Evidence God Exists

[tavarish]

One man many dead this is a horrible thing the so called official church did.I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer.

Call me crazy, but I don't think Catholics would make somebody a Pope if they didn't believe in the religion.

Yes there are first hand accounts,the Four Gospels.You want take them seriously even though there are historians that say Lukes writings are arranged and penned as well as any famous historian.Lukes facts about other people and places have been found to be very reliable.He was criticized for a very long time about his facts however as archeologist continue to uncover this ancient world they discover what he's written to be very reliable.

WTF? The four Gospels were written 3 decades after Jesus' death. The earliest one was written in 65 AD. The ONLY one to speak of Jesus' resurrection, the Gospel of Matthew, is thought to have been written somewhere around 80 years AFTER the supposed death of Jesus. None of this was firsthand accounts, by the way. It just so happens the Gospel of Matthew is the one that is the most historically dubious and questionable.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/matthew.html

---

Rebut all you like, I think differently. I can't seriously be expected to read all 60000+ posts in case there was something important I missed, can I?

That's why there's a search feature. Learn it. Use it. Love it. Be it.

Substitute religious group for Dawkins lot and they are identical, assuming the 'evidence on hand' was provided for them? Your own concerns testify to the inherent 'danger'.

Do you even know what Richard Dawkins says on the matter? I'm guessing you don't, as you think he's some kind of authority. He's a dude that wrote a book. Some of us on here don't even like his style of writing or the points that he makes. I personally disagree on many of his points. It's readily apparnt that you have absolutely no idea what a religion IS, as you're equating it to a LACK of belief in something. Do you subscribe to the religion of non-racism?

I apologise, my aim was at the atheists who have merely scorned and insulted those of faith, if this does not include you, I am sorry. Some on here seem to enjoy being rude, a little too much.

It's insulting when this question gets asked a million times, then another flash in the pan apologetic comes and asks the same question, thinking that they're daring and open minded, only to scoff at the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Words have meaning. You can't just call an apple a grapefruit because you feel like it and expect people to go along with you.

I consider an enlightened open mind to be a sign of intelligence, more than shouting, anyway. I was encouraged to do so myself. As a noob.

Oh, the ironing.

To you there's a big difference. To other atheists, not so.
The guy kept having to specifically exclude the basic tenet 'there is no god', from consideration as a tenet(!). And a completely loaded debate. Doesn't convince me, at all.

Because it's not a tenet. It's a lack of belief. It's not even an assertion, as most atheists are intellectually honest enough to say "I don't believe in the claim that there is a God", not "there is no God", as the mind doesn't operate in absolutes, nor can we make the claim without evidence to support it.

How is it a loaded debate when the caller asked the question? They made a stupid assertion and got it shoved back in their face. Much like what goes on in here pretty often.

[Thor]

One man many dead this is a horrible thing the so called official church did.I do not know if that Pope was a christian.Does history record him as saying he was a believer and if so was it recorded by a reliable historian who heard him say he was a believer.

Wow. You "don't know if the Pope was a Christian"? You seriously want to argue that the Pope may not have been a Christian?

Yes there are first hand accounts,the Four Gospels.

Tavarish did a good job of refuting this claim already, but I'll throw in my two cents.

NO ONE knows who wrote the gospels. Plus, they were written decades after Jesus supposedly died. They are not first hand accounts! Not to mention that this falls into the category of using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Yes you are correct that Thallus writings were distroyed or lost but when were they lost.Julius Africanus says that Thallus recorded the great darkness in is third volume and Julius Africanus made this statement around 221 AD so Africanus must of had at the very least copies of the Thallus volumes.

So, at best, we have something from a person who lived over 150 years later who may or may not have actually seen something written by Thallus. And if what he saw was a copy? Whose to say that whoever copied Thallus's writings didn't insert their own embellishment? No real historian would hang his hat on this as evidence of anything.

The scriptures of Budda were not put into writing until after the time of Jesus and Budda's biography wasn't written until the first century AD.Budda supposedly live in the sixth century BC.Bet you know what's next,that's right,I've had several nonbelievers to tell me how Jesus copied from Budda's writtings.Now how can that be when we can not say that Budda was a real person and we do know that Budda's scriptures were written after the Four Gospels.

What does Buddha have to do with any of this? I have not made any claim regarding Buddha and the gospels. Nice try at a red herring.

Let me ask you this do you really believe that the afore mentioned historians who were and are considered excellent historians would tarnish their reputations on what they would deem hearsay?

