A good case against God

[Jeffonthenet]

The evidence I experience is virtually impossible to deny. Since it testifies of the God of Jesus Christ as portrayed in the bible, it is evident that it is not the God of muslims since they teach contradictory things about Jesus and God.

How's this possible if Mark wasn't talking about an historical Jesus?

I don't understand your point. I don't know what historical Jesus studies have to do with this, but Mark's source materials are used by even anti-christian scholars at least in some way to reconstruct a historical Jesus.

[FallentoReason]

How's this possible if Mark wasn't talking about an historical Jesus?

I don't understand your point. I don't know what historical Jesus studies have to do with this, but Mark's source materials are used by even anti-christian scholars at least in some way to reconstruct a historical Jesus.

Scholars are looking at it the wrong way. They have confined themselves to the historical box when clearly Mark is an allegory for what the Jews went through after the war.

[Jeffonthenet]

I don't make cases against things if there's no reason to believe them to begin with. There's plenty of good reasons not to accept popular arguments for gods though.

I don't understand your point. I don't know what historical Jesus studies have to do with this, but Mark's source materials are used by even anti-christian scholars at least in some way to reconstruct a historical Jesus.

Scholars are looking at it the wrong way. They have confined themselves to the historical box when clearly Mark is an allegory for what the Jews went through after the war.

Mark is not the only source, and since you disagree with scholarship you ought to give serious evidence to back up your claim. The letters of Paul, the other synoptics, John, and other sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonious, and even the gnostic gospel of Thomas are used as sources by historical Jesus scholars. And I still don't see how this is relevant to the point we were discussing.

[FallentoReason]

Mark is not the only source, and since you disagree with scholarship you ought to give serious evidence to back up your claim.

I have the evidence, which also deconverted me.

The letters of Paul, the other synoptics, John,

The other two synoptics are based on Mark and therefore not witness accounts. John is also not a witness account (written in 3rd person like Matthew). These 3 Gospels took Mark the wrong way and it's evident. Matthew for example has bits where the author clearly misunderstood what Mark was conveying.

Paul on the other hand seems to be preaching about a spiritual Christ. He doesn't mention anything about the life of Jesus, parables or miracles. It's actually not a surprise because the early Christians were divided into 6 categories about what they believed. These beliefs ranged from a fully spiritual Christ to a fully human and divine Christ.

and other sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonious,

It has been shown time and time again that for whatever reason these references aren't true.

and even the gnostic gospel of Thomas

Thomas is a Gospel of pure sayings which makes it even less useful than the canonical Gospels.

are used as sources by historical Jesus scholars.

Indeed they are used, but to no effect.

And I still don't see how this is relevant to the point we were discussing.

It's the most relevant topic for determining if your experiences are genuine. Without a Biblical Jesus it means your experiences can't even be plausibly genuine. No Jesus = no God experience.

[Jeffonthenet]

Mark is not the only source, and since you disagree with scholarship you ought to give serious evidence to back up your claim.

I have the evidence, which also deconverted me.

The letters of Paul, the other synoptics, John,

The other two synoptics are based on Mark and therefore not witness accounts. John is also not a witness account (written in 3rd person like Matthew). These 3 Gospels took Mark the wrong way and it's evident. Matthew for example has bits where the author clearly misunderstood what Mark was conveying.

It isn't about Mark, Luke etc… it is about their source material. Scholars have determined that there are multiple sources behind the gospels themselves such as "Q". There is the information, if I remember correctly that is in matthew and Luke but not in mark, the information in mark and matthew and not in luke, etc… There are differences perhaps in certain accounts but that is something that is a part of historical studies as the historian must discern what is historical and what is not.

Paul on the other hand seems to be preaching about a spiritual Christ. He doesn't mention anything about the life of Jesus, parables or miracles. It's actually not a surprise because the early Christians were divided into 6 categories about what they believed. These beliefs ranged from a fully spiritual Christ to a fully human and divine Christ.

