the answer is unknown.
But it is one of two possibilities.

You are attempting to use the Bible as proof of the first, that Jesus as a divine being is the source of the Bible because the Bible says he is the Source of the Bible. That is circular logic and has no external evidence to support it.

Again, hardly.
The Bible is claimed as a documented testemonial record of events.
No where is it claimed as anything else, or as a fictional story.
Therefore it stands as evidential to validity on it's own account.
However, inconclusive of course.
Consequently to assume it is fiction is just that, an assumption completely unsupported by any conclusive evidence.
And from an available evidence basis, an illogical conclusion.

That men edited the Bible, added sections to it and have done so over the years has a significant body of evidence to support it, as does the existence of the work itself.

Your utterly bizarre attempt at logic would be the same as claiming that Princess Irulan exists/existed/will exist as a real person because the book Dune cites her as the source of numerous parts of itself, and should that not be accepted then we have no evidence that Dune exists as a book or that Frank Herbert wrote it!

To the contrary, the logic employed is completely sound.
Your example as far as I know, is not claimed as a testimonial record of events or non-fiction.
In fact it's classified as "Science fiction".
That is a completely opposite example.

Except that's not what I am doing, something that is both acutely clear and you're oddly utterly blind to.

All of which is on top of the fact that you are still using a psychological argument to true and argue a physical evidence, which invalidates your argument from the off.

In the final analysis, to examine the Bible from without you can logically believe it is untrue,
or you can also logically believe it is true.
Thats a matter of individual perspective which may or maynot include evidence.
From a strictly evidential basis, since there is no conclusive evidence to prove it is false, you cannot logically conclude it is false.

No, it is a matter of relevance. Let me change the example a little bit. I could have written: "I'm sitting here sipping coffee from my cup", and continue at one point with: ".. accidentally knocking the cup from the desk, scattering glass all over the place". In the former part, the material was irrelevant. It only became relevant in the latter part. Whether or not you trust these statements, is a whole different matter. There is no perceived inconsistency.

Yes, but how does that relate.

Was Jesus considered relevant at the time he lived? If so, by whom? And can you guide me to documentation supporting this?

Yes the Bible.

 

[Scaff]

It's not that a moral standard of some variety would cease to exist.
"Anything goes" is still a moral standard, such as it is.

But rather as far as a moral standard that is generally in acceptance today, which is regionally the result of Christian influence, would eventually cease to exist.
If you remove the basis of higher moral authority, moral standards become subject to an individual justification and concepts basis.

Your words "As I've said before, it is very easy to render judgements now under the benefit of 2000 yrs. of Christian influence."; we have a very large example of the benefit of over 2000 yrs of non-Christian influence, end result is not significantly better or worse that under the influence of the Abrahamic trio.

It's hypothetical, but certainly not an invalid concept from a human nature perspective.
Given the option for everyone to make their own rules, logically it is a foregone conclusion that confusion, chaos and anarchy would easily result.

Citation required.

There is nothing to prove.
In the hypothetical Buddha's moral standard is just one among many.
If you like it you can embrace it, if not you can pick some other.
Or make up your own.

Well actually their is, you made a claim that doesn't hold water.

Hardly.
This has already been explained.
In proving the negative in question, there is only one answer between two possible choices.
True or false.
Therefore it is acceptable to approach from either side, both are false, or both are true.
Evidence exists for both.

And you are still using a standard incorrectly (its a psychological standard not one for historic or physical evidence) and even within the incorrect standard you ignoring parts of it (for it to stand the evidence for both sides has to be either totally absent or of an equal standing - its not) and adding in your own requirements (forgetting that the evidence has to be equal and repeatedly adding the word conclusive).

The problem with your assessment is you are precluding under illogical assumption what is evidential.
Logically as the above explanation states, the answer is unknown.
But it is one of two possibilities.

Once again for the cheap seats (and do not misquote me again), I am saying that the standards of evidence are not equal (which is a requirement of the standard you are using incorrectly).

Again, hardly.
The Bible is claimed as a documented testemonial record of events.
No where is it claimed as anything else, or as a fictional story.
Therefore it stands as evidential to validity on it's own account.
However, inconclusive of course.
Consequently to assume it is fiction is just that, an assumption completely unsupported by any conclusive evidence.
And from an available evidence basis, an illogical conclusion.