I don't know what any of these historians would or would not have done. All I know for sure is that they were not alive at the time Jesus supposedly lived. Therefore, they could not have been eyewitnesses to anything that Jesus supposedly did. Consequently, anything in their writings regarding Jesus is hearsay. And hearsay is weak evidence.

[amw79]

Rebut all you like, I think differently......
I consider an enlightened open mind to be a sign of intelligence.

Glad we've cleared that up.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make by editing my post to make me appear hypocritical. Ridicule of belief? Maybe so. Quote me in context, or don't bother. Just makes you appear childish, to me.

I wasn't quoting you out of context, certainly not intentionally.

They were two direct quotes taken from one post, in which I removed the middle couple of sentences to juxtaposition your quotes more effectively as I was amused by your comment on open-mindedness, while in the same post stating that someone can "rebut all you like, I think differently"; which comes across as quite closed-minded and not conducive to debate.

And don't tell me what I can and can't quote, I don't give two hoots how I appear, to you.

[chatpilot]

Godschild Wrote: Yes there are first hand accounts,the Four Gospels.

Wow!! That is the first time I hear someone make such an empty and baseless assertion. The first three gospels (the synoptic gospels) tend to agree with each other on some points but in many they show their lack of knowledge and agreements as to the so called events that surrounded the life and earthly ministry of Jesus. Johns gospel focuses more on the spiritual and messianic aspects of Jesus and is not meant to be a biography of sorts of the earthly life of Jesus. The earliest gospel is believed to be the gospel of Mark which many believed was written based on a gospel called Q which as in the case of all the biblical records we have no existing original documents of any of these. That N.T. you uphold so dearly is nothing more than copies of copies of ancient texts that have been reworked and rewritten, not to mention the many retranslations of its texts.

None of the gospels are first hand accounts and as stated by Tavarish were written about 3 decades after the alleged death of Jesus and they were based mostly on oral traditions and not historical facts. No one knows who the composers of the gospels were since they were first presented as anonymous works and the names that are attached to them did not appear on them till at least the middle of the second century.

[RedFish]

Rebut all you like, I think differently. I can't seriously be expected to read all 60000+ posts in case there was something important I missed, can I?

That's why there's a search feature. Learn it. Use it. Love it. Be it.

You wish. I'll gather my information from my own sources, thanks. Far better things to do with my time..Loving, living, appreciating the wonderful gift that life is...You know the kind of s***

Substitute religious group for Dawkins lot and they are identical, assuming the 'evidence on hand' was provided for them? Your own concerns testify to the inherent 'danger'.

Do you even know what Richard Dawkins says on the matter? I'm guessing you don't, as you think he's some kind of authority. He's a dude that wrote a book. Some of us on here don't even like his style of writing or the points that he makes. I personally disagree on many of his points. It's readily apparnt that you have absolutely no idea what a religion IS, as you're equating it to a LACK of belief in something. Do you subscribe to the religion of non-racism?

I was offering the information as proof that atheism has dogma, not that atheism is a religion. Do you understand the difference? I subscribe to no religion, as I have said. Neither do I deny them.

I apologise, my aim was at the atheists who have merely scorned and insulted those of faith, if this does not include you, I am sorry. Some on here seem to enjoy being rude, a little too much.

It's insulting when this question gets asked a million times, then another flash in the pan apologetic comes and asks the same question, thinking that they're daring and open minded, only to scoff at the fact that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Words have meaning. You can't just call an apple a grapefruit because you feel like it and expect people to go along with you.

Err. What question? There is no question in that quote. You've lost me with that rant, but I feel it is aimed at me. Why? And WTF do you mean?

I consider an enlightened open mind to be a sign of intelligence, more than shouting, anyway. I was encouraged to do so myself. As a noob.

Oh, the ironing.

Not worthy of response. <other than that...

To you there's a big difference. To other atheists, not so.
The guy kept having to specifically exclude the basic tenet 'there is no god', from consideration as a tenet(!). And a completely loaded debate. Doesn't convince me, at all.

Because it's not a tenet. It's a lack of belief. It's not even an assertion, as most atheists are intellectually honest enough to say "I don't believe in the claim that there is a God", not "there is no God", as the mind doesn't operate in absolutes, nor can we make the claim without evidence to support it.

I'm sorry, the guy himself CALLED it a tenet. Listen again, rather than just enjoying the fun-making.

How is it a loaded debate when the caller asked the question? They made a stupid assertion and got it shoved back in their face. Much like what goes on in here pretty often.

1. Debate was for tv purposes.
2. 2 atheists, 1 theist.
3. Atheists in control of 'kill-switch' and used it as a threat.
Reminded me of here.

