The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave

[Cyberman]

The atheist is not saying the watch was an accident; we are saying we do not blindly accept your claim that it was designed, intelligently or not. That is something you need to demonstrate, not merely assert it.

Similarly, we are not saying god and/or gods do not exist, we are saying we do not accept your claim that such things do exist. The atheist carries no burden of proof, because the atheist is not trying to prove anything. It really is that simple.

Evading the issue of the basic existence of god/gods by throwing up red herrings about "how did all this come to be" is transparently dishonest and a desperate attempt to pretend you have supportive evidence when it is clear for all to see that you do not.

[truthBtold]

Okay, so we can now add "what an atheist is," to the list of things Rev didn't bother to know anything about before he came here. It can sit right alongside "how the burden of proof works."

But can I say, Rev, how monumentally damn frustrating it is to see you constantly dodging questions and points in order to respond with inane, petty gotcha questions that aren't even logically well formed? This is the height of poor argumentation, and if you don't have an answer to something, don't try to slip around it and go on the attack, because we will notice and we will hold you accountable for this shoddy con tactic. This ain't our first time at this rodeo, even if it is yours.

Now, corrections. First of all, an atheist doesn't "believe there is no god," not necessarily. Most of us here don't believe in a god, and that's a small but important distinction: it's a "we don't know," backed up by a "there's still no evidence for your position, theists."

Secondly, it's not up to us to prove to you that god doesn't exist; we don't have to disprove something that has no basis in itself. We don't have to run, because you aren't chasing us. Without any evidence- which you have conspicuously failed to supply- then the default position is to disbelieve the claim. If you think it's otherwise, then in order to be logically consistent you'd have to believe every claim until you could prove it false, which makes you a polytheist shacked up with all kinds of gods.

But privileging your god with this "you can't prove he doesn't exist!" nonsense is called special pleading, and it's a logical fallacy. Inadmissible, but nice try.

This is why I feel the burden of proof IS ON the atheist. We are not having a discussion in a vacuum or in nothingness. We are alive and well on what we call planet earth. That in itself naturally screams, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? If a child comes home from school with a black eye he can't ignore the question from his parent, how did you get that? We all are presented with the question of why we exist, how did we get here, how did it all began. Even if the atheist says, "I don't believe in God," that is dodging the question that needs to be addressed. The atheist can't answer how did this all come to be using clear evidence from where they base all their beliefs - empirical science. The creationist can, an all-powerful intelligent designer. Then you can say, were is your proof. I answer,,,creation is proof. Just like if I held up a watch, a lot less complicated then this planet and say, this had a creator, it was not an accident. If you were to say that the watch was an accident, perhaps, you would be receiving the insults instead of I.

---

Better you should pray all out that god punish us right now with unrelenting fury so as to show you once and for all that He just isn't there.

God is longsuffering offering people a chance to repent. He is a much more patient than we are.

---

What an asshole.

The empty tomb

Potty mouth!! Christians dont fucking swear.... .. anyways... u cant proove something thats not there. That is god.
and stop with the empty tomb crap... my pocket is empty.. so what does that mean..??? im so broke I cant even pay attention!!!

[Minimalist]

The empty tomb

My garage is empty. The Lamborghini I put there must have risen and drove itself away.

You are such a dumb shit.

[Jackalope]

The empty tomb

What you have is a *claim* of an empty tomb. You can't even conclusively establish that there was any such tomb to begin with, or any Joseph of "Arimathea" who owned it.

Say, where exactly *is* Arimathea?

[Minimalist]

Alas....Arimathea is as phony as jesus himself.

[Revelation777]

The atheist is not saying the watch was an accident; we are saying we do not blindly accept your claim that it was designed, intelligently or not. That is something you need to demonstrate, not merely assert it.

Similarly, we are not saying god and/or gods do not exist, we are saying we do not accept your claim that such things do exist. The atheist carries no burden of proof, because the atheist is not trying to prove anything. It really is that simple.

