Christians and Their Homework!

[Pat Mustard]

It appears to me that many people believe that we need proof to believe in God's existence and that in the absence of such proof, we shouldn't believe that God exists. The thing that puzzles me about this view is that if there are no good reasons to think that God exists and no good reasons to think that He doesn't, then I'd think we're left with agnosticism, not atheism.

You don't understand burden of proof. You're making the claim, therefore you've got to prove it. The null hypothesis is not "meh" it's "that claim is unevidenced, it is therefore reasonable to doubt the claim's veracity".

Oh and you also don't understand what it means to be agnostic. Well I'll break it down for you, the word comes from gnosis, the Greek for knowledge, and in religious terms it generally is taken to mean a secret knowledge which elevates the possessor over the run of the mill people. Agnosis is the word with the "anti" prefix attached, meaning, literally "without knowledge".

So when you use agnostic to denote a person's religious position you are simply stating that they do not have knowledge of that god, and they acknowledge that lack.

Whereas atheist is generally taken (except by lying religitards trying to strawman their opposition) as somebody who doesn't believe in the god claim. Guess what, not believing in a god claim is admitting that you have no knowledge that the god claim is true. So all you have to do to become atheist and agnostic is also claim that you've no knowledge supporting the falsity of the god claim.

Personally I am both atheist and agnostic to a generic god claim, whereas I am atheist and gnostic to the yhwhist claim (because any honest reading of the bible would show yhwh cannot exist).

---

6. The Historical Argument: The best explanation of the historical facts surrounding the apostles' claims of Jesus' resurrection, boldness in proclaiming the Gospel, and eventual martyrdom, as well as the rise of early Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus, the best explanation of which is God.

I don't even know what you mean by this.

What CA is saying there is that because shit got wrote down, it must therefore be real (ignoring that said shit got wrote down long after it was asserted to have happened, and directly contradicted by other shit that also got wrote down or the lack of corroborating shit independent of the shit being also wrote down, if you follow me).

Therefore CA is essentially stating both that the Disc is an oblate spheroid with a diametre of 10,000 miles ca and that it is a relatively flat disc of circumference of 10,000 miles ca. carried on the backs of four elephants (there were five once, but one fell off) who themselves are carried on the backs of a giant space turle.

Now we, as daring chelonauts (morituri nolumus mori!), know that the Great A'tuin exists, we have gazed into it's eye as it gazed right back. Or as the saying goes, "my gods, it's full of elephant!".

De chelonian mobile