Atheists: Can you disprove the resurrection or Jesus' existence?

[little_monkey]

How can anyone disprove something that doesn't exist? Like, disprove that you can catch leprechauns with gold nuggets!

[Ace Otana]

How can anyone disprove something that doesn't exist? Like, disprove that you can catch leprechauns with gold nuggets!

When they can't prove something or back up their beliefs with anything, they then turn and demand that WE disprove it somehow.
Their claims, their burden of proof. Just have to keep reminding them that.

[coffeeveritas]

Coffee,

Ever see this one?

That's AWESOME! I was cracking up when Jesus had to keep resurrecting Judas!

---

2 - 3.) The complexities of the God-human hybrid, we're going to need to breed a geneticist with a priest. Hmm.... But how will we get him to break his vow?

Very easily! Just have a ten year old boy drop his pants.

No, no, no according to the archdioceses of California that's just good clean fun, they don't count that as a priest breaking their vow. It has to be something outrageous, like a consenting woman of approximately the same age. Oh, and she has to be a geneticist.

[Greatest I am]

Among the things that is apparently impossible with gods is the complete inability to provide testable and verifiable proof of their existence - none have - but then things that do not exist really have no power at all anyway.

Not to interrupt but I would just like to say that the Bible God may not exist but to say that he has not had power and influence would be wrong.
Women, just of late, have started to be equal to men and Gays are still dying and being discriminated against thanks to the interpretation that Christianity has given to Genesis.

Regards
DL

Not to interrupt but I would just like to say that the Bible God may not exist but to say that he has not had power and influence would be wrong.
Women, just of late, have started to be equal to men and Gays are still dying and being discriminated against thanks to the interpretation that Christianity has given to Genesis.

Regards
DL

[weakagnostic]

Wouldn't this pretty much do it?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
Otherwise you must have an extraordinary tolerance for coincidences.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Wouldn't this pretty much do it?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm

Oh for fuck sake! Not THAT drivel yet AGAIN! --and who has been watching Zeitgeist?



The Horus/ Jesus argument has been thoroughly debunked. Look it up,for goodness sake.

This is pure crackpot fringe stuff,appealing to the half-educated ,with a limited capacity for rational thought.

Otherwise you must have an extraordinary tolerance for coincidences.

Argument from personal incredulity.

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false); therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

(wiki)

[ElDinero]

I think an argument like that would be fairly convincing, if it was true. The lack of sources quoted in the article is a huge worry and a cursory search on the matter finds it's mostly crap and at best, heavily interpreted to fit the argument. Not a good one.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think an argument like that would be fairly convincing, if it was true

Perhaps, if you conflate correlation and causality, which I don't.

Christianity is not an original religion,it contains no new ideas. However,it's closer to the mystery religions than Egyptian beliefs.

Any claim of a causal relationship between Egyptian and Christian beliefs shows a stunning ignorance of the Egyptian pantheon and basic beliefs,starting with the Isis/Osiris/Seth/ Horus myth.

[Minimalist]

Indeed. Not original at all

http://platonism347.tripod.com/

If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians (who differed from their fellow Jews only in the belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah,) was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief. The doctrine of the incarnation, and the mystery of transubstantiation, were both adopted, and are both as repugnant to reason, as was the ancient pagan rite of viewing the entrails of animals to forecast the fate of empires!

[weakagnostic]

I think an argument like that would be fairly convincing, if it was true. The lack of sources quoted in the article is a huge worry and a cursory search on the matter finds it's mostly crap and at best, heavily interpreted to fit the argument. Not a good one.

The article was interesting so I checked some more and found

http://www.amazon.com/Christ-Egypt-Horus...385&sr=1-1

"Murdock cites more than nine hundred scholarly sources and primary texts which includes thousands of footnotes, around 60 illustrations, and a 36 page long bibliography. "

Of course the argument might be drivel anyway but in this book at least there doesn't appear to be any lack of sources. Has anyone read it?