Evading the issue of the basic existence of god/gods by throwing up red herrings about "how did all this come to be" is transparently dishonest and a desperate attempt to pretend you have supportive evidence when it is clear for all to see that you do not.

Dear Stimbo,
Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.

---

That Rev joins the ever-swelling ranks of those whose only strategy is to weasel around who needs to prove what and to distort their opponents' position to bolster their own speaks volumes about his honesty.

I respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

---

The empty tomb

What you have is a *claim* of an empty tomb. You can't even conclusively establish that there was any such tomb to begin with, or any Joseph of "Arimathea" who owned it.

Say, where exactly *is* Arimathea?

Dear Angry Cloud,
Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

---

I would feel safer with someone who fears God than someone who feels they have no accountability to anyone. Just my opinion.

Oh, go fuck yourself, you self-righteous, delusional ignoramus.

I feel safer with rational people than with you fucking insane sheep.

You could fairly make your point without using foul words and name calling.

[Jackalope]

What you have is a *claim* of an empty tomb. You can't even conclusively establish that there was any such tomb to begin with, or any Joseph of "Arimathea" who owned it.

Say, where exactly *is* Arimathea?

Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle.

Do you ever wonder why people accuse you of responding to reasoned critique with inane blather? Look no further than the above quoted paragraph.

Your claim of there being an empty tomb is bullshit without any form of corroboration that the tomb is more than a plot device in a work of fiction (much less a corpse of a dead god). You believe them without corroboration, and that's your prerogative, but I'll do no such thing.

Deflecting that reasoned response is incredibly intellectually dishonest, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for doing it so transparently. But please, by all means, keep it up after it's been pointed out to you that such claims are wholly unconvincing and dishonest.

I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I've read them. Suffice it to say I found them unconvincing. Perhaps you missed the post where I told you that I started reading the bible as a Christian and finished as an apostate.

[Simon Moon]

Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.

We don't identify design by complexity or function. We identify design by contrasting it to nature.

The watch is obviously designed because they don't exist in nature.

It is not reasonable to point at existence and claim there is a designer.

I respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

Ancient texts, written centuries or decades after the alleged events, by unknown authors, is not 'God's word'.

Sound reasoning, by definition, is based on valid and sound logic. You haven't displayed any.

Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Texts are not evidence for miracles.

Matthew, Mark and Luke were written decades after the alleged events. The authors are unknown, and not eyewitnesses. The author of Luke even admits he wasn't an eyewitness.

[Cyberman]

Dear Stimbo,
Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.

You're comparing man-made artifacts with naturally-occurring objects and claiming they are the same thing, then you label me as "illogical" for using your own analogy. Ok, replace "watch" with, say, a pulsar - a naturally-occurring stellar remnant with remarkably precise timekeeping properties. A non-man-made watch, in fact. Now show me the designer, or that there even needed to be one.

My point was that atheists don't necesarily take the contra-positive stance just because we do not accept your own. Not everything depends on binary thinking; there is such a thing as the neutral middle ground. One with a huge neon sign saying "Citation Needed".

That Rev joins the ever-swelling ranks of those whose only strategy is to weasel around who needs to prove what and to distort their opponents' position to bolster their own speaks volumes about his honesty.

I respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?

What I was calling dishonest is your insistence on distorting your opponents' position in order to make your own work; eg, redefining the definition of atheism. Or eg #2, misinterpreting what I call being dishonest. That's dishonest.

[pocaracas]

Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

Argument ad populum?

Imagine, for a moment, each and every individual of all those people has as much a reason to believe, as what you have written here... that everyone else believes it. Is that an actual reason for believing?

But you say that some of those got convinced by the writings of an ancient book...
Does that mean we should believe what's in any ancient book? or just those that got people hooked at the time?
How does that work when you are fully aware of the existence competing books with other people who got hooked and other people who believe in it because many other people also believe?

I anticipate an absence of reply from you, if statistics are anything to go by...