Claimed by you and Christians as a "documented testemonial record of events", the problem with this is even if we were to take that at face value is error ridden, doesn't meet the physical evidence for many of the events it claims to document, has no supporting evidence for others, is contradictory, outright steals stories from older religions and uses plot devices commonly found in fiction.

Now lets consider the fact that not everyone considers it to be a "documented testemonial record of events", I certainly don't. I consider it to be a work of fiction based loosly around historic events and one that borrows heavily from older myths in the region.

As such stripped of its historic baggage and compared side by side with Dune they are two 'messiah' stories, the key difference being that one is a hell of a lot better written that the other.

To the contrary, the logic employed is completely sound.
Your example as far as I know, is not claimed as a testimonial record of events or non-fiction.
In fact it's classified as "Science fiction".
That is a completely opposite example.

No it is not sound as it depends utterly on the concept that the Bible is an accurate historical record being true, its not, its akin to claiming that Mel Gibson's Braveheart or U-571 are "documented testemonial record of events" as they are set around actual events. That they are set around these events doesn't make them anything other than nonsense and certainly doesn't make them valid evidence.

For that, they and the Bible would need outside evidence to either dismiss or prove them. Until you are able to do that the Bible is not a historic record, nor can it be used as proof of itself.

In the final analysis, to examine the Bible from without you can logically believe it is untrue,
or you can also logically believe it is true.

Or you could use evidence (real stuff, not its true because it says it true).

Thats a matter of individual perspective which may or maynot include evidence.
From a strictly evidential basis, since there is no conclusive evidence to prove it is false, you cannot logically conclude it is false.

And out with the word conclusive again.

For the last time, its not in the standard you are still using incorrectly.

 

[JKgo]

...I no longer can follow what's going on here anymore. Way too much gibberish, page after page. I'm out.

 

[CyborgGT]

"To the contrary, the logic employed is completely sound."

Do you talk like this in real life?

This is the first I've seen of this thread, since I'm never in this section... it happened to be seen from the last page! Me, I don't believe in any god/s, but - despite thinking Christians are the world's most judgmental insects in the world (that perspective and the vagueness of the bible scare me away from that religion) - I don't think it's impossible any exist. Arguing is pointless, considering you can't prove in either direction. Five... hundred... eighty-six. Congratulations.

 

[Famine]

Arguing is pointless, considering you can't prove in either direction.

This post contains a list of things you "can't prove in either direction".

I've put that last bit in quotes for a reason. Proof only goes in one direction. The list of things in that posts shows exactly why we don't ever attempt to prove the non-existence of things - because it's impossible to do so.

 

[FoRiZon]

...I no longer can follow what's going on here anymore. Way too much gibberish, page after page. I'm out.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-atheist-community-hurting-itself/

Sorry. But while some are very reasonable, some others are, honestly, like this.

Not that i approve hardline religious people, but some thing are meant to be said.

This applies on BOTH sides.

 

[Famine]

This applies on BOTH sides.

Nobody addressed this before, because that is an awful article.

It starts off with the premise that atheism has leaders (it doesn't), asserts that some people who call themselves atheists are not brilliant at rational thinking in other departments (which is unconnected to atheism) and point three includes an exhortation to atheists to be more open-minded to other people's beliefs and sceptical of their own (which they don't have and which completely flies in the face of what rational thinking is - the thing we were all just told off for not doing in point 2). I didn't even get to the second page because any site that spreads their articles over more than one page is just clickbaiting.

 

[Imari]

The Bible is claimed as a documented testemonial record of events.
No where is it claimed as anything else, or as a fictional story.
Therefore it stands as evidential to validity on it's own account.

I claim that it is a fictional story. I do it right here, right now.

Your cute little logical chain no longer holds up, although I sincerely doubt I was the first to claim such a thing.

Consequently to assume it is fiction is just that, an assumption completely unsupported by any conclusive evidence.

So, exactly the same as the evidence for the Bible being the word of God then?

And from an available evidence basis, an illogical conclusion.

