Observations on atheists

[c0rbin]

Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

But here is where it is :

If YOU claim there is a god, much less a J-C God, the burden of proof is on YOU.

And all the opinions of of all the forums on this whole world-wide web don't change that one little bit.

 

[DarkMagician]

Before I read the responses, I thought Riddick was making a case for atheists.

Yeah, I thought it was WinAce's FStDT again.

 

[Riddick]

Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

But here is where it is :

If YOU claim there is a god, much less a J-C God, the burden of proof is on YOU.

And all the opinions of of all the forums on this whole world-wide web don't change that one little bit.

Accusing all of the above could also qualify as flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling, would it not?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

 

[LostAngeles]

Accusing all of the above could also qualify as flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling, would it not?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

What is the two-thousand year old proof? If it's Christ, are we absolutely sure he existed and in the manner described in the gospels? (e.g. performing of miracles, resurrection, healing, etc.)

The law of gravity will be able to be tested for the next two-thousand years, thusly proof of it is always being given.

In establishing a way to prove the existence of God, the first thing we need to ask is "What would consititute proof of God?" and how would we test for it?

 

[Maledict]

Oh *yawn*, Riddick returns...still no evidence of that global flood eh?

Yes, I'm well aware that the atheist "rubber stamp" places the burden on me. I'm surprised you don't want to prove it for yourself, being the discovering type that you are. I'm not gullible enough to just blindly assume God doesn't exist.

You can't prove a negative unless the positive is already proven - in which case, you wouldn't have to prove the negative to begin with.

I'm surprised you still haven't learned that yet. Since that might be a bit too complicated for you, let me shorten it:

You can't prove a negative.

Thus, the onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Ah, ignorance is bliss

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

I think a better question would be: Did the "proof" actually occur to begin with and wasn't written later down the road?

 

[Riddick]

Oh *yawn*, Riddick returns...still no evidence of that global flood eh?

You can't prove a negative unless the positive is already proven - in which case, you wouldn't have to prove the negative to begin with.

I'm surprised you still haven't learned that yet. Since that might be a bit too complicated for you, let me shorten it:

You can't prove a negative.

Thus, the onus of proof is on the person making the positive claim.

Ah, ignorance is bliss

I think a better question would be: Did the "proof" actually occur to begin with and wasn't written later down the road?

The Grand Canyon appears to be caused by water. 16 miles wide, 1 mile deep. So we can go that direction if you want. I'll save you the time: you'll quote geologists (on the internet, no less ) who say the GC was caused by a trickle of water. Fine. We disagree.

If I write on 7/7/04 that the Titanic sank in something like 1911, would it still be true that the Titanic sank? So you see, we actually can have a truth after the fact. You, in all your luminescent brilliance, should have figured that out.

 

[Maledict]

If I write on 7/7/04 that the Titanic sank in something like 1911, would it still be true that the Titanic sank? So you see, we actually can have a truth after the fact. You, in all your luminescent brilliance, should have figured that out.

I am quite very well aware of that - we know that the Titanic sank because of convergence of evidence, and because the event was quite covered and extensively recorded. We know that it occured.

Whereas with Jesus? Oh, we have just this Book of dubious origin, that, among other things, has been translated and copied many, many times, has more holes than Swiss Cheese, claims of global floods, miracles, demons, prophesies, the end of the world, and so much more. And quite a bit of it being unverifiable - which, for me, I have a hard time accepting the existance of Jesus as proof if there weren't more evidence.

 

[Radrook]

Name calling and all is fun, as is flame-baiting, trolling, troll-baiting and flame-trolling(?).

Unfortunately, there are administrators and moderators out there who consider temporary banning and permanent banning equally as entertaining. LOL

 

[Gulliamo]

Q: Does 2,000 year old proof somehow become invalid with the passing of time? In 2,000 years, will the law of gravity still be valid, or will you require more proof of it?

That's the thing about science... Proofs are supposed to be verifiable.

If I say A squared plus B squared equals C squared in a right-triangle you or anyone else, even 2000 years later, can verify it.

In 2000 years someone could just as easily test gravity.

 

[Kopji]

for the sake of the children
The Titanic sank on April 15, 1912. A famous book was written about it called 'A Night to Remember' .

The thing about gravity, humorously recalled in Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith", is that we don't need to meet every Sunday to affirm the truth of gravity by singing DOWN DOWN DOWN. (paraphrased)

Reason imposes strict limits on what can be true... faith has no such limits and is immune to any evidence that might refute it.
(ibid pg 102-103)

 

[wittgenst3in]

Comparisons with gravity aside, the types of proof people talk about WRT the bible are historical. These are not replicatable on demand, so we are dealing with a fundamentally different beast. In historical proofs we often have to choose from scanty evidence and conflicting stories.

