What would you do if you found out God existed

[Minimalist]

The vast majority of historians do agree that Jesus was a real person and that at the very least he was crucified.

That is irrelevant.  When you ask them what EVIDENCE they use for that opinion all you ever get back are the fucking gospel stories.  Those are documents of faith and not history.

I don't care how much you believe it.  Your boy did not come back from the fucking dead.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Nemo
Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. / shrugs

I can un-disputably express that your god is make-believe....let me guess, you don't want to talk about that either, out of the field of play..yadda yadda yadda.

That is called Ad hominem and is even cheaper.

It is as if we played ping pong and You smashed Your own had against the table and said it was me

Oh for fucks sake, if you're going to use the word at least learn what it means.  An ad hom would be if I claimed that you were wrong because you were an asshole.

[Harry Nevis]

Just take a simple example of how certain information that are obvious are being completely ignored. Have You ever felt somebody's gaze on You. Has any girl ever turned around after You stared at her for too long. There are many examples that show how science is selective and ignores any kind of information that could lead to discoveries that would underminde the stability of the power structure. It is obvious that a prove of the supernatural even if proven without any possibility of doubt would not be shared with the public. There is a book by Le Bon about mass psychology that touches a very sensetive topic. This topic has been studied further in non public institutions and the information is classified.

Why would there be something as classified information if not to prevent somebody from knowing something. Has anybody touched the topic of the success rate of this system? What kind of measures would be taken to prevent leakes of information? Obviously truth is not just something that can be put into the mainstream and circulated as one would wish it to happen.

Oh, please.  It's a conspiracy now, huh?

---

I said we shouldn't automatically discard the possibility of absolutely everything there is no immediate, concrete proof of. This is obvious. We can make assumptions, make guesses, theorize, believe certain things, etc. We do it all the time.

We should if the baggage that comes with not discarding them is rife with other assumptions of truth. Deciding that their may be a god is one thing, claiming it as fact and raising kids to accept the trappings of religion as facts is just egotistic, IMO.

[Cyberman]

I don't care how much you believe it. Your boy did not come back from the fucking dead.

But-but... the tomb was empty..!

[Captain_Nemo]

That is called Ad hominem and is even cheaper.

It is as if we played ping pong and You smashed Your own had against the table and said it was me

Oh for fucks sake, if you're going to use the word at least learn what it means.  An ad hom would be if I claimed that you were wrong because you were an asshole.

Still no ball on my field of play.
Do You want me to argue against an imaginary argument?

[The Grand Nudger]

If you have nothing to say, and if you don't wish to discuss whatever you do feel compelled to say...then whats the point of saying anything at all?

[Harry Nevis]

@Nemo
Then perhaps you shouldn't have brought it up. / shrugs

I can un-disputably express that your god is make-believe....let me guess, you don't want to talk about that either, out of the field of play..yadda yadda yadda.

That is called Ad hominem and is even cheaper.

It is as if we played ping pong and You smashed Your own had against the table and said it was me

I don't believe that is an Ad Hominem attack.

---

That's the problem, C/L.  You're cherry-picking.  We have as much actual evidence for your jesus as we do for Zeus.  But I don't see you saying we should give Zeus a fair shake.

The standard for scientific exploration is not what you find acceptable.

I don't mean to turn this into a evangelization type thread, but I just wanna say the bolded is simply not true. The vast majority of historians do agree that Jesus was a real person and that at the very least he was crucified.

Not the vast majority of non-religious historians.

[Catholic_Lady]

I said we shouldn't automatically discard the possibility of absolutely everything there is no immediate, concrete proof of. This is obvious. We can make assumptions, make guesses, theorize, believe certain things, etc. We do it all the time.

And that's why I'm an atheist.

I meant "we" as in all of us humans. You're being dishonest if you tell me that you automatically disregard everything as a possibility unless there is concrete proof of it - that you don't make guesses, assumptions, theories, have certain things you believe to be true... It's part of our every day life. Just today when I was at the store I didn't buy eggs because I knew my husband went to the store yesterday when I was out of town, and I assumed he probably bought eggs even though I didn't check to make sure.

---

I don't mean to turn this into a evangelization type thread, but I just wanna say the bolded is simply not true. The vast majority of historians do agree that Jesus was a real person and that at the very least he was crucified.

Not the vast majority of non-religious historians.

Completely untrue. Didnt you read my link?

[Harry Nevis]

And that's why I'm an atheist.

I meant "we" as in all of us humans. You're being dishonest if you tell me that you automatically disregard everything as a possibility unless there is concrete proof of it - that you don't make guesses, assumptions, theories, have certain things you believe to be true... It's part of our every day life. Just today when I was at the store I didn't buy eggs because I knew my husband went to the store yesterday when I was out of town, and I assumed he probably bought eggs even though I didn't check to make sure.

Actually, I misread your post, thinking is said "we should" instead of "we shouldn't.  You're too quick for my edit.  My bad.

[Foxaèr]

And this is why more productive discussions cannot be had. As soon as I come in swinging with my strong atheist logic, the other person stops responding to me. The discussion cannot continue if I'm ignored. Unless, the other person ending the conversation with me, is conceding that I won the debate. That's a win I can accept.