What, that we have no available objective evidence for the Bible being the word of God, and no available objective evidence for it being fiction?

Given those two, some might consider one more likely than the other. Considering that there's only a very limited amount of literature ascribed to God, a being that no one has any objective evidence for. On the other hand, we have a very large amount of literature that is known to be fictional, and we know that fiction authors exist.

Occam's Razor cuts the God theory to ribbons. It might be true, but for the lack of any objective evidence it's not the preferred hypothesis.

This applies on BOTH sides.

Of course it does. That article basically states "some atheists are stupid :censored:holes too".

Well, duh.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that every group of any significant size contains at least one member who is either an idiot or an :censored:hole. Possibly both, and most likely there's more than one member.

The article says nothing of substance, and is just fuel for anti-atheists to whip themselves up into a righteous frenzy. It's the equivalent of posting articles about the WBC to prove how bad Christians are.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I believe and claim that the Bible is a fictional story.

There, I've said it.

 

[Mike458]

I believe and claim that the Bible is a fictional story.

There, I've said it.

You've just said exactly what I was going to say.

 

[Famine]

I claim that it is a fictional story. I do it right here, right now.

I believe and claim that the Bible is a fictional story.

There, I've said it.

I claim that it is a cleverly written deception by Satan worshippers intended to fool people into following the devil while they think they're following God.

Of course since there's as much conclusive evidence for this as for its divine inspiration (none), @SuperCobraJet can't conclude that either of those things is true or false...

 

[MatskiMonk]

Ace..

Can we move this thread on from constantly arguing about books to the possibility of something else, not yet defined... but possible...?

 

[Danoff]

Nevertheless, in view of the fact that there is no evidence currently available of any variety to support existence, it would be logical to believe they do not exist.

However, even in your much more extreme and remote example one cannot inadvertently, declare or conclude with 100% certainty they do not exist.
That is also the logical stance.

Anything that there is no evidence for, logically resides in the realm of possibility and therefore cannot be completely concluded as false.

Thus the part where we all agree that God cannot be disproven. It is non-falsifiable, just like the unicorn.

Evidence, or conclusive evidence?
Evidence abounds for the Christian God, but from without none of it is conclusive.

We have different definitions of the word "evidence".

 

[Denur]

Yes, but how does that relate.

It relates to Jesus and his relevance in history. He hasn't been mentioned until late after his death (if he ever lived), by people who never met him, in the Bible. That suggests to me that he either never lived, or was insignificant at the time. If he was a well known person at the time he lived, then I would expect a lot of documented evidence supporting this, both by the Romans and the Jews. To my knowledge, none have been found. So, we're either dealing with a massive coverup that destroyed all evidence, or the Bible is a brilliant hoax.

And maybe you missed this post from Yesterday? I would appreciate an answer.

 

[Thomas__633]

they did go and raze the area thirty years later...

 

[Scaff]

To my knowledge, none have been found.

The only supporting evidence for Jesus comes from a Jewish/Roman called Josephus, who was born in 37AD, he wrote a number of histories of the Jewish people, both contemporary and historic.

In all of that we get three mentions, two of which are not directly about Jesus, and all three of which exist only in copies of his work from the 3rd Century on wards. As such we are again in a situation in which historians are not in agreement about the authenticity of the three mentions.

Not only based on the late dates that they appear, but also that the tone differs from the rest of the work, contradicts parts of his other work and Jesus is not found in any of his other works. Even if it was his work most agree that it has been edited over the years to 'Christian' it up, particularly the Testimonium which isn't referred to before the 3rd century even by Christian's writing about Josephus's works.

So yes we do have some written evidence of Jesus, it is however not contemporary, limited and almost certainly either heavily revised by later Christian authors or a pure fabrication.

 

[Imari]

Ace..

Can we move this thread on from constantly arguing about books to the possibility of something else, not yet defined... but possible...?

Difficult when the basis for a significant amount of arguments is "my book said so".

It'd be nice to have rational discussions about this stuff, but when any request for explanation is met with an appeal to authority it naturally devolves into people pointing out how retarded it is to believe absolutely in a book which provides no objective basis for it's claims.