If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
If the God of the bible does not exist, then why debate it?

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So the theist

Vastet wrote:
So the theist dodges and in the process proves he knows as much about politics and economics as he does science: Nothing at all.

Laughing out loud

I guess they take it on "faith".

Makes me hesitant to go to theist doctors.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I have actually not followed through with the reading list that you suggested to me before, even though it is on my to do list.  Thus far, I have been reading : Three Men Who Made a Revolution by Wolfe, and have read Rolf Theen's Lenin. Theen's book was surprisngly in depth about the early days of Lenin, for such a slim volume. Of course, both books might be bullshit since I am not as versed in the history of Marxism and Communism as you are.

Granted, I do not know enough about Communism/Marxism to actually make the claim of being /opposing.

However, I've always had an interest in finding out more about it, because words like Socialism/Communism get thrown carelessly around in political debates the way that words like secular/humanist get thrown around in religious debates.

Call me an intolerant ass, but I get highly irritated at people that use terms and have no clue what they are talking about. (It generally makes me want to stomp someone). But, I have always been interested in Russian history and even pre-Communist Russian history for some reason. Why I don't know.

I have heard the book Das Kapital, as being an essential book to understanding Marx. Of course, Marx was not Russian and according to Theen's work, Marx did not actually hold out any hope for a nation like Russia being a good example of a nation that would embrace a revolution. (If Theen is to be believed of course). Which is another reason that dudes like Lenin and such fascinate me somewhat.

Plus, I remember someone that I knew, that had once been involved in the American Communist Party, had talked about the hard core division between Trotskyites and others. Which piqued my curiosity even more.

 Now, I realize that I have just hijacked this thread, but it was already going south anyway.

 

i still haven't read wolfe's book.  it's been on my shelf for four years now.  wolfe was part of a generation of writers and thinkers like sydney hook and john dos passos: men who were commited communists during and just after the russian revolution but later became disillusioned with the excesses of stalinism and ended up being staunch, rightwing cold warriors.  i can't remember if wolfe's book was written more or less before his about-face or after.  i suppose it doesn't matter.  i've read books on both sides of the ideological line: hagiographies of lenin by trotsky and serge and demonizations by volkoginov.  it's hard to find a balanced account.  robert service's lenin comes fairly close, though he definitely leans more to the con side.  most western soviet scholars, however, praise wolfe's account.

i actually was not aware of theen's biography.  i'll have to check it out.  good current biographies of lenin are surprisingly scarce, and the old out-of-print ones are usually so biased they're almost unreadable.

as for trotskyites (though i prefer the term trotskyist), they were always pretty sexy to westerners because they were the "rebels," the unorthodox ones, since stalin hounded trotsky out of the soviet union.  the term "communist" can basically be equated with "marxist-leninist."  trotskyists, stalinists, maoists, etc., will all identify themselves as "marxist-leninists."

i've always been sympathetic to trotskyists because of their emphasis on practical, global revolution.  they insist, like lenin, that true socialism can never survive in an isolated country or even a "bloc."  either the whole world gets with the program or it won't work.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:i actually was

iwbiek wrote:

i actually was not aware of theen's biography.  i'll have to check it out.  good current biographies of lenin are surprisingly scarce, and the old out-of-print ones are usually so biased they're almost unreadable.

This Rolf Theen book was written in 1973. I would be interested in hearing what you may make of it, since it does not SEEM biased to me, but then again, I am not scholarly about this and would have no way of determining just yet. I just know that it is a slim book and contains quite a load of information for someone brand new to reading about this.

It talks a lot about Lenin's younger years and it talks about what happened to his family when his brother was executed. It talks a lot about the men that influenced Lenin.

Theen's account seems to say that Lenin was heavily influenced by Cherneshevsky's : "What is to be done ?." In fact, so heavily influenced that he wrote a pamphlet by the same name.

I looked for more information about Cherneshevsky on the Web and a lot of it was quite limited. (I think I am spelling that name correctly).

I did find Lenin to be an interesting character to read about.

I have not read very far into Wolfe's account yet, but I think it might be interesting to see how he paints the picture of Lenin vs. Theen.