To say that Paul did not believe that Jesus actually lived and died on a Roman cross is absurd. (if this is what you are saying) I challenge you to find one historian in the world with a teaching job and Phd who will agree with you.

and other sources such as Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonious,

It has been shown time and time again that for whatever reason these references aren't true.

and even the gnostic gospel of Thomas

Thomas is a Gospel of pure sayings which makes it even less useful than the canonical Gospels.

Actually, scholars deduce that the earliest sources were probably saying sources.

are used as sources by historical Jesus scholars.

Indeed they are used, but to no effect.

All of the relevant scholarship is against you.

[Tempus]

What the... why was my post from page 1 quoted? :S

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

the burden of proof is rubbish! perhaps you are assuming that theists have the burden of proof just because you are atheist. this is just assuming from a theological standpoint, you could twist that logic e.g. a person from the flat earth society might say ' i don't need to present evidence that the world is flat but you must give evidence of the world being round'.

That is precisely what these twats are saying: They refuse to support their assertion of a mythical sky monster with evidence. And any of us can provide a great deal of evidence that the planet is round.

your logic is lazy.

Your assertion is incoherent.

in order to prove the non-existance of god you must present your own arguments.

We are not obligated to prove the non-existance of your fairy tale monster any more than you are obligated to prove that martian mermice do not exist.

otherwise its looks like you are just trying to cop out of an argument. come on people!

You would like it to look that way, but that is out of your own disingenuousness and desire to avoid your obligation of the burden of proof.

---

'Why don't you believe in dragons?'
I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist!

Great! SAME THING WITH YOUR SKY FAIRY!!!

i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

You are asking? BUT again, all three of your rasons alsy apply to your mythical, impossible, made up fairy tale monster as well. Thanks for proving our point for us.

'theists claim that a god exists and so the burden of proof is on them. As an atheist I'm not claiming that there is no god, I have simply rejected the claim. The burden of proof is on you.'

you have yet to give a reason.

INCORRECT. The reason is that you theists have provided insufficient (read: NONE AT ALL) evidence.

i am saying the same thing as a theist i.e. As a theist, i'm rejecting the claim that there isn't a god. now the burden of proof in on you.

You say that, but you are rejecting sound reasoning and therefore unreasonable.

if we argue like this, it gets very boring.

Arguing with an irrationable, unreasonable, insane person is indeed boring.

In the words of William Lane Craig : 'absence of evidence is not evidence of abscence'

And we are supposed to be impressed with the fallacious rantings of that village idiot?

---

'What an ignorant thing to say
If you really think that way, I have a bridge in Brookilyn that I'll make a good price, just send me10 K dollars and its yours. '

I don't disbelieve this because i see no evidence but rather because i have evidence to disbelieve it: its highly unlikly that an online stranger wants to sell me a bridge, and your writing style gives me the impression that you made that up on the spot.

And the same applies to your claim of a sky fairy monster.

'No, because you say X exists(in your case, god), its your burden to show us that X exists. I am an atheist as a conclusion from the fact that there isn't a spec of evidence for a god, not mentioning your speciphic god.'

Why is it not your burden to show me that X dosen't exist?

The fact that you don't understand, or refuse to understand this, betrays your naivety. You need to learn about rational discourse. We are under not obligation to disprove the existence of unicorns in order to not believe they exist.

'I don't make any claims, I reject the claim theists make that there is a god.'

but that in itself is a claim,

No, it's not a claim. You are showing your ignorance again.

and why can't i reject the claim atheists make that there isn't a god?

You can if you want, but that still does not absolve you of your responsibility to support your positive claim of a sky fairy.

---

Many people said this: atheist is a person that lacks the belief in god, agnostic is about knowledge, it says we can't know if X can be believed. This makes you a gnostic theist, since you claim to know that god exists. Either you believe in a god, or you don't, is that hard to understand? The main point is that you claim that god exists, its your burden to show us that such exists, in a surefire way we all can know it. Since the dawn of man, its been a futile quest.

I don't care what you call yourself or me… I believe, like many many other Christians based on the personal experience of God.

