Atheism is unreasonable

[Esquilax]

Apparently it's a 160 year old lie that has held up to 160 years of scrutiny

I don't believe that it has, and I'd like to devote an entire thread it hasn't.

Do you deny, then, that the theory of evolution is currently accepted as factual by 98 percent of the scientific community, both theist and atheist, according to recent polls? What makes you think you know better than them?

Also, please do make your thread. I'm always willing to bitch slap stupid misrepresentations of evolutionary theory down.

[Whateverist]

Because there is no possible way for you to rebuttal the TRUTH Cool Shades

And yet you remain capable to mangle the language. Whatever.

---

I can't be wrong when I have a video of Vilenkin explaining the theorem and it's implications.

And that is why you fail. Your source can be wrong. Vilenkin can be wrong. You can always be wrong. It is only because you think you're on the side of the one who invents the truth that you think you share in His infallibility. You don't (and none of us even believe in Him).

[His_Majesty]

Almost on par with Mohammed.

No one is doubting that Mohammed ever existed, though. The Resurrection of Jesus is doubted, and the mere existence of Jesus is sometimes doubted...and the issue that was raised is the question of how could a man like Jesus do so much yet so little was written about him by the people of that time...and my point is, apparently everything played out the way it should have been, with Christianity being the world's #1 religion by number of followers...so newspaper articles, interviews, television appearances, and front page covers of Jesus was not needed because more people follow Jesus than any other person in history.

And we're going to play the numbers fallacy, now?

It would only be a fallacy if my claim was "Christianity has the most followers, therefore, Christianity is true". I neither said nor implied that. I was making the point that Jesus didn't need all of the glitz and glamour that comes with popularity that other historical figures have enjoyed, and he is still the most celebrated man til this day.

---

Oh, so now you're going to pretend that the christian religion didn't have churches and demagogues and so on, constantly stoking the fires of religious faith, up to and including violently eradicating or ostracizing anyone who disagreed with them?

That is Crusade stuff...that has nothing to do with current 11-8-2014 stuff. No one today is getting tortured, beaten, killed, persecuted, etc..for believing in Christianity today. So why the hell is it still the #1 religion by number of followers?

You and I both know that the current state of your religion was not the work of just one man, so quit pretending.

It was all based on the legacy of just one man..and in that "legacy" includes this man's works.

And while you're at it, you should admit that you were wrong about the BGV theorem, and that you didn't do any research before you talked about it.

Ok, then I'd like you to make a video refutation of the video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem to an attentive audience at which he repeated demonstrated why the theorem proves that inflationary universes had a beginning.

Until you can do that, please...stop.

[abaris]

The Resurrection of Jesus is doubted, and the mere existence of Jesus is sometimes doubted...

Two fundamentaly different issues. The resurrection of Jesus is a miracle, the mere existence of Jesus is just a person existing at a given time in history.

On the second issue the jury is still out. His existence has neither been proven nor disproven. For the first issue you need faith in miracles to even consider the possibility.

I wonder how much you actually know about the general times and believes when the gospels were written. First, a resurrected god wasn't that special in regional believes. Osiris for example was virtually put together again by his wife Isis after he had been ripped apart by his brother Seth. Dyonisos ripped apart by Hera and rebuilt by Zeus. The Sumerian god Tammuz was no different: he ended up in the kingdom of the dead. Inanna supposedly relented, and went to rescue Tammuz and turn him into a god. She did this not just once but many times. Each year Tammuz dies and the world (at least in the Near East) is hit by droughts and extreme heat, and when the rains come and the crops begin to grow, it is a sign that Tammuz has once again been resurrected.

In general terms it was a time of miracles. Authors, even calling themselves hostorians, reported om miraculous events as if they were something naturally occuring. The term history itself had a very different connotation than it has nowadays. It was used to idealise situations, people, events or even some perceived golden age.

Last but not least and that's the point where every christian believing in the trinity loses me. Jesus, as defined by the concept, was god walking the earth. So he sacrificed himself to himself and of course he resurrected himself because he was god almighty. By the christian definition laid down in the late 4th century, we're not talking about some politheistic character, who's actually been a seperate god, but about one single spirit. The father, the son and the divine spirit.

[His_Majesty]

That external means 'outside of Egypt' is a standard you've made up.

No it isn't. I am being asked to provide evidence outside of (external) the Bible, as if that is supposed to somehow diminish the truth value of the Bible...well, I want external sources too.

We'd be perfectly happy for external sources about Jesus within Jerusalem contemporary to the time he was supposed to be there. 'External' is 'external to the document where the claim is made', not 'external to the country the claim is made'.

I've already stated that each Gospel is independent and therefore "external" from the other, but all you would do is move goal posts.

That you asked for evidence of King Tut's existence external to Egypt. Evidence external to Egypt is unnecessary to reasonably confirm the existence of the boy king, just as evidence external to Palestine is unecessary to confirm the existence of an historical Jesus. Asking for corroborating evidence outside the region the corroborating evidence would most likely be seems...kind of random.