I know the former American Communist Party member that I had conversed with about this was VERY much a Trotsky fan, but I don't have enough info to really grasp the differences between Trotsky/Stalin/Lenin yet. I know that Theen's book mentions Trotsky and the Menshevik Internationalists and lots of other information. But, I have not digested enough information yet to actually say that I have a good understanding of Marxism/Communism and such.

I had no idea that Late 19th Century/Early 20th Century Russia had so many political movements going on so heavily, long before the October Revolution. Fascinating stuff. I must say that I wish that I had started reading about this much longer ago.

I will say that thus far, the reading has shown me what I suspected. A lot of people throw the word "communist" around rather loosely. Just like the word secular.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

Theen's account seems to say that Lenin was heavily influenced by Cherneshevsky's : "What is to be done ?." In fact, so heavily influenced that he wrote a pamphlet by the same name.

that's accurate.  honestly, lenin was probably influenced more by chernyshevsky than marx.

happy reading.  soviet history is fucking fascinating.  really, it's like the whole tragic human experience in microcosm.  i think more people would get into it if they really knew how interesting it was.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
This thread has gone off

This thread has gone off topic. Can we change the thread title?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:This

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This thread has gone off topic. Can we change the thread title?

this thread deserved to go off topic, especially since the OP is the one who first derailed it. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

iwbiek wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This thread has gone off topic. Can we change the thread title?

this thread deserved to go off topic, especially since the OP is the one who first derailed it. 

Touche!

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:digitalbeachbum

damn double post

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:iwbiek

digitalbeachbum wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This thread has gone off topic. Can we change the thread title?

this thread deserved to go off topic, especially since the OP is the one who first derailed it. 

Touche!

 

Laughing out loud

I guess that was partly my fault, for asking the OP if he had read the Manifesto.

However, I find it comical that the OP lead with the argument : "Why are you a Marxist ? Are you tired of the proletarians ?"

TIRED of the proletarians ? Next thing you know, they'll be using the argument that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Khmer Rouge were all Atheists.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Robby

The evidence is there, it's the Atheist who has no evidence and therefore
A fallacy . You, yourself said it was true ( lack of evidence).

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The evidence

Jimenezj wrote:
The evidence is there, it's the Atheist who has no evidence and therefore A fallacy . You, yourself said it was true ( lack of evidence).

Lack of evidence in a god.

Your using a god of the gaps argument here.

You seem to be hinting at, "Atheists can not disprove it, therefore it must be true."

This is an argument that I have heard before and the reason that I recognize it so easily, is because I used to buy into that very argument.

But, simply because a god can not be proven, does not make it exist.

Like I said about Russell's teapot.

Take it like this :

If I tell you there is an invisible fire breathing dragon in my backyard and there was no way to see it, hear it, smell it, or touch it, and you said : "Show me evidence that the dragon is there." and I tell you : "Well you can not prove it isn't there, so it is logically there."

Do you see why this argument can not work ?

You would have to buy into every god claim then.

I can't prove that Zeus didn't do it : So it must be Zeus

I can't prove that Allah does not want Jihad : So it must be true.

I can't prove fairies don't exist in my garden : So it must be true.

That is why that argument does not work.

It took me some time, when I was religious, to see that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The evidence is there, it's

The evidence is there, it's the theist who has no evidence and therefore a fallacy. You, yourself said it was true (lack of evidence).


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Harley

It is true because of the evidence of Jesus Christ, not because
Of Lack of evidence. It is the atheist who lack the evidence of a no God.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
The evidence of jesus christ

The evidence of jesus christ points towards an amalgamation of various other local myths and religious stories, the healing of the sick, the return of life after death, the healing of the blind, etc, etc, etc. The supernatural parts of the story of jesus have no evidence at all of happening. So yeah you have a huge task of proving this to have happened.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

It was confirmed by the witnesses of the early church
Including the apostles . Archeology and the fullfilment of
Prophacy also confirmes it . The rebirth of Israel and the
Rise of Christianity confirms it.