[tavarish]

You wish. I'll gather my information from my own sources, thanks. Far better things to do with my time..Loving, living, appreciating the wonderful gift that life is...You know the kind of s***

Missed the point. Use the search feature to see if the topic has been beaten to death, which it has. It gets a bit monotonous to have to explain to every theist that no, atheism has no inherent dogma or tenets.

I was offering the information as proof that atheism has dogma, not that atheism is a religion. Do you understand the difference? I subscribe to no religion, as I have said. Neither do I deny them.

You're right, and you didn't make the religion assertion. I apologize. However your claim that atheism has an inherent doctrine has so many holes it would make swiss cheese jealous.

Moreover, not subscribing to and denying something is the same thing.

Here's a definition of denial:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denial

a. A refusal to accept or believe something, such as a doctrine or belief.

Unless you believe in the doctrines of other religions, which you just confirmed was NOT the case, then you are denying them.

Err. What question? There is no question in that quote. You've lost me with that rant, but I feel it is aimed at me. Why? And WTF do you mean?

Here's the question: Does atheism have inherent tenets or dogma?

The same question you posited in statement form. It gets tiring explaining to people who just show up on this site that no, atheism isn't a worldview, nor is it dogmatic, or a presupposition on ANYTHING other than a lack of belief in God or gods.

I'm sorry, the guy himself CALLED it a tenet. Listen again, rather than just enjoying the fun-making.

Which means you missed the entire point of the discussion.

1. Debate was for tv purposes.
2. 2 atheists, 1 theist.
3. Atheists in control of 'kill-switch' and used it as a threat.
Reminded me of here.

...and what is this evidence of? I'm guessing they should just let people call in with whatever unfounded rant they want, right? The caller wasn't making a point, he was repeating the same tired rhetoric. The hosts didn't use the phone as a threat, it was a warning that they have a finite amount of time and for the point to be concise with evidence to back it up. It's not hard.

I've actually seen all of their YouTube videos - they're very fair to those who call in with legitimate questions and claims.

[RedFish]

Swiss cheese still stands up, no matter how many holes. Up to a point obviously. I think there's enough to make what I said stand too. I did not claim inherent doctrine, only dogma.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them. You think 'neither do I deny' means I adopt them all? Ok, I'll rephrase.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them validity to those who believe in them. My 'Welcome' post made this clearer. Sorry.
Missed the point of what discussion? That wasn't a discussion, it was a massacre.
The evidence I presented was of the debate being 'loaded'. It should have more properly been called 'Phone-in Show'.
I'm used to a more structured kind of debate, with a referee, and a formal debating structure to make sure parity is upheld. I'm English. Not going to apologise for that.

[tackattack]

there is a section for formal debate

[Minimalist]

Wow!! That is the first time I hear someone make such an empty and baseless assertion.

Well he is a jackass, CP. You really can't expect much else.

[tavarish]

Swiss cheese still stands up, no matter how many holes. Up to a point obviously. I think there's enough to make what I said stand too. I did not claim inherent doctrine, only dogma.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them. You think 'neither do I deny' means I adopt them all? Ok, I'll rephrase.
I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them validity to those who believe in them. My 'Welcome' post made this clearer. Sorry.
Missed the point of what discussion? That wasn't a discussion, it was a massacre.
The evidence I presented was of the debate being 'loaded'. It should have more properly been called 'Phone-in Show'.
I'm used to a more structured kind of debate, with a referee, and a formal debating structure to make sure parity is upheld. I'm English. Not going to apologise for that.

Wow. I mean it's one thing to ignore evidence, but it's quite another to wilfully admit your argument has holes in it, then make the assertion that it still stands on its own merits. It gets quite frustrating to keep explaining to people that no, atheism doesn't have a dogma, especially not because you heard some Christian apologetics' site make the ridiculous assumption.

Dogma is doctrine.

dogma [ˈdɒgmə]
n pl -mas, -mata [-mətə]
1. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a religious doctrine or system of doctrines proclaimed by ecclesiastical authority as true
2. (Philosophy) a belief, principle, or doctrine or a code of beliefs, principles, or doctrines Marxist dogma

"I subscribe to no religion, neither do I deny them validity to those who believe in them." - That's completely different from what you originally said.

It's a TV call in show, they have discussions and they can get heated. I don't see the issue. There was only one guy talking at a time, and they made the same point. It's not like they were overwhelming the caller with banter, quite the opposite. Claims have to be challenged one at a time, especially when you don't have unlimited time.