Evidence God Exists

[tavarish]

http://www.infidelguy.com/ftopict-256.html
http://factonista.org/2008/09/15/dogmatic-atheism/
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/...pic=3691.0

Do you check your sources? I'm guessing not. This is the last post in which I'm addressing this shit.

1st link:
Some people do get WAY to attached to their opinions and begin to treat them like dogma. In that case, some atheists treat atheism like a religion.

Do you understand that just because some people want to promote their own values onto others, it has nothing to do with atheism, which is a non-belief?

2nd link:
Everyone has a bit of the dogmatic inside of them, but it wasn’t until I opened my perspective that I realized that Atheism is not necessarily Freethought.

He had an epiphany when he realized that Atheism doesn't presuppose anything. It seems like we've heard this somewhere before.

3rd link:
Okay theists, you got me. Atheists do have dogma, and here it is:

We don't have dogma.

There, now everybody's happy.

Self explanatory.

Hardly Christian apologetics. I'm not the usual narrow-viewed theist you get on here, I will read any old shite. Even atheist.

I think you missed the point where the articles you posted now are 180 degrees separated from your original claims. If you meant to do this, I apologize.

You said it yourself...It's a teevee phone in SHOW. Show being the operative word. Did the guy not himself say tenet? Didn't he? I heard him.

He also said "Atheism does not have tenets". Can you understand the point of the conversation?

2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, < What is that? BELIEF.
Think you should all insist on being called a-theists, or maybe dis-theists. It would be accurate. Atheism is just another ism.

Yes, we should insist on being called a-theists, instead of what we are called now? Do you know this site is called atheistforums?

Following maybe accusations of 'flash in the pan-ness', I thought it only right and proper to offer you this. I hope it helps you understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not trying to get head-to-head with a bunch of non-believers. I apologise if any of you feel I am, it's just the nature of the beast. So to speak. You're all so different, it makes the ground almost impossible to walk.

We're not different, your assertions about atheism just aren't correct.

''I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'' Says god.
''What about the Babel Fish?'' etc.

Atheists require of theists(or whoever) the 'Babel Fish'...With me so far? (Sorry, don't want to sound patronising, some may not have a clue what I'm talking about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcncPpQ8loA <<)
Although some just don't care, really.

This is the snippet of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide, where God ultimately disproves himself. It's quite funny, but it's not what anyone is requiring, not by a long shot. The only thing most of use would require is objectively verifiable evidence for the claims made, that can be demonstrated in reality. That's it.

It just happens that an all-encompassing, omnipresent God who should be self-evident, sure has a way of hiding himself from the eye of the skeptical inquirer.

I have faith. << Good for you, you cry. Well, I don't know do I? I have no experience of not having faith. Maybe I'd be better without it.

That's for you to decide. It's also irrelevant.

I hope etc. etc. etc., meaning all the things that would make the world better when I leave, than when I came. Sentimentalist, soppy tosh, romantic horseshit, no? Is it?

Noble, but I don't understand what it has to do with anything.

My God is Love. If you've never experienced it for yourself, you won't know.

This statement has no bearing on whether your God objectively exists or not.

Now what I've just put comes straight out of the NT. I'm not supposed to quote the Book, but I hope you understand why I used a few words.. Yes, I'll acknowledge that I am merely repeating what some bible thumper has drilled into my head, and therefore should question before dismissing, but it holds true for me, and doesn't need The Rest to make it valid.

So you're acknowledging that it's someone's interpretation of a holy book, which you haven't personally followed up on, and since it's of some personal value to you, it's makes it a valid argument?

If I told you that my friend read a book, and explained to me that fairies exist all around us, and I structured my life around this, and felt it made me a better person, would this somehow make the claim that fairies exist true?

It condems none, has no political bias and elevates no-one.

LOL. Read the rest of the New Testament. You'll get all of those and more.

It's how I try to live. I'm a biker. At ***mph you need your perspectives kept simple. And some sort of god in your back pocket.

From a fellow biker to another, you don't need God to reassure you of your mortality at a certain speed. You're still subject to the same physics as all of us, and risk assessment plays a bigger role than faith in a deity.

Now who here Loves? Those of you who do, you know my God. Tell me Love ain't real. Tell me you don't believe in Love. It's my Babel Fish. And it works.

First, you're equating God to an established emotion. You're not giving any more meaning to either term, and we don't come out understanding more about anything. It simply isn't descriptive. Take this example:

Now who here Golfs? Those of you who do, you know my God. Tell me Golf ain't real. Tell me you don't believe in Golf. It's my Babel Fish. And it works.

What did I establish there?

Second, you're comparing an emotion, which is intangible and subjective, to a Babel Fish - something objective, tangible and demonstrable proof of God's existence.

Your assertion that "it works" doesn't work, because it doesn't describe anything. You loosely paraphrase the NT, then somehow tie that in with Douglas Adams jokes, and expect to make your case with that. I know it's not your point to proselytize, but this argument is horridly unconvincing.

---

ZenBadger,tavarish and chatpilot the Four Gospels were written by men that were living at the same time that Jesus walked this earth.

1. Who wrote them?
2. When were they written?
3. Where did you get this information?
4. How do you know this information is true?

The time line of the writing of the gospels does not mean they are invalid if anything it points to them being valid because they were written so close to Jesus life.

Describe this timeline please.

There wasn't enough time for fable or myth to creep into His story. The underlined is used in both secular and religious investigation.

1. How much time did they have?
2. How much time would be needed to create a myth?
3. How do you know this information to be true?

You didn't refer to Luke at all Lukes gospel is extremely accurate about the people and places that he mentions in his gospel. Now you tell me why Luke would lie about Jesus when he took the time and energy to make sure his writing was so accurate about the rest of his book.

Example of the accuracy?

The Gospel of Luke wasn't a firsthand account, and was anonymous, although it is thought by many scholars to have been written by Luke the physician.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=wzRVN2S8...on&f=false

You're using logical fallacy to come to a conclusion. Taking his word for it doesn't mean he was automatically telling the truth. Shit, we don't even know who "he" is.

You also have no proof that the Four Gospels were not written by Matthew,Mark,Luke and John.

That's the fallacy of the false positive. We don't know who wrote it, that's the point. Just because someone can't prove that fairies didn't write it, doesn't mean that they did.

If there had never been anything written about Jesus that is not proof He did not live.

It also is not proof that he did.

I'm sure there have been many good things done by many people thats never been recorded and that alone does not determine they never lived.

Yes, but based on nothing, we cannot determine whether someone DID live or not. I don't think you're understanding this.

Yes there have been some small additions to the gospels and if you read the footnotes in your Bible they will tell you where and what they are. All the additions put together do not change the content of the NT.

What does this have to do with you saying the gospels are first hand accounts? Don't switch topics. We're not on content.

Thor if you like we'll argue the salvation of that particular Pope but like I stated I do not know for a fact he was.

No True Scotsman, I presume.