The Atheist have no proof of a No God.  

 a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 
Atheism is a fallacy .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
one cannot have proof that

one cannot have proof that something doesn't exist, usually it is it the lack of evidence that shows that it doesn't exist, then add the fact that the arguments or god are countered with actual evidence such as creation arguments, how humans came to be, etc, etc, etc. There is more than enough evidence that the universe came about a natural way and next to none for that of a god creating it. After that the early church came about 30 at least after he died, and the same argument you make can be done for the supernatural claims of R.L. Hubbard of the scientology religion and we know his claims are bullshit. Same as those of jesus.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The evidence

Jimenezj wrote:
The evidence is there, it's the Atheist who has no evidence and therefore
A fallacy . You, yourself said it was true ( lack of evidence).

It is true because of the evidence of Jesus Christ, not because
Of Lack of evidence. It is the atheist who lack the evidence of a no God.

Backwards.

-It was confirmed by the witnesses of the early church
Including the apostles.

Prove it.

Archeology and the fullfilment of Prophacy also confirmes it.

Prove it.

"The rebirth of Israel and the Rise of Christianity confirms it."

Israel is not reborn. The Israel of today and the Israel of thousands of years ago have very little in common.
And the rise of christianity only proves christians are more violent than their predecessor religions.

"The Atheist have no proof of a No God."

No shit sherlock, but we do have evidence. You don't.

"a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God." 

Again, no shit. But we have all the evidence.

Theism is a fallacy.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

It is bullshit to the ignorant .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Make a note that :
Science proves that God pulled the trigger that
Caused the big Bang.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: a lack of

Jimenezj wrote:
a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.
 

*sigh*

Didn't I just explain one of the many reasons why this doesn't work ? 

Fine, I'll do it again. Pay attention this time, please :

Replace the word "god" in your sentence with any other imaginary being (make one up for the occasion of you can't think of one), and the problem with your line of thinking reveals itself.

 

Now please stop repeating fallacies that have already been debunked. Thank you.

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
again, pay attention,

again, pay attention, reading comprehension seems to be a problem for you. A big one. Again, we cannot give proof of something that does not exist. We do have however evidence contrary to the claims made, be it creation of the universe, creation of man, or supernatural claims by theists about their god or deities. that we have, lots of evidence that the universe has formed naturally and there is no evidence at all that god did anything, that is your problem, you make a claim but have zero evidence to back it up.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:It is

Jimenezj wrote:
It is bullshit to the ignorant .

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Make a note that :
Science proves that God pulled the trigger that
Caused the big Bang.

Unfortunately for you, the christian god can and has been disproven.

A god? No. The christian god? Yes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
You need evidence to

You need evidence to disprove Christ. The problem
Is that you don't have it.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Disproof

Jimenezj wrote:
You need evidence to disprove Christ. The problem Is that you don't have it.

Clarify for us:  Do you believe the christian god is:

  • omnipotent,
  • omniscient, and
  • omnibenevolent?

Because such a god can indeed be disproven.

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Adroit
atheist
Adroit's picture
Posts: 92
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:In attacking

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice. 

Do you lead an attack on a non existent being? 

Atheism to the logistician seems unreasonable. 

 

 

At night we see many stars in the sky. But when the sun rises, they disappear. Can we claim, therefore, that during the day there are no stars in the sky? If we fail to see God, perhaps it is because we pass through the night of ignorance in this matter. it is premature to claim He does not exist. 

Richard Wurmbrand

I don't attack Jesus Christ.

Are you a logistician?

I always find it humorous that people try to find inherit contradictions in being an atheist.

an atheist is simply not a theist, and a theist is simply someone who believes in a god or gods.

I don't claim God doesn't exist, I just don't buy into the claim that he does exist.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Ah the trolls are out in

Ah the trolls are out in full force this month...

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You need

Jimenezj wrote:
You need evidence to disprove Christ. The problem
Is that you don't have it.

Nope. The REAL problem, for you, is that I do have evidence, and you have none.

The bible itself disproves the christian god.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:It is

Jimenezj wrote:
It is bullshit to the ignorant . appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html Make a note that : Science proves that God pulled the trigger that Caused the big Bang.

You keep making these assertions, get replies, and make more assertions.

If your wishing to make a claim in order to debate a point, lay out a claim, stick to that format, and we'll go from there.

But to just keep changing the assertions and keep switiching it around to another assertion is not leading this thread anywhere.

