What Would It Take?

[LostLocke]

Exactly what's your problem with understanding, personal relationship, you want to know God try a personal relationship, it is the only way.

In order to have a personal relationship with someone or something, we must already have at least some idea or conviction that this someone or something exists.

[Homeless Nutter]

Well maybe he has evidence for himself. Like, maybe he experienced something that has given him grounds to believe what he does. It isn't something he can necessarily "show" to someone else.

Sure, maybe. But that's not called "evidence". It's called - "craaaazzzzyyyy"...

[Shuffle]

No, I'm asking you to defend your statement, or shut up.

Lol, and Catholic Lady said WE were being mean.

Anyway, what statement am I making that I must defend?

And don't give me that bullshit, "Let god into your life and you will know he is there." How am I supposed to accept god without any evidence for his existence, and the only way to get evidence is to accept him. A bit of a conundrum. Also, I did accept Jesus for 12 years... and I did not have a single expierience with him.

How do you know the actions of god that you see on a daily basis isn't from the Flying Spaghetti Monster? I don't NEED EVIDENCE. Fuck! Why can't you understand that. "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” You have no evidence that you can show me, therefore I can say that you are wrong without any evidence.

And why didn't you respond to my second argument about the logical inconsistencies within the Bible, making it impossible to be the truth.

[Godscreated]

Exactly what's your problem with understanding, personal relationship, you want to know God try a personal relationship, it is the only way.

In order to have a personal relationship with someone or something, we must already have at least some idea or conviction that this someone or something exists.

 I did and now do.

GC

[Godscreated]

No, I'm asking you to defend your statement, or shut up.

And why didn't you respond to my second argument about the logical inconsistencies within the Bible, making it impossible to be the truth.

 There are none logical or other wise.

GC

[Shuffle]

And why didn't you respond to my second argument about the logical inconsistencies within the Bible, making it impossible to be the truth.

 There are none logical or other wise.

You are right, there is nothing logical in the bible. Exactly my point.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

 I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

What evidence could possibly exist that "there is no God"? You tell us, so we can go find it. It can't be done. Why, you ask?

It's called "proving a negative", and it's one of the most basic mistakes of logic. If you want us to take you even remotely seriously, you're going to have to at least understand how logic works.

If I was sitting here telling you that invisible pink dragons exist, and demanding that you "present one iota of evidence against the existence of invisible pink dragons", you would (rightly) think I was insane and an asshole.

Our position is quite simple, and summed up by Stephen F. Roberts on one of the first internet atheism forums in 1996:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Thousands did when Christ walked the earth and I see the actions of God on a daily bases. I've never seen air but I breath it all the time, I see it's actions when it moves. Your evidence is no evidence at all, just your weak opinion.

GC

That's funny. "Thousands did"? Thousands of people saw God on earth, and nobody bothered to write to their cousins in Rome or Alexandria about it? None of the Jewish or Roman historians living in Judea at the time noticed any of these amazing events that the early Christians would later write, half a century or more later, as having occurred?

Heck, there were 80,000 people living in Jerusalem at the time of the events described, including the historians who wrote about all kinds of events during that time period in that city, yet fail to mention the darkness, the earthquake, the rending of the veil in the Holy of Holies, or the raising of the dead that walked around.

When these crazy events happened on Good Friday of the year 33 (or whatever), where are the floods of letters by Roman unit commanders back to their wealthy Patrician families, demanding job transfers away from Judea because of the zombie infestation and random darkness, or mentioning the Jews freaking out because their temple veil was torn? If the veil was torn, how did the priests keep doing services before the Holy of Holies such that the Romans were able to "defile" it with a symbol of the emperor in the 60s, leading to the revolt and destruction of that temple? It wouldn't be necessary if it was already shut down due to the traumatic effect of a destroyed veil. Yet it's not even mentioned. The silence speaks volumes; everyone who wrote about that time period just goes on speaking of mundane things.

Where are the historians, outside of Christian tradition? We know of a couple of dozen of them living in Jerusalem at the time, both Jewish and Roman (and others). He is claimed to have done many things that would have been worthy of widespread note, and yet the first historians to mention him are Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were even alive when Jesus died, and both of whom seem to refer to the followers of Jesus and their stories of him (usually at their execution trials, which is what Josephus was writing about), rather than directly to (nonexistent) records of TheManHimself™.

Your arrogance in demanding that we "prove you wrong" when you are the one who must bring evidence, and you are the one apparently refusing to grasp what proving a negative is, is simply astounding to me.

You cannot prove that Marduk doesn't exist. Or Allah. Or Ganesha. You can't prove that Cthulhu isn't reading this conversation. And neither can I. When you truly understand why you have dismissed all the other possible gods, you will see why I dismiss yours. Not BS excuses about "I accepted the Biblical evidence", but why/how you can so clearly see that the thousands of years the Greeks spent wasting their time on Zeus just made them silly and having "personal experiences" and prayers to nothing, yet you cannot look at your own beliefs and see that we can't tell a difference between the two.

