(August 9, 2010 at 8:36 pm)solja247 Wrote: As I have said before, it depends on what you believe. Some Atheists see it as being completely rational to believe in the supernatural, just no God or gods. (Most) Atheists dont adress the question, they use sacarsm or straw men to rationalise their arguement (atempt) and thus, completely reject the idea that (some) theists are completely rational.
Although I'd beg to know just how many of these atheists believe in supernatural phenomena, those people aren't being consistent and I'd question how they got to be atheists in the first place.
I think the basic fundamentals of proof and evidence are being twisted here. I cannot disprove something that has not been proven. I cannot disprove a god, or Russell's teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or gremlins hiding underneath my bed. I have not, nor has anyone else, observed these entities in a consistent, provable manner. In any case, regardless of what you believe - belief is not dependent upon reasonable and rational thinking, like in your case.
(August 9, 2010 at 8:36 pm)solja247 Wrote: Well thats where you are wrong. I have evidence first, then faith comes. I have evidence for God most likely existing and evidence for the life of Jesus and resurrection (I will bring the evidence forward latter, I need to do more research)
Why do you need faith if you already have evidence? Faith is there to bridge the gaps from what we think we know and what we want to be true.
Something tells me that if you had such compelling evidence for god and Jesus existing (which it's not looking likely at all by the way that he did - and if you use biblical literature you won't be saying anything new) you wouldn't need to go find your so-called evidence... and we wouldn't even be having this conversation!