So, what claim do you want to debate ? The existence of god ? The lack of evidence of Christ ? The lack of evidence for the biblical god ? What is your point and where do you want to take this ?

As it is, this thread is assertion, replies, different assertion, replies, different assertions, different replies.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


RobbyPants
atheist
RobbyPants's picture
Posts: 148
Joined: 2011-11-30
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The evidence

Jimenezj wrote:
The evidence is there, it's the Atheist who has no evidence and therefore A fallacy . You, yourself said it was true ( lack of evidence).
 You're over defining the term, again. Not all atheists posit that there are no gods; many simply don't believe out of a lack of evidence.

Also, what evidence are you talking about for your points? I've yet to see any that doesn't rely on presupposing there is a god in the first place.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

You said:
After that the early church came about 30 at least after he died.

You just confirmed the book of Acts and the gospel with your statement of the early church. Thank you!

The dating of the book of Acts is important because Acts was written after Luke.  If Acts was written after 30 yrs of Jesus death (around 60AD) then this would mean the Gospel of Luke was written before that period and would add credence to the claim that the gospels were written early, close to the events, by the eyewitnesses.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


GodsUseForAMosquito
Moderator
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:I

harleysportster wrote:

Laughing out loud

I guess that was partly my fault, for asking the OP if he had read the Manifesto.

However, I find it comical that the OP lead with the argument : "Why are you a Marxist ? Are you tired of the proletarians ?"

TIRED of the proletarians ? Next thing you know, they'll be using the argument that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Khmer Rouge were all Atheists.

 

Stalin was definitely an atheist.

Khmer Rouge was an organisation - do you mean Pol Pot? If so he was an atheist too.

I believe Mussolini was too. Hitler's belief or lack thereof is a little less certain.

The point is not that they were merely atheists, but that they did not do the evil things they did BECAUSE they didn't believe in god.

 EDIT: I'm sure you know this already Harley; I just wanted to clarify your position before some theist jumps on it.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:The question

Jimenezj wrote:
The question of why The Hebrew God does or does not choose to reveal himself is Secondary . First question to answer is whether or not he exists. But in answering this first question , you must remind yourself that ignorance in the reality of God does not disprove his existence . The same applies with the question of other Gods. To answer this question , you will need to answer the first question called the great question.

See if you can spot the pattern.

 

"You must remind yourself that ignorance of the reality of Allah does not disprove his existence"

"You must remind yourself that ignorance of the reality of Vishnu does not disprove his existence"

"You must remind yourself that ignorance of the reality of invisible pink unicorns does not disprove their existence".

"You must remind yourself that ignorance of Ouija boards does not disprove that they work"

"You must remind yourself that ignorance of the billions in my invisible bank account does not disprove me having billions".

 

It's called shifting the burden of proof. It does not work otherwise every claim made in human history is true. You don't do that for other people's pet god claims, we simply don't swallow one more flavor of poisoned Kool Aid than you do.

Why is it you rightfully reject all those claims above without spending any time disproving them?

Having a mere claim does not make the claim credible, otherwise you'd have to blindly believe me when I say "Angelina Jolie is giving me a hummer right now as I type this". Somehow I think you aren't going to spend any time disproving that claim.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 

Stalin was definitely an atheist.

Khmer Rouge was an organisation - do you mean Pol Pot? If so he was an atheist too.

I believe Mussolini was too. Hitler's belief or lack thereof is a little less certain.

The point is not that they were merely atheists, but that they did not do the evil things they did BECAUSE they didn't believe in god.

 EDIT: I'm sure you know this already Harley; I just wanted to clarify your position before some theist jumps on it.

 

I was being sarcastic.

BTW. Stalin replaced theistic thinking with himself (i.e. Russian peasants adoringly asking Stalin to bless the crops).

I believe that Pol Pot was a half-ass Buddhist.

I also realize that this whole Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler thing is a fallacy of equivocation that all theists inevitably jump on.

Hitler was most definitely a theist, as evidenced by his Mein Kampf dedication and reiterations that alluded to a creator in that same book and speeches.

However, like you said, that has nothing to really do with the topic at hand.

BTW, Thanks for pointing out the mistake between Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot Smiling

That is what happens when I type faster than I am thinking.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15756
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote: But it makes

Jimenezj wrote:
But it makes no sense to Talk about someone who does not exist.

