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

[WinterBorn]

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?

I make no claim either way. There is not enough evidence, in my opinion, to prove either side.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

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

I do not believe in any gods. What other people believe is their own personal choice.

 

[WinterBorn]

That sounds like agnosticism to me.

Eh, it is close.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

Circular reasoning after circular reasoning after circular reasoning.

 

[Ross Dolan]

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

Yeah. You are someone who claims to be an atheist...but you do not have the balls to answer two small, easy to answer, questions.

So...when you are evaluating evidence, you depend on your blind guesses.

Okay.

Because your blind guesses have no value in determining the REALITY of existence.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I make no claim either way. There is not enough evidence, in my opinion, to prove either side.

So...you do not assert there are no gods...

...and you do not assert it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...yet you identify yourself as an atheist.

Why?

 

[gfm7175]

Circular reasoning after circular reasoning after circular reasoning.

Yes... IOW, faith. Faith is the basis for ANY religion.

 

[Cypress]

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?

There is sufficient documentary evidence that Jesus was a skilled faith healer.
Greek and Jewish sources refer to him as a sorcerer or practitioner of Egyptian magic. It's surprising these Greco-Jewish sources don't just say Jesus was a fraud and a faker.

Bringing Lazurus back from the dead is poorly attested (only appearing in one gospel) and is undoubtedly a quasi-fictional account. Walking on water is baloney, and the Catholics claim it is metaphorical.

I believe the preponderance of evidence is that the followers of Jesus genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion. It wasn't just a coordinated fairy tale they invented while drinking bottles of wine. Even the esteemed Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrmam says the disciples seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion. Some were willing to be martyred for what they claim to have seen.

The only question that then remains is, were the followers of Jesus were just suffering a mass hallucination?; or did Jesus not die on the cross?; or did something else strange happen?

 

[IBDaMann]

yet it's considered a fallacy without other arguments.

No, it's simply considered an incomplete argument. I can say that a rock is evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Your response is "OK, I'm admitting that rock into evidence. Now, make your case."

If you were to say "I'm not admitting the rock into evidence because I don't know how you intend to use it to support your argument which you cannot make without the evidence that I am not allowing" then the fallacy is on your end.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes... IOW, faith. Faith is the basis for ANY religion.

Is ZenMode still claiming that religious faith is false because it's based on faith?

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

No, it's simply considered an incomplete argument. I can say that a rock is evidence of the historicity of Jesus. Your response is "OK, I'm admitting that rock into evidence. Now, make your case."

If you were to say "I'm not admitting the rock into evidence because I don't know how you intend to use it to support your argument which you cannot make without the evidence that I am not allowing" then the fallacy is on your end.

it's called the appeal to popularity fallacy.

i'ts a fallacy, phallussy.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

face it fuckers.

the only positive defense of religion is the sometimes pro-social values it imparts. much of it is counterproductive and harmful and tribalistic and pedo-filled.

the golden rule of christianity is the best representatin of ultimate human morality.

mic drop.

 

[WinterBorn]

So...you do not assert there are no gods...

...and you do not assert it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...yet you identify yourself as an atheist.

Why?

Belief in any god is a personal choice and a private matter.

I stated what I believe. What others believe is up to them.

 

[Freddy Figbottom]

Belief in any god is a personal choice and a private matter.

I stated what I believe. What others believe is up to them.

should blasphemy laws be in effect?

 

[ZenMode]

So...when you are evaluating evidence, you depend on your blind guesses.

Nope. I look at the situation and evidence and make a decision on what I believe and to what degree I believe it...like most anything else in the world.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Belief in any god is a personal choice and a private matter.

Correct. I have many "private matters" in my life. I do not bring them up in a forum dedicated to discussions of what people present.

Cannot help but wonder why you do.

I stated what I believe.

Actually, you stated what you DO NOT believe.

What others believe is up to them.

Yes it is. But either you are here for discussion or you are just doing a benign form of trolling.

I am interested in why someone who DOES NOT "BELIEVE" there are no gods...and who DOES NOT "BELIEVE" IT IS MORE LIKELY THAT THERE ARE NO GODS THAN THAT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE...