We have both internal and external evidence for Jesus.

Analogies are not your strong point.

Weaknesses? I have none

Nonsense. We could figure out the origin of life tomorrow without being one step closer to explaining consciousness, and vice versa.

So in other words, once you solve one problem, you have to deal with the other problem? Well, that was my point

I know deep down inside you like my analogies...so I have another one for you, regarding these two "problems".

Imagine you are running through the woods being chased by Jason with a machete...you are fast, and he is slow...so you are doing a great job of out running him...as you are running, you are approaching a road, and you proceed to run across the road, and right when you get to the middle of the road.......BAM, you get hit by a big mack truck going 70 mph.

Well, you managed to escape one problem (Jason / abiogenesis), but now, you have a completely different problem on your hands (truck /origin of consciousness).

How was that one?

---

Actually to be an atheist you don't have to believe anything. For example, I am an atheist and I believe the world was created by a plate of spaghetti. I believe that life came into existence because on top of that spaghetti there was a meatball all covered in cheese.

Then that plate of spaghetti is....God

---

Evolution is a 160 year old LIE.

Because dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed any exceptions to this? I will answer for you: No. So why do you believe that the animals of yesterday was able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do?

---

So then you do deny that the numerous scientist's examining Tut's body in the 19th century lived outside Egyptian antiquity? Is that the argument you are sticking with?

Very unfortunate...

---

I did. Unfortunately it didn't help mask your ignorance about the nature of evidence and scientific research.

Word.

Ah. I take it you failed to note my intentional reference to Luke 24.

What about it?

Btw, Santa Claus is pretty popular among the kiddies of the world too. You STILL writing to him?

No.

[Whateverist]

Because dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed any exceptions to this? I will answer for you: No. So why do you believe that the animals of yesterday was able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do?

And why, I wonder, do you think God decided to continually rub out and then replace life forms throughout the fossil record? We certainly don't find any modern forms among the earlier strata. Of course magic could account for any and every discrepancy. You'd just have to stop thinking you were adding anything of merit to the non-magic discussion.

[abaris]

Because dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed any exceptions to this? I will answer for you: No. So why do you believe that the animals of yesterday was able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do?

And dinosaurs produced birds at some time. At least using your simplistic standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

[Whateverist]

Unless you posit that god just kept rebooting his plaything. Apparently all sorts of animals can come from god but none of them can come from a different kind of animal which came from god. Even though that would mean the new animal came from god once removed, this theist at least can't imagine that god would be able to impart his out-of-nothing powers to his own creations. Since god is the theists plaything they get to spin the tale any way they like. But I agree, the plot stinks and the characters are totally unbelievable.

[abaris]

Unless you posit that god just kept rebooting his plaything.

Dinosaurs 2.0. All equipped with new features such as the ability to fly, shit on people's heads and in a streamlined design to fit all needs and purposes.

[Esquilax]

That is Crusade stuff...that has nothing to do with current 11-8-2014 stuff. No one today is getting tortured, beaten, killed, persecuted, etc..for believing in Christianity today. So why the hell is it still the #1 religion by number of followers?

Because it enjoys the luxury of social acceptability and indoctrination, having become so widespread and insistently taught to children because in the beginning it had so much (violent, coercive) help in spreading and staying rooted. In short, the reason so many people believe today is because of an unbroken line of missionaries and crusades and demagogues enshrining the religion into the culture by any means necessary. The one thing you cannot say, with a view to history, is that the reason christianity is so widespread is because of Jesus. He had a lot of extremely underhanded help.

It was all based on the legacy of just one man..and in that "legacy" includes this man's works.

But that's a very different claim you made originally, that it's all because of Jesus. It's not; if it had just been Jesus I am sure your religion would have been snuffed out quite quickly. Not as if there weren't many more that suffered that fate, and they had no worse information than your god.

Ok, then I'd like you to make a video refutation of the video of Vilenkin presenting the theorem to an attentive audience at which he repeated demonstrated why the theorem proves that inflationary universes had a beginning.

Until you can do that, please...stop.

No, Vilenkin's theorem, as the theorem literally states as its chief conclusion, only demonstrates that universal inflation has a beginning. Because the theorem only discusses universal inflation, and not the beginnings of the universe.

So, are you lying, or not reading the things posted to you? Because, you know, I quoted the theorem paper verbatim, plus two of the authors saying the opposite of what you said, including in the resource you provided.

Because dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Have you ever observed any exceptions to this? I will answer for you: No. So why do you believe that the animals of yesterday was able to do something that the animals of today have never been observed to do?

Oh good. Please do make your thread, because you have no clue what evolution is, and smacking you down again will be a pleasure.

Here's a list of transitional fossils for you. Educate yourself: these show the gradual progress of evolution from one species to another, as evolution actually describes. Please learn what you're talking about before speaking on this subject again, and leave your ludicrous creationist fantasies about what evolution is out of the conversation.