Evidence that "Atheism" is not a sound belief

[magnifier661]

The defense has to give evidence here? No, the reason they haven't given evidence is sort of an innocent until proven guilty thing. You are trying to prove something, so you have to prove it. It's easy for many to refute the evidence, without a need at all to provide evidence of their own. in an actual case, if you were trying to provide evidence of, say, a murder, and the defense was able to shoot down all of your evidence, they don't need to provide evidence of their own really. Because your case and attempt to prove would fail.
So if there was a sound rebuttal for each piece of your evidence, by attempting to prove something themselves, the defense is just talking unnecessarily.

And, this has been mentioned to death, the burden of proof, if one is required, lies on proving something DOES exist. Unicorn, Santa, big foot, loch ness monster. Burden of proof for those that believe in those would be on them. It makes no logical sense to say i believe there are unicorns. Prove to me there are not, otherwise, there clearly are.

No worries RR7, the defense doesn't have to provide any evidence at all. That is their choice. Just like OJ didn't have to use the "glove" as evidence either. This is their choice and if they think it won't help their debate; then by all means; do nothing at all.

 

[MadeFromDust]

The defense has to give evidence here? No, the reason they haven't given evidence is sort of an innocent until proven guilty thing. You are trying to prove something, so you have to prove it. It's easy for many to refute the evidence, without a need at all to provide evidence of their own. in an actual case, if you were trying to provide evidence of, say, a murder, and the defense was able to shoot down all of your evidence, they don't need to provide evidence of their own really. Because your case and attempt to prove would fail.
So if there was a sound rebuttal for each piece of your evidence, by attempting to prove something themselves, the defense is just talking unnecessarily.

And, this has been mentioned to death, the burden of proof, if one is required, lies on proving something DOES exist. Unicorn, Santa, big foot, loch ness monster. Burden of proof for those that believe in those would be on them. It makes no logical sense to say i believe there are unicorns. Prove to me there are not, otherwise, there clearly are.

Common sense this has been created.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Thousands of people claim to have seen UFOs, but I am not convinced they're real. Though there's a higher chance they do than God or Jesus existed.

And you've presented ZERO historical evidence.

Prove Genghis Khan existed, if you don't then he never existed.

 

[Denny Crane]

Not even remotely close, plus we're talking about actual historical people, not fairy tale wizards.




There are established creeds written within three years of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many ancient historians from that time period attested to Christ. If you're seriously trying to argue that Jesus of Nazareth never lived then you are on a short list of crazies. No respected historian in the world would agree with you.

Prove any of this is true.

Name an ancient historian from when Jesus was alive who wrote anything about him.

The earliest source I can find is Josephus, who wrote 60+ years after Jesus supposedly died.

 

[magnifier661]

Thousands of people claim to have seen UFOs, but I am not convinced they're real. Though there's a higher chance they do than God or Jesus existed.

And you've presented ZERO historical evidence.

Okay, so thousands of people that work for Nasa claim they've seen UFO's? Name them... You must use logic with logic. We are talking about people that are trained in the field of history. They have dedicated their life to history.

Your logic means that thousands of scientists have no evidence that an atom even exists. It's flawed...

 

[MadeFromDust]

How do we know George Washington was real? After all those documents and signatures could be forged! Heck, if I haven't seen 'em, they aren't real as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RR7]

No worries RR7, the defense doesn't have to provide any evidence at all. That is their choice. Just like OJ didn't have to use the "glove" as evidence either. This is their choice and if they think it won't help their debate; then by all means; do nothing at all.

The glove was evidence of the prosecution. The defense team isn't the police collecting evidence. What the defense did was discredit the evidence of the prosecution by showing it didn't fit. So thank you for proving my point.

 

[magnifier661]

Prove any of this is true.

Name an ancient historian from when Jesus was alive who wrote anything about him.

The earliest source I can find is Josephus, who wrote 60+ years after Jesus supposedly died.

You are seriously grasping straws here.

 

[magnifier661]

The glove was evidence of the prosecution. The defense team isn't the police collecting evidence. What the defense did was discredit the evidence of the prosecution by showing it didn't fit. So thank you for proving my point.

Okay cool, then the prosecution didn't have to use the glove as evidence. Doesn't really matter does it?

 

[RR7]

How do we know George Washington was real? After all those documents and signatures could be forged! Heck, if I haven't seen 'em, they aren't real as far as I'm concerned.

That's a hell of a stretch, but if oyu feel that somehow helps make your point, you're free to use it.

 

[magnifier661]

How do we know George Washington was real? After all those documents and signatures could be forged! Heck, if I haven't seen 'em, they aren't real as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly.... Because according to Denny, he needs to see God talk to him through a burning bush before he believes he is real. I wonder if he feels the same way about Caesar?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

This is a really good documentary from PBS about the story of Jesus.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1365214164

They interview many experts. There were Jewish historians that were alive during the time of Jesus and they do mention him. So Jesus did in fact exist. Some of them do say he was one of many Jewish prophets during that time and it was standard practice for the Romans to execute those prophets.

Anyway, Jesus being the Son of God can be debated but whether or not Jesus existed can not.

 

[RR7]

Okay cool, then the prosecution didn't have to use the glove as evidence. Doesn't really matter does it?

Doesn't really matter? I dunno. They were certain they had proof. Evidence. Like you. The defense didn't have to prove innocence. Just like atheists don't have to prove lack of existence. They received evidence, and they refuted the evidence. You are providing 10 pieces of evidence, and yet one of the pieces of evidenc is asking for someone else to prove something? That's not evidence. Maybe you should shorten your list of 10 to just a few good ones?