AGAIN. THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE GOING TO DESCRIBE IN DETAIL WHAT THIS "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE" IS. YOU WILL BE TELLING US EXACTLY HOW THIS GOD FIGURE APPEARED TO YOU, WAHT IT LOOKED LIKE, SOUNDED LIKE, ETC, AND DETAIL YOUR CLAIMED ENCOUNTER AND ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST BEING A DISINGENUOUS LYING FUCKTARD SAYING "I HAVE THIS UNICORN IN MY GARAGE, BUT YOU CAN'T EXAMINE IT".

Yet personal experience is by definition unsharable,

THAT IS A LIE STRAIGHT FROM THE PIT OF HELL.

so I cannot communicate to you that experience, I can only testify to you based on my experience.

YOU ARE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH.

Why am I obligated to prove God in this case?

BECAUSE IT IS YOUR POSITIVE CLAIM.

Well, your extraordinary god requires extraordinary evidence, or why is it hiding? Ah yes, people with pure heart, whatever that means. I guess you mean people that think exactly like you... typical. Your arrogance is showing.

Do you disagree with the principle--the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in a case in which we should expect to have more evidence than we do--or not?

I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment.

Another lie. It was not taken for granted by the greeks who took Zeus for granted, or any other culture who took their own mythical beings for granted. [/size][/b]

---

"I also disagree that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. God's existence has been, conversely, taken for granted up until the enlightenment."

Uh. No. And before we can possibly get you to understand why that is wrong, you need to deal with the issue of your disbelief in other gods as pointed out to you elsewhere. You see, you're an atheist, too.

As far as I can tell this gives me no reason to think that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Perhaps you could be more explicit about what you are claiming here.

You don't think that your claim of a being created the entire universe is extraordinary? And that we can't see it, but you can? Wow.

---

What, you mean other than the complete lack of anything that could constitute evidence of any such thing ever having of existed?

It seems to me that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in the case that we should expect to have more evidence than we have.

Absence of evidence is absence of evidence. That is sufficient to call bullshit on your extraordinary, unsupported claim.

[FallentoReason]

It isn't about Mark, Luke etc… it is about their source material. Scholars have determined that there are multiple sources behind the gospels themselves such as "Q".

No document has been found yet that resembles the hypothetical document Q. But suppose there is. I think there's still the main issue that needs to be solved about the historical Jesus. For all we know Q could have been sayings that early cult priests would say during rituals. In other words, I don't see how Q would prove the historical Jesus on its own.

There is the information, if I remember correctly that is in matthew and Luke but not in mark, the information in mark and matthew and not in luke, etc… There are differences perhaps in certain accounts but that is something that is a part of historical studies as the historian must discern what is historical and what is not.

Yes, that's correct about the shared information. I've seen a pie graph that shows exactly the percentages of what each Gospels has from the others. What are your views on Markan priority?

To say that Paul did not believe that Jesus actually lived and died on a Roman cross is absurd. (if this is what you are saying) I challenge you to find one historian in the world with a teaching job and Phd who will agree with you.

I don't read the work of scholars. I believe they have all confined themselves to strictly looking at the Gospels as history when they could very well not have been intended to be read like that.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-13747.html

If you disagree, I'd like to hear why that is.

Actually, scholars deduce that the earliest sources were probably saying sources.

Fair enough, but like I said this on its own doesn't say much. Yes, pun intended =).

All of the relevant scholarship is against you.

And my research suggests the authors of the Gospels would disagree with what scholars say about their work.

[Taqiyya Mockingbird]

'Why don't you believe in dragons?'
I don't believe in dragons, not because we don't have evidence for their existance but because we have good reasons to believe they don't exist! i.e. they are mythological, their phisiology is very highly unlikly and they are made up?

But what about all the dragon bones we keep finding? Scientists might claim they are from some other kind of monster, but we know better, we know they are dragon bones. There you have the proof!

[jonb]

I'm not sure this qualifies as a good case, its a bit of an old case, it's been round the world a few times, and it may seem a little tired and has battered edges, but its is as true a helper now as when it was first made.