Then why do you? Do you really really really really really think that there is some magical disembodied brain with no location, no material no neurons, who has super powers?

If I walked around claiming an invisible pink unicorn runs all this, what would you think of that?

Don't get angry at us for saying the moon is not made of cheese, because it is not made of cheese.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You need

Jimenezj wrote:
You need evidence to disprove Christ. The problem Is that you don't have it.

 

 

               Wrong Jimenezj.  If you make the claim you get to supply the proof. I make NO claim of any god and I have never see any evidence of a god. So far you haven't supplied any; do you have any evidence?  btw  wishful thinking is NOT evidence.

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: After that the early church came about 30 at least after he died. You just confirmed the book of Acts and the gospel with your statement of the early church. Thank you! The dating of the book of Acts is important because Acts was written after Luke.  If Acts was written after 30 yrs of Jesus death (around 60AD) then this would mean the Gospel of Luke was written before that period and would add credence to the claim that the gospels were written early, close to the events, by the eyewitnesses.

Yet again you fail to understand the other part I stated, lon. r. Hubbard has made claims and his followers made claims during his lifetime and after, during my lifetime, it does not mean it is true at all, heck we have refutations about it, it's been 27 years since he passed. Just like we can and have refuted many claims made in the bible, like jesus resurrecting, like healing the blind, like walking on water, like he was actually the son of god and his mother an actual virgin, there is no contemporary evidence from that time, no other writers other than the biblical authors make those claims.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

You said:

there is no contemporary evidence from that time, no other writers other than the biblical authors make those claims.

Again , you just confirmed the gospel as evidence and
At the same time you contradicted yourself.

First, you dated the early church and now this.

You are on a roll. Is there anything else you want to add?

I think you been watching to many episodes of planet of the apes.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: there is no contemporary evidence from that time, no other writers other than the biblical authors make those claims. Again , you just confirmed the gospel as evidence and At the same time you contradicted yourself.

He stated simply that the writers of the bible made the claims. He did not attach any legitimacy to those claims. 

Jimenezj wrote:

First, you dated the early church and now this. You are on a roll. Is there anything else you want to add? I think you been watching to many episodes of planet of the apes.

The truth is, the evidence outside of the bible for the existence of Jesus as a person is extraordinarily flimsy. There is 0 contemporary evidence. Zero! If there was a guy named Jesus who claimed to be a messiah (as many loons did back then), if he had done one notable or spectacular thing during his lifetime, he would have been written about. The early Christian movement, however, does exist in historical documents. This, to me anyway, implies that the followers several decades after his supposed death were infinitely more influential than Jesus himself was, if he even existed. It's not impossible that the early Christians made him up entirely. Indeed Muhammed and Joseph Smith claimed some level of revealed knowledge. The early Christians could have done the same thing, except included a human being (rather than an angel or some other such crap) into the story. 

To be an atheist, is to simply say "no" to every god claim ever made to you. You don't have to think that a god is completely impossible. The Jewish claim is the Tanakh. The Christian claim is the Christian bible. The Muslim claim is the Qu'ran. The Mormon claim is the Book of Mormon. These books are not evidence. They are merely claims. Every single one of them is obviously false. They don't bear the stamp of divine inspiration. They bear the stamp of the time they were written in, the intelligence of those responsible for their writing, the morality of the time and place, and very bad attention to detail in terms of minimizing or eliminating internal contradictions. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: there is no contemporary evidence from that time, no other writers other than the biblical authors make those claims. Again , you just confirmed the gospel as evidence and At the same time you contradicted yourself. First, you dated the early church and now this. You are on a roll. Is there anything else you want to add? I think you been watching to many episodes of planet of the apes.

hmmmm yet again, your reading comprehension is atrocious, no wonder you can believe in god, you seem to lack the ability to understand simple concepts. Again, Ron L. Hubbard made many claims, none of contemporary history shows those claims to be real, and he died 27 years ago, claims of bringing forth Elementals with Sex Magic for example, yet there is no evidence whatsoever about this actually happening, no one else who records history or any other person as a credible witness makes these claims other than his followers. Hence the issue with claims made in the bible, no other contemporary witness at the time backs those claims, no other credible witness such as the romans (pontius could have backed up the claim of the resurrected jesus) other jewish rabbis or other historical writers at the time that where in the area could have written about it, but there is nothing about the miraculous claims in the bible are found outside of it. The gospel is not evidence, it makes claims, yet itself cannot be used as evidence because itself is a biased source and it is also the source making the claims. There would have to be an outside source regarding the miraculous claims made about jesus to make it even remotely credible.