---

Addendum: By the way, I've seen air. I've shot light beams through it and tested its spectral composition. I can tell you the Ideal Gas Equation that lets me calculate exactly how much air there is, what pressure it's under per volume and temperature, and what it will mass. Your asserted deity isn't just invisible, he's untestable. Why? Simple: he's not real. Your entire "evidence for" consists of "But I feel it, really really feel it!"

That's not evidence. I assure you, every one of the aforementioned Greeks felt their feels just as feely as you do about it.

[Cyberman]

No no, you've all got it wrong. I have undeniable evidence that God isn't real. But you'll have to discover it for yourselves. Why should I bother revealing it when theists will only dismiss it because they don't want to know the truth?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In order to have a personal relationship with someone or something, we must already have at least some idea or conviction that this someone or something exists.

 I did and now do.

GC

You are really special.  Out of over 7 billion shuffling around today and Jesus picked you to be his buddy.  That's like hitting the biggest lottery of all time.  I'll bet the Pope is jealous.  And you aren't even a Jew.  Matthew 15:24.

[Shuffle]

 I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

What evidence could possibly exist that "there is no God"? You tell us, so we can go find it. It can't be done. Why, you ask?

It's called "proving a negative", and it's one of the most basic mistakes of logic. If you want us to take you even remotely seriously, you're going to have to at least understand how logic works.

If I was sitting here telling you that invisible pink dragons exist, and demanding that you "present one iota of evidence against the existence of invisible pink dragons", you would (rightly) think I was insane and an asshole.

Our position is quite simple, and summed up by Stephen F. Roberts on one of the first internet atheism forums in 1996:

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

Thousands did when Christ walked the earth and I see the actions of God on a daily bases. I've never seen air but I breath it all the time, I see it's actions when it moves. Your evidence is no evidence at all, just your weak opinion.

GC

That's funny. "Thousands did"? Thousands of people saw God on earth, and nobody bothered to write to their cousins in Rome or Alexandria about it? None of the Jewish or Roman historians living in Judea at the time noticed any of these amazing events that the early Christians would later write, half a century or more later, as having occurred?

Heck, there were 80,000 people living in Jerusalem at the time of the events described, including the historians who wrote about all kinds of events during that time period in that city, yet fail to mention the darkness, the earthquake, the rending of the veil in the Holy of Holies, or the raising of the dead that walked around.

When these crazy events happened on Good Friday of the year 33 (or whatever), where are the floods of letters by Roman unit commanders back to their wealthy Patrician families, demanding job transfers away from Judea because of the zombie infestation and random darkness, or mentioning the Jews freaking out because their temple veil was torn? If the veil was torn, how did the priests keep doing services before the Holy of Holies such that the Romans were able to "defile" it with a symbol of the emperor in the 60s, leading to the revolt and destruction of that temple? It wouldn't be necessary if it was already shut down due to the traumatic effect of a destroyed veil. Yet it's not even mentioned. The silence speaks volumes; everyone who wrote about that time period just goes on speaking of mundane things.

Where are the historians, outside of Christian tradition? We know of a couple of dozen of them living in Jerusalem at the time, both Jewish and Roman (and others). He is claimed to have done many things that would have been worthy of widespread note, and yet the first historians to mention him are Josephus and Tacitus, neither of whom were even alive when Jesus died, and both of whom seem to refer to the followers of Jesus and their stories of him (usually at their execution trials, which is what Josephus was writing about), rather than directly to (nonexistent) records of TheManHimself™.

Your arrogance in demanding that we "prove you wrong" when you are the one who must bring evidence, and you are the one apparently refusing to grasp what proving a negative is, is simply astounding to me.

You cannot prove that Marduk doesn't exist. Or Allah. Or Ganesha. You can't prove that Cthulhu isn't reading this conversation. And neither can I. When you truly understand why you have dismissed all the other possible gods, you will see why I dismiss yours. Not BS excuses about "I accepted the Biblical evidence", but why/how you can so clearly see that the thousands of years the Greeks spent wasting their time on Zeus just made them silly and having "personal experiences" and prayers to nothing, yet you cannot look at your own beliefs and see that we can't tell a difference between the two.

---

Addendum: By the way, I've seen air. I've shot light beams through it and tested its spectral composition. I can tell you the Ideal Gas Equation that lets me calculate exactly how much air there is, what pressure it's under per volume and temperature, and what it will mass. Your asserted deity isn't just invisible, he's untestable. Why? Simple: he's not real. Your entire "evidence for" consists of "But I feel it, really really feel it!"

That's not evidence. I assure you, every one of the aforementioned Greeks felt their feels just as feely as you do about it.

Well, great! Look what you did! You scared him off, so now he is not going to come back!