It's often said that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceasar. This may be the case. Most people will accept Julius as having existed.

If however Julius was claimed to have been able to breath fire, bearing in mind that no-one today can breath fire and it does not seem possible with what we know of biology, they would probably ask for more proof than currently exists.

Most people would accept Julius because in a practical sense it dosent' matter if he existed or not, the only difference would be in relation to other historical figures. If however he was supposed to be able to breath fire people would have to come to one of these conclusions:

1) Someone was able to breath fire, hence our understanding of biology must be very wrong, because we cannot account for this. Also, the laws of thermodynamics are possibly suspect, as the heat transfer should have scalded his throat. Also, people today definetly cannot breathe fire, so we have no way of knowing how this was accomplished.

2) Someone in history was telling porkies.

Since we are reluctant to throw away much of our understanding of how the laws of physics works on the unverifiable evidence of a few manuscripts, most people would choose 2.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.

It's often said that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than for Julius Ceasar.

I doubt that this is really the case. The historical evidence for a jesus christ is flimsy at best.

 

[Ossai]

Riddick
About the flood.

Read Dr. Marty Leipzig looks at the mathematics of 'Noah's Flood.' for a brief look at the water side of things.

Still not convinced then do the math yourself. While you’re at it, do the math for the ark as well. Determine how much volume was available within the ark and what the buoyancy would have been loaded and unloaded. Then throw the animals on as well as the necessary supplies, not only for the animals and Noah’s family during the 40 days but for the years following.

Ossai

 

[Iacchus]

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.

However, I couldn't help but notice you're throwing the word belief around here. Do you say this merely because this is what you wish to believe or, do you have any actual proof? Wishful thinking is not the means of accomplishing anything by the way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

A lack of belief is not a belief in itself, stupid. Doubters need no evidence to support their lack of belief. The onus is upon the believers to give evidence to support their beliefs. I understand that wishful thinking doesn't accomplish anything, but it's you retarded believers that think prayers work.

 

[Maledict]

However, I couldn't help but notice you're throwing the word belief around here. Do you say this merely because this is what you wish to believe or, do you have any actual proof? Wishful thinking is not the means of accomplishing anything by the way.

You're taking the word belief out of context - if you notice to the left of the word, he says "don't". Meaning that we "don't believe" In Jehova or Thor, simply because there is no evidence. Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, and more often than not, leads to the opposite conclusion that Gods do exist.

 

[Iacchus]

Atheists simply don't believe in a god or gods. This encompasses all kinds of people, from invalids to super geniuses. These observations by christians are just really generalizations and insults.

And by the way, if you don't believe in god, you still can't escape the fact that you have to believe in something, or else how would you function? For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further. Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

So, before we continue this little game of semantics further, you might want to bear this in mind.

 

[Maledict]

And by the way, if you don't believe in god, you still can't escape the fact that you have to believe in something, or else how would you function?

Huh? We function quite fine, thank you very much.

You are insinuating that to be able to function - one must have a belief - that is, to be frank, b*llsh*t.

For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further. Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

Belief is defined as believing in something with out evidence. Belief doesn't come into us considering whether or not we exist - we are right here - Sum Ergo Cogito - That is evidence that we exist.

 

[wittgenst3in]

For example, if I were to ask if you believed you existed and, if you couldn't reply with anything close to a "yes," then there would be no point in you trying to stipulate anything further.

I've been silent about my beliefs for too long. I was ashamed that my friends wouldn't agree with me, ohh the humanity. But now it's time to set the record straight:

I believe I exist

There. I've said it. Boy that took guts. Tune in next week when I admit I have ten toes.

Why? Because you haven't established a basis by which to accept anything. And why should I bother?

Logically, when it comes to accepting my own existence, who is it doing the accepting? It can only be me.

Hence I can't question my own existence, because there would be no-one to do the questioning.

 

[Iacchus]

You're taking the word belief out of context - if you notice to the left of the word, he says "don't". Meaning that we "don't believe" In Jehova or Thor, simply because there is no evidence. Wishful thinking has nothing to do with it, and more often than not, leads to the opposite conclusion that Gods do exist.

A lack of belief is not a belief in itself, stupid. Doubters need no evidence to support their lack of belief. The onus is upon the believers to give evidence to support their beliefs. I understand that wishful thinking doesn't accomplish anything, but it's you retarded believers that think prayers work.

Actually I couldn't help but think it was a matter of your belief(s), especially when you get all emotional about it and start slinging the ad hominems around. You know, like accusing people of being delusional or, that they're full of crap and stuff like that?