If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[gfm7175]

Theism and atheism are both knowledge claims.

Theism is a knowledge claim. Atheism isn't asserting anything.

One asserts gods exist, the other asserts gods do not exist.

Those are both theistic (and knowledge) claims. Neither of those are atheism.

Atheism is not the default position when it comes to questions about the origins and design of life, the universe, and everything.

There is no "default position".

If one really wanted to pick a default position, it would be agnosticism.

There is no "default position".

 

[Cypress]

Theism is a knowledge claim. Atheism isn't asserting anything.

The knowledge claim of atheism is that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is the position that does not make explicit knowledge claims.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I don't know what you mean by value...

"The usefulness of a thing" pretty much sums up how I was using it there.

The "beliefs" (explicit or implied) of atheists is of no more usefulness in understanding the REALITY of existence than the "beliefs" of theist or religionists.

I have been putting the words "believe" and "belief" in quotes mostly because I consider those words when used in a religious discussion context to mean, "blind guess."

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

That's your opinion.

That's you continuing to ignore the existence of most evidence. It still exists, whether or not you choose to ignore it.

There is evidence for both.

There's also the fact that many tens of millions of Christians have been martyred for their faith.

No, I reject the existence of all other gods except for mine. Obviously, I believe that mine is the "correct one". Why wouldn't I?

BTW, why are you separating Mormons from Christians? Mormons ARE Christians...

a lot of people believe in santa.

 

[gfm7175]

What is the evidence for the Christian god/Jesus?

RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You've already received answers to this question numerous times from numerous different posters on this forum.

There are stories written about them both,

BTW, Jesus IS "The Christian God". While God the Father and Jesus Christ are different/distinct "persons", they are still one God (they share the same divine nature).

that make claims that go against much of what we know to be possible as it relates biology, physics, etc.

So you know more about God's creation than God HIMSELF does?

bushes don't burn without being consumed.

God knows all of the 'ins and outs' of his own creation.

Bushes don't talk

Nobody claimed that bushes talk.

and people don't talk through bushes - it's simply not possible.

Sure they do.
Sure it is.

The Bible claims God stopped the sun in the sky. In order for that to happen, he would have to stop the rotation of the Earth. If that were to happen, the people of Earth, specifically the ones that lived in the part of the world where Jesus lived, would suddenly be thrown to the east at a speed of approximately 800 miles per hour.

God knows all of the 'ins and outs' of his own creation.

Humans can't walk on top of water.

Yes they can.

There's no reason to believe these aren't all fairy tales made up by superstitious men and without those miracles, Jesus/God was just some regular guy on earth.

I've already given you some reasons to believe. So have numerous other posters. Whether you choose to vote 'yes', 'no', or 'present' is entirely up to you.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

"The usefulness of a thing" pretty much sums up how I was using it there.

The "beliefs" (explicit or implied) of atheists is of no more usefulness in understanding the REALITY of existence than the "beliefs" of theist or religionists.

I have been putting the words "believe" and "belief" in quotes mostly because I consider those words when used in a religious discussion context to mean, "blind guess."

I find the beliefs of atheists are often harmful because in many cases the goal of atheism was to undo the beneficial aspects of morality, which religion does contain trace amounts of.

 

[Cypress]

There's no more evidence for the Jesus/God of the Bible than there is for the St. Nick/Santa Clause in Christmas story books.

There is testimony from eyewitness and from people who interviewed the eyewitness, both in the New testament canon and outside it, about Jesus of Nazareth.

Roman, Jewish, Greek, Syrian historians of the first and second centuries accepted the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. These weren't all stupid, gullible people. Historians are people who check the reliability of sources.

The are no known accounts from antiquity I am aware of from this time period which claims Jesus was a fabrication and never existed. Even the Jewish Talmud seems to acknowledge a historical Jesus who was crucified. If anyone had incentive to claim Jesus wasn't real, that he was a fabrication it was the Jewish priests and scribes.

All the body of historical evidence points to the historicity of a rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth. There is no competing body of writing that claims Jesus was a fabrication. That has always been considered to be noteworthy.

 

[WinterBorn]

The knowledge claim of atheism is that there are no gods.

Agnosticism is the position that does not make explicit knowledge claims.

That may be true in some cases.

As for me, I do not claim to know there are no gods. All I claim is that I do not believe in any gods.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. You've already received answers to this question numerous times from numerous different posters on this forum.

BTW, Jesus IS "The Christian God". While God the Father and Jesus Christ are different/distinct "persons", they are still one God (they share the same divine nature).

So you know more about God's creation than God HIMSELF does?

God knows all of the 'ins and outs' of his own creation.

Nobody claimed that bushes talk.

Sure they do.
Sure it is.

God knows all of the 'ins and outs' of his own creation.

Yes they can.

I've already given you some reasons to believe. So have numerous other posters. Whether you choose to vote 'yes', 'no', or 'present' is entirely up to you.

your problem is you only say all this shit because you're a born again Zionist freak.

 

[gfm7175]

The knowledge claim of atheism is that there are no gods.

That's not atheism. That's theism. That's a theistic claim.

 

[Ross Dolan]

That may be true in some cases.

As for me, I do not claim to know there are no gods. All I claim is that I do not believe in any gods.

Let me ask you...

...do you assert or claim that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?

 

[gfm7175]

That may be true in some cases.

As for me, I do not claim to know there are no gods. All I claim is that I do not believe in any gods.

Do you equally reject BOTH claims? (gods exist, gods don't exist)

or do you have faith that gods don't exist?

 

[Cypress]

As for me, I do not claim to know there are no gods.

That sounds like agnosticism to me.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

That's not atheism. That's theism. That's a theistic claim.

please stfu with this retarded nonsense.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

god as a word versus God as a reality.

please stupid people fix yourselves with this new distinction.

 

[gfm7175]

please stfu with this retarded nonsense.

Please settle on a single moniker instead of being No Name.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

saying unicorns don't exist means you believe in unicorns!



​

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Please settle on a single moniker instead of being No Name.

please rim a she-gorila with v.d.

 

[ZenMode]

"The usefulness of a thing" pretty much sums up how I was using it there.

The "beliefs" (explicit or implied) of atheists is of no more usefulness in understanding the REALITY of existence than the "beliefs" of theist or religionists.

I have been putting the words "believe" and "belief" in quotes mostly because I consider those words when used in a religious discussion context to mean, "blind guess."

When I'm evaluating evidence, to decide what I believe, usefulness isn't a factor.

 

[ZenMode]

There is testimony from eyewitness and from people who interviewed the eyewitness, both in the New testament canon and outside it, about Jesus of Nazareth.

Roman, Jewish, Greek, Syrian historians of the first and second centuries accepted the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. These weren't all stupid, gullible people. Historians are people who check the reliability of sources.

The are no known accounts from antiquity I am aware of from this time period which claims Jesus was a fabrication and never existed. Even the Jewish Talmud seems to acknowledge a historical Jesus who was crucified. If anyone had incentive to claim Jesus wasn't real, that he was a fabrication it was the Jewish priests and scribes.

All the body of historical evidence points to the historicity of a rabbi called Jesus of Nazareth. There is no competing body of writing that claims Jesus was a fabrication. That has always been considered to be noteworthy.

I never said Jesus didn't exist. I'm quite sure he existed. The rest....the "magic".... was a common claim in those days. Lots of people were allegedly performing miracles or at least hearing stories about miracles. Gods and humans were believed to procreate in some cases, creating a half & half.

None of that happens today. Coincidence?