...WOULD USE AN SELF-DESCRIPTOR LIKE "ATHEIST."

It makes no sense to me, and I thought you could be of some help with that. But apparently you think you are above such a discussion.

Too bad. I would have loved to hear what you have to say on that.

 

[IBDaMann]

There is sufficient documentary evidence that Jesus was a skilled faith healer.

But there are no first-hand accounts.

Greek and Jewish sources refer to him as a sorcerer or practitioner of Egyptian magic.

... unfortunately, not because of any first-hand accounts.

It's surprising these Greco-Jewish sources don't just say Jesus was a fraud and a faker.

They don't have any first-hand accounts to support the notion that Jesus was anything more than an urban legend. There are those, however, who have faith that Jesus was a real person who was the Messiah, and they believe he could heal.

Bringing Lazurus back from the dead is poorly attested (only appearing in one gospel)

Which is insufficient to place it into the "historical" category but sufficient to convince many to adopt the faith.

Walking on water is baloney,

... for those who do not believe as do those of the faith.

and the Catholics claim it is metaphorical.

Catholics outside of Mississippi do not subscribe to a literal reading of the Bible.

I believe the preponderance of evidence is that the followers of Jesus genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion.

This is a nifty meta-belief. You believe that some people believed. That's deep.

It wasn't just a coordinated fairy tale they invented while drinking bottles of wine.

Just as the eleven witnesses genuinely believed they physically handled the thin, metallic, engraved golden plates; It wasn't just a coordinated fairy tale they invented while drinking bottles of wine.

Even the esteemed Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrmam says ...

Well, then, it must be true. Are you sure that even he says it?

The only question that then remains is, were the followers of Jesus were just suffering a mass hallucination; or did Jesus not die on the cross; or did something else strange happen.

Only what Bart Ehrmam says is absolutely true.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nope. I look at the situation and evidence and make a decision on what I believe and to what degree I believe it...like most anything else in the world.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I said. When dealing with the issue of the REALITY of existence, in particular "whether there are any gods or not"...you depend on your blind guesses.

Religionists insist their blind guesses are correct...and call that insistence "faith."

What do you atheists call your insistence that your blind guesses are correct?

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. I look at the situation and evidence

You never consider anyone else's evidence after you have been told what to believe by the people who do your thinking for you.

and make a decision on what I believe

You swapped the order. First you are told what you are to believe and how to think, then you dismiss all differing views.

 

[gfm7175]

Bringing Lazurus back from the dead is poorly attested (only appearing in one gospel) and is undoubtedly a quasi-fictional account.

Is that so? Other gospels mention other instances of Jesus bringing people back from the dead (Jairus's daughter, for one example). If Jesus could do it with other people, why not Lazarus? And that's not even getting into the accounts of Jesus HIMSELF rising from the dead.

Walking on water is baloney,

People walk on water all the time, Cypress... It's very easy to do.

and the Catholics claim it is metaphorical.

I'll let Catholics speak to what they claim about it (I'm not a Catholic).

I believe the preponderance of evidence is that the followers of Jesus genuinely believed they saw him after the crucifixion. It wasn't just a coordinated fairy tale they invented while drinking bottles of wine.

Yes, they were VERY convinced that they had seen Jesus after the crucifixion. Many of them were even KILLED (martyred) for expressing that belief, and they stuck with that belief even unto death (instead of renouncing it and remaining alive).

Even the esteemed Atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrmam says the disciples seem to have genuinely believed they saw Jesus after the crucifixion.

The words "esteemed", "scholar", and Bart Ehrmann should NEVER be used in the same sentence.

Some were willing to be martyred for what they claim to have seen.

MANY were willing to be martyred for what they claim to have seen.

The only question that then remains is, were the followers of Jesus were just suffering a mass hallucination?

I doubt it.

; or did Jesus not die on the cross?;

I strongly doubt it.

or did something else strange happen?

This. I believe that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead (IOW, having authority over death). If God was capable of creating the heavens and the earth (IOW, having authority over all things), then it stands to reason that he would likewise be capable of rising from the dead (having authority over death).