For example buddha, there are claims of supernatural events he may have done. Yet none of the contemporary evidence from his time back that up, however there are government documents that show he was a real person, who saw/visited chinese officials, no claims of supernatural events though. So we can say we existed but not that he had supernatural powers/abilities.

Please learn about historical evidence, it has to have more than one source, especially those of supernatural or miraculous events.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

You said:

Please learn about historical evidence, it has to have more than one source, especially those of supernatural or miraculous events.

When it comes to history, there are no rules for witneses . If there
Are, show me the rule book?

A witness is a witness, just like in court . No matter how you look at it.
And there are many witneses in the bible. Are you saying that they are all
False witneses ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


hbmbc30
hbmbc30's picture
Posts: 64
Joined: 2012-06-16
User is offlineOffline
dude your a moron

you seriously need to do some research before you come on here saying we are wrong... your just another theistard trolll trying to make yourself feel good by bashing those who dont believe the same way you do. dont you know when youve been pwned. your just in denial... your a damn aplogist nothing more... i think you nee to stay in your delusional church and not operate heavy machinery

Chris


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
yet again, you fail

yet again, you fail miserably. If one is to claim something they have to have evidence, the bible makes claims, itself cannot be used as a witness to those claims since it is making those claims. hence outside source has to be used, much like all other things, a witness may make a claim but there has to be other evidence to support the witness or other witnesses non-related to back up the claims.....with the bible you do not have that. I can tell you this because my sister the lawyer is laughing at you at the moment at your stupidity and ignorance about the court claim. Yet again, Ron L. Hubbard made claims of the supernatural, without any evidence or credible witnesses they are just bunk

Much like your bible, it makes claims, but has little to no evidence to back those claims up.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Historical evidence requires

Historical evidence requires the following, a primary source text written at the time of the period in question. The bible is written well after the period in question, starting as early as 68 to 73 CE, which puts it at minimum 25 years after the death of jesus (using 33 CE as a starting point) which is not contemporary. Thats for Mark only, Matthew is between 50 to 55 years later, Luke between 45 to 67 years after and john between 60 to 80 years later.

Can you provide historical texts regarding jesus and his miracles outside of the bible written at the time that speaks of witnessing jesus and not talking about claims made by the followers of jesus?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin.

Let me clarify : I meant to say the court system of that time.
You cannot compare the current system to the old.

Deuteronomy 
19:15

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days

Matthew 24:15
 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Latin

Explain that to your sister or any other layer you know.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:In attacking

Jimenezj wrote:

In attacking Jesus Christ , Atheism might render itself a disservice.

My efforts are towards show me why "the Jesus" is the mashiach aka the messiah and not just another story tale legend.

You have something that indicates the Jesus is more than a story tale?

What is it?

So far all I have seen in this thread from you is the story tales exist therefore the Jesus is not only real but he is the son of a god.

How do you leap from pages of 2000 year old legends and stories to this?

The clay tablets of Sumer are 5000 years old and claim Lord Enki is the god of this world. Why should your newer story tale have more merit than one that can actually be read from the original clay tablets.

There is nothing as old as the Sumerian tablets for the god of Abe or the Jesus. You have not one original document of the period.

And even if you did, why would the far older tale of Enki be invalid? Show me why?

I discuss story tales. You discuss Harry Potter as real in effect with your claim the Jesus is a god. Do you also think Superman is real because there is writing about him?

As to your question - I don't attack a non-existent being, I attack story tales that people misconstrue without basis. That there are those that waste their lives talking to the air is very sad. What a waste of life.

And so do you attack characters from legends.

