Dear Theists....Why?

[HeyItsZeus]

Watson, sorry if you feel like I'm attacking you but I feel like your attacking me. Peace?

[Watson]

Haha, Peace, dude. I wasn't trying to attack you at all, I simply get fed up with arguing some times. I think all of us do.

[HeyItsZeus]

Haha, Peace, dude. I wasn't trying to attack you at all, I simply get fed up with arguing some times. I think all of us do.

Yeah it's nice to get our points across but we can all be friends, no matter if your or

---

Erm, why exactly must I believe that that is a fact? What authority, exactly, do you have to say something like that? And how is that evidence so much as logical argument against?

Use your common sense. Be serious to yourself. What if I told you there are flying monsters in my pants right now. You know I don't because it's impossible but you technically have no proof. The same applies here.

Sorry about this, you actually would have proof. Flying monsters don't exist.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@HeyItsZeus


That you don't understand is an argument from incredulity and irrelevant. I suspect also a matter of indifference to most believers,much like my indifference to their lack of understanding of atheism.


I spent 7 of 9 years at university studying the beliefs,myths, and overall culture of dozens of societies,including our own.Areas I studied include; Australia, UK, US, The Middle East, Southern and Northern Africa, India,China and Highland New Guinea

Some of my conclusions,which I present as an argument from relevent authority:

Religions always have several functions,from meeting deep human needs such as facing the fear of death and giving meaning and purpose to life,to means to power and social control. That religion is millennia old and virtually universal also at least implies that it has a survival value.

Every religion/belief system I studied has an internal logic.IE they are rational. I have never found any religious belief supported by evidence...

There is a common misconception which states logical=true,and/or "logic dictates". Both beliefs are untrue. Logical MAY=true,but that is not guaranteed.That is why I reject the notion that truth may be discovered by reason alone. I demand evidence. You believe in god(s),the soul,an afterlife,the paranormal and fairies? How wonderful for you! Show me your evidence or stop wasting my time and piss off.

[solja247]

You have just disproved yourself on absolutes.

I can not disprove this but I do know one thing, I am in an existence. An existence where certain laws of nature apply. An existence where some things are real and others false. One where I can disprove your religion along with others.

I dont think so. I can subjectively absolutely know what my favourite color or food is. There is a difference between absolute truths and knowing absolutely what you like .

How do you know you are in existence? It could all be a lie. You and eveyone else could be a computer simulation created by highly advanced aliens. Your existence is not an absolute.

---

I have never found any religious belief supported by evidence...

The resurrection of Jesus?

[Minimalist]

Okay, good for people. We're talking about Jesus, the proported Son of God, here. Perhaps He did rise from the dead, who is to say? Neither you nor me were there.

Textbook definition of "Special Pleading."

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking him/herself (or those he/she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.

[ABierman1986]

*facepalm* I do follow all of its teachings, Zeus. I believe in the Bible as God's Word. But I also believe you have misunderstood the stories contained within the Bible and misconstrued them as something which they are not. So, do I follow all of the teachings in the Bible? Not all, but damn near as close as I can come. Do I think that every single thing in the Bible happened as a historical fact? Obviously not, because that is the wrong way to read the Bible.

I ask you again; how do you know that people do not rise from the dead, or that it is not possible for people to rise from the dead? You have not examined the history of humanity and observed every single human being who ever existed at all throughout life, and found that none of them have ever risen from the dead. That would be the only way to conclusively say people do not rise from the dead.

And even then, you could not make the claim that people might not one day rise from the dead.

ALL this would prove, ALL, is that we didn't fully understand the difference between life and death. If somehow Jesus' body restarted after inactivity for three full days, that just means he wasn't really dead! It doesn't explaining the lack of a body or ascension to heaven, the really difficult parts to reconcile. There are lots of things we don't understand, running across one does NOT lead as evidence for God.

[solja247]

ALL this would prove, ALL, is that we didn't fully understand the difference between life and death. If somehow Jesus' body restarted after inactivity for three full days, that just means he wasn't really dead!

Jesus was dead!
A crucifixion killed you! The Romans were experts at it.

---

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, as that would mean He was who He claimed to be, I will give up my Christianity and be an Agnostic Diest...

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

The resurrection of Jesus?

You're teasing me, aren't you? You DO realise this is an atheist forum? Or is that you simply haven't managed to grasp the meaning of the word 'evidence'?

There is no evidence for the historicity of Jesus. His existence is plausible at best,but the alleged evidence falls far short of the scholarly rigor demanded by reputable historians today. The NT is the mythlogy of Christianity,with little if any basis in fact.. The Gospels cannot even agree on what happened with the resurrection.

Here's an exercise:Sit down with four copies of whatever Bible you use. Open each at a different account of the resurrection. Read them together. .

Neither the Torah nor the NT meet the requirements for credible evidence.Skeptics reject the special pleading made for sacred texts,as no claim for revealed truth has ever been supported by evidence.Such evidence would need to begin with proof of the existence of a divinty to make the revelations.No one has ever managed to accomplish such a task.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

EVIDENCE:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either (a) presumed to be true, or (b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
Many issues surround evidence, making it the subject of much discussion and disagreement. In addition to its subtlety, evidence plays an important role in many academic disciplines, including science and law, adding to the discourse surrounding it.

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

[Minimalist]

Read them together. .

Ah yes...the gospel of Matthewmarklukejohn, as Bart Ehrman calls it. It does lead to some damn near comical contradictions.