 

[MARIS61]

Maybe this link will tell you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman

It tells me he's not an historian, distinguished or otherwise.

He's a "bible historian".

He's also all over the map in his beliefs.

Non-believer, then born again fundamentalist, now confused agnostic. All that's left is for him to find rational thought.

 

[magnifier661]

That's a hell of a stretch, but if oyu feel that somehow helps make your point, you're free to use it.

Actually no it isn't even close to a stretch. Have you seen George Washington? And you think this is crazy; because there is evidence that George Washington exists. I am merely using the same technics to give evidence that God exists. You just aren't seeing it as that because you don't want to know God exists. You are the blind man arguing that purple doesn't exist.

 

[MadeFromDust]

Hey Mags, what do you think of this?

[video=youtube;k0DTT3u2JZ8]

 

[RR7]

Actually no it isn't even close to a stretch. Have you seen George Washington? And you think this is crazy; because there is evidence that George Washington exists. I am merely using the same technics to give evidence that God exists. You just aren't seeing it as that because you don't want to know God exists. You are the blind man arguing that purple doesn't exist.

It's a huge stretch to go from a historical figure, of which there are many historical records, thousands of, and trying to somehow prove that god, the creator of the uiniverse existed. HUGE difference. One takes belief in a belief. And a belief in something never seen or done before on earth. Huge difference than a belief that George Washington lived.

 

[magnifier661]

jesus christ with the fucking blind man and purple. It;s like you hear something somewhere, and need to repeat it 1000 times here to sound smart or something.

It's a huge stretch to go from a historical figure, of which there are many historical records, thousands of, and trying to somehow prove that god, the creator of the uiniverse existed. HUGE difference. One takes belief in a belief. And a belief in something never seen or done before on earth. Huge difference than a belief that George Washington lived.

Thanks for not providing evidence and just giving your "opinion". Opinions aren't evidence. Can we move on now?

 

[MadeFromDust]

Here's another VERY interesting video Mags:

[video=youtube;1wiBtYITrxM]

 

[TripTango]

Actually no it isn't even close to a stretch. Have you seen George Washington? And you think this is crazy; because there is evidence that George Washington exists. I am merely using the same technics to give evidence that God exists. You just aren't seeing it as that because you don't want to know God exists. You are the blind man arguing that purple doesn't exist.

The funny thing about that metaphor is that, with the right tools, a blind man is perfectly capable of detecting and measuring any color -- even purple. There's no need for faith -- just a spectrophotometer and some means of turning its output into braille or speech. I'm still waiting for my "God-o-meter" -- maybe you could pick me up one this year for Christmas?

 

[MadeFromDust]

It's a huge stretch to go from a historical figure, of which there are many historical records, thousands of, and trying to somehow prove that god, the creator of the uiniverse existed. HUGE difference. One takes belief in a belief. And a belief in something never seen or done before on earth. Huge difference than a belief that George Washington lived.

All the visible matter in the universe isn't enough to prove God the Creator's existence? Those historical documents of Washington wouldn't exist if God didn't exist you know.

 

[RR7]

yes, sorry, youtube videos and pictures of rainbows and puppy dogs are all I need. I have seen the light.

 

[TripTango]

Actually no it isn't even close to a stretch. Have you seen George Washington? And you think this is crazy; because there is evidence that George Washington exists. I am merely using the same technics to give evidence that God exists. You just aren't seeing it as that because you don't want to know God exists. You are the blind man arguing that purple doesn't exist.

The stretch is that nobody is claiming George walked on water or rose from the dead. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

If you told me you had some milk in your fridge, I would believe you without hesitation -- there's nothing unusual about that. On the other hand, if you told me you had Elvis in your fridge, I'd require a bit more evidence before I'd be willing to believe your claim.

 

[MARIS61]

Not even remotely close, plus we're talking about actual historical people, not fairy tale wizards.



There are established creeds written within three years of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many ancient historians from that time period attested to Christ. If you're seriously trying to argue that Jesus of Nazareth never lived then you are on a short list of crazies. No respected historian in the world would agree with you.

Links, lists, names...?

Just kidding, we know you're just spouting nonsense.

 

[magnifier661]

Hey Mags, what do you think of this?

[video=youtube;k0DTT3u2JZ8]

That isn't really related to this thread; but wow that's kinda scary. That is heresy to Judaism because they refused to believe Jesus was the messiah.

 

[Denny Crane]

Prove Genghis Khan existed, if you don't then he never existed.

The archaeological record is full of artifacts that convince everyone but you that he lived. We know where his palace was, we have recovered his belongings. We know with certainty many specific dates of events in his life.

He grew a huge empire and was known throughout the much of the known world. He had children who went on to rule that empire.

 

[magnifier661]

The stretch is that nobody is claiming George walked on water or rose from the dead. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

If you told me you had some milk in your fridge, I would believe you without hesitation -- there's nothing unusual about that. On the other hand, if you told me you had Elvis in your fridge, I'd require a bit more evidence before I'd be willing to believe your claim.

Wait a minute... Who said we are arguing that Jesus walked on water? This is the question of his actual existence. But again we are going way off topic here.

 

[MadeFromDust]

yes, sorry, youtube videos and pictures of rainbows and puppy dogs are all I need. I have seen the light.

bigbangdidit

 

[MARIS61]

I don't think anyone who actually knows God will be convinced by an angry little fella like yourself.

My friends know I'm neither angry nor little.

They also know I'm always right and I never lie.

 

[TripTango]

All the visible matter in the universe isn't enough to prove God the Creator's existence? Those historical documents of Washington wouldn't exist if God didn't exist you know.

Diddly doodly!