If not, praise the Mighty Lord Enki and ask forgiveness of him for your worship of the character the Jesus from a poorly written legend.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
PJ

Why should your newer story tale have more merit than one that can actually be read from the original clay tablets?

why would the far older tale of Enki be invalid? Show me why?

because enki never became a man that was witnessed and written by people.
YHWH did become a man, he is called Jesus, which translates "YHWH is with us".

why did YHWH become a man?
can you answer me this?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
PJTS wrote:Why should your

PJTS wrote:
Why should your newer story tale have more merit than one that can actually be read from the original clay tablets? why would the far older tale of Enki be invalid? Show me why?

Jimenezj wrote:

because enki never became a man that was witnessed and written by people. YHWH did become a man, he is called Jesus, which translates "YHWH is with us".

No Enki was witnessed by man according to the Sumerian storytales. He remained a god as well according to the storytales. Which seems to mean you have not read them have you?

OTOH - I have read and studied both the Jewish tales and the Christian tales in detail, I was once a Christian who believed in all of it.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

why did YHWH become a man? can you answer me this?

You assert here the Jesus was part of the god and then became man ... which is in the storytale of the Jesus. None of which validates that either character is more than a character in ancient writing.

Why is this anything other than a storytale?

The storytale makes the claim that the Jesus came to shred his blood for us that we might be saved from the vengeful wrath of the creator god in effect the king figure.

This claim is very bizarre however..The god is upset with his creation according to the Christian version as it decided to exercise free will and disobeyed in the mythical garden of Eden ...Dilmun in Sumerian myths though Adapa (1st man in Sumerian) loses eternal life in another way. In response, the loving god sentenced all of the created beings to death and misery. He then comes up with a plan that he'd kill part of himself as a sacrifice so part of himself could forgive the beings he had made. This is more or less based in Middle Age folk lore and the idea a king must have a sacrifice to placate him for a wrong committed.

Very silly thinking.

Try again. You can't just assert the god exists because the writing says so, if so, Enki still has the higher claim to reality as the originals exist which is not so for the god of Abe.

There are countless holes in the tales of the mythical land of Israel found in the legends aka The Bible. Your beliefs are built on a foundation of folklore and myths that can be shown to be false.

I'll start with a simple question.

An old question from about 6th grade I asked in Parochial school in regard to the Exodus from Egypt - "Where's the trash?"

Start there and tell me why there is nothing to show Hebrews were ever in Egypt; and where's the trash from 40 years of 600,000 men plus women, children, oxen, donkeys, sheep etc wandering?

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Let me

Jimenezj wrote:
Let me clarify : I meant to say the court system of that time. You cannot compare the current system to the old. Deuteronomy  19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days Matthew 24:15  And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Oi vey, wow, we are talking about why the historical evidence doesn't match up for the supernatural events of jesus and you bring this crap up? Really? Anything to not say you are wrong huh? You must live in such a deluded world since you have to twist and turn so much to make your god true to you and deny so much evidence and reality. Again who cares about the court systems then when we are talking about the historical evidence? For us to believe a supernatural claim we need evidence, the bible is not evidence can you PLEASE provide evidence outside of the bible? If not then again we are at the point of no more discussion you have no evidence and there is zero necessity to believe that jesus actually did those things, much like I have no reason to believe that Ron L. Hubbard used sex magic to conjure an elemental.

[edit]

as well the bible is making the claim, where is your one witness beyond the bible for your ancient court requirement? Where is the one outside source as a witness? Please provide, unless you are saying that ancient courts took the word of the one making the claim as well as being a witness? Because usually someone made a claim and they needed another witness to back up the claimant, or evidence of such claim.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 411
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Why should

Jimenezj wrote:
Why should your newer story tale have more merit than one that can actually be read from the original clay tablets? why would the far older tale of Enki be invalid? Show me why? because enki never became a man that was witnessed and written by people. YHWH did become a man, he is called Jesus, which translates "YHWH is with us". why did YHWH become a man? can you answer me this?

Ignoring the fact that you seem to be wrong about Enki not being a man (I haven't read it either, I'll take Paul John's word for it for now, and check later). Even if you were right, what you are saying is that your story is true because it posits that god became a man? You really don't know what evidence is, do you? 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Post #100

Post #100

Nothing to add, just wanted to do something with that number 99.

Nothing to add to the discussion.

I gave up trying.

Please continue.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno