Are you an atheist? (4 Viewers)

[AnthonyGerrard]

We have been here before. How do you prove the non existence of something?
The onus is on the believers to prove the existence. Obviously the answer is no one knows thus the only logical position is agnostic.
My argument / disbelieve is with religion not whether God exists as I don't know.

Brian

Which is why I am not sure of the claim from some atheists here that theists necessarily lack critical thinking in comparison.

What I think they are doing is choosing a subsection of theists they can fairly well establish have suspended their critical thinking and then applying that to theists in general.

Which is obviously not great critical thinking in itself.

Let alone the idea that atheism is superior critical thinking in itself. As you say an agnostic position would make more sense.

Theists at least acknowledge critical thinking gets them so far - then its faith.
I'm not sure of the reasoning of some atheists in being so high and mighty on the matter.

I should add, most atheists and theists are probably quite reasonable. When either pushes their position as superior - then it gets problematic, and the ultra atheists and theists actually become very similar in their thinking. To me anyway.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I don't believe that girl has a dress?

This did not get the credit it deserved! - and as to that Gif, I read somewhere it rotated the way you see due to your brain using a certain side, forget which but as an example :

See it rotating clockwise = Left side of your brain
See it Anti- Clockwise = Right side

But that was what I read, Probably not true

 

[ConnorGiles]

Which is why I am not sure of the claim from some atheists here that theists necessarily lack critical thinking in comparison.

What I think they are doing is choosing a subsection of theists they can fairly well establish have suspended their critical thinking and then applying that to theists in general.

Which is obviously not great critical thinking in itself.

Let alone the idea that atheism is superior critical thinking in itself. As you say an agnostic position would make more sense.

Theists at least acknowledge critical thinking gets them so far - then its faith.
I'm not sure of the reasoning of some atheists in being so high and mighty on the matter.

I should add, most atheists and theists are probably quite reasonable. When either pushes their position as superior - then it gets problematic, and the ultra atheists and theists actually become very similar in their thinking. To me anyway.

Every person is different in their own way, I agree on the point that when ultra atheists push their position it becomes almost similar to someone who is religious.

I am a whole-hearted atheist and to be quite frank, I couldn't care less if someone believed in a almighty deity. Doesn't effect me it's when it starts affecting me when the problems start in my case.

I would never tell someone their beliefs are stupid because it's their own life choice, not mine. I'm sure somewhere on this site I have posted that "Religion is a personal connection to God" and I'm pretty sure it's a sin to force someone to believe anyway

To the fiery depths with you Jehovah's! I shall see you there if I'm wrong!

 

[CarolThompson]

Hello Carol Thompson

6000 innocent people????????Which ones are you talking about. What about the 6000000that he let die?

One tip on the writing of articles. Do them on a word processor then transfer them here. You will not time out that way!

Blade

Hi Bladerunner, my apols for the inaccuracy, I meant 6,000,000, and that was sadly just one episode in history. Whole families endured such unimaginable suffering and there was no-one there to help them. And it still continues.....with religious fanaticism driving such atrocities, and not a god in sight!

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Bladerunner]

We have been here before. How do you prove the non existence of something?
The onus is on the believers to prove the existence. Obviously the answer is no one knows thus the only logical position is agnostic.
My argument / disbelieve is with religion not whether God exists as I don't know.

Brian

Ah but we have the written word, Holly Bible and you have nothing but accusations. Whether or not you believe the book was written by God or by man does not really matter. They have been documented (some of the dead sea scrolls as much as 50-100 BC and the Greek (Septuagint, or LXX) written about 235 BC or about 2400 to 2500 years ago. The biggest problem to explain is that these scrolls were written close to 1000 years before the Old Testamant Masoretic Text.

FYI:
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The Dead Sea Scrolls contain at least fragments of every book in the Old Testament except the book of Esther. More than ten scrolls were beautifully preserved intact including two copies of Isaiah. 2 Professor Millar Burrows of Yale University assigns these copies to the first century BC. Johns Hopkins University Professor William F. Albright places them more conservatively in the second century BC.3[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These copies of Isaiah, written 1,000 years earlier than the previously oldest known copies have proven to be "word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. [emphasis mine] " 4 Great respect must therefore be given to the interim copyists. Diligently slaving for accuracy, they apparently achieved it: [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word 'light' which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the LXX [Septuagint] and IQ Is [first cave of Qumran, Isaiah scroll]. Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. 5 [/FONT]"

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Integ/B-0801.htm
​

p.s. Bill O'Rielly wrote the book, "killing Jesus" where he and his crew check out whether Jesus indeed existed. Now they have a movie about it. You need to get this book and read it. It might just open you eyes.

You have nothing, Yes, he lived among us, the Holy Bible is real and the only logical position to take is 'I believe'.

Blade

 

[Bladerunner]

Again it seems that I cannot add properly..The 235BC dating makes the Greek version of the Old Testament 2,250 years ago not 2400-2500years.

apologize for the error.

Blade

 

[Galaxiom]

Ah but we have the written word, Holly Bible and you have nothing but accusations. Whether or not you believe the book was written by God or by man does not really matter. They have been documented (some of the dead sea scrolls as much as 50-100 BC and the Greek (Septuagint, or LXX) written about 235 BC or about 2400 to 2500 years ago. The biggest problem to explain is that these scrolls were written close to 1000 years before the Old Testamant Masoretic Text.

The Bible, no matter which edition you care to consult, however old, does not prove its own divinity. Old BS is still BS.

In fact many claims in the Bible are demonstrably incorrect by repeatable observation of fact proving it is definitely not of divine origin or inspiration. Only a single example of it being wrong is needed to reject its claims to divine authority.

It is based on the profound ignorance and misogyny of ancient men who arrogantly presumed their bigoted prejudices were inspired by a supreme being. It is all about fascist politics.

Bill O'Rielly wrote the book, "killing Jesus" where he and his crew check out whether Jesus indeed existed. Now they have a movie about it. You need to get this book and read it. It might just open you eyes.

O'Reilly began with the premise that Jesus was real and not once questioned the veracity of his "evidence". The fact remains that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. He isn't mentioned for several decades after He was supposed to have existed and then only in passing.

Moreover the gospels describing His life are not even consistent among themselves. Even among the canonical gospels, only one mentions Jesus performing miracles. One would have thought that such achievements would be worth of mention by any genuine reports, if they were true.

Most of the places in the Old Testament have not a shred of archaeological evidence to support their existence.

You have nothing, Yes, he lived among us, the Holy Bible is real and the only logical position to take is 'I believe'.

Again you simply repeat the doctrine forced upon you as a child. The balance of the evidence dismisses your position as pure fantasy.

The life of Jesus is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to support it when in fact there is not even trivial evidence.

If you would like to debate O'Rielly's claims please post what you think is the strongest evidence he provides and I will demolish it with the facts.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

The Bible, no matter which edition you care to consult, however old, does not prove its own divinity. Old BS is still BS.

In fact many claims in the Bible are demonstrably incorrect by repeatable observation of fact proving it is definitely not of divine origin or inspiration. Only a single example of it being wrong is needed to reject its claims to divine authority.

It is based on the profound ignorance and misogyny of ancient men who arrogantly presumed their bigoted prejudices were inspired by a supreme being. It is all about fascist politics.



O'Reilly began with the premise that Jesus was real and not once questioned the veracity of his "evidence". The fact remains that there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus. He isn't mentioned for several decades after He was supposed to have existed and then only in passing.

Moreover the gospels describing His life are not even consistent among themselves. Even among the canonical gospels, only one mentions Jesus performing miracles. One would have thought that such achievements would be worth of mention by any genuine reports, if they were true.

Most of the places in the Old Testament have not a shred of archaeological evidence to support their existence.



Again you simply repeat the doctrine forced upon you as a child. The balance of the evidence dismisses your position as pure fantasy.

The life of Jesus is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary evidence to support it when in fact there is not even trivial evidence.

If you would like to debate O'Rielly's claims please post what you think is the strongest evidence he provides and I will demolish it with the facts.

Are you claiming Jesus didn't exist as a person in history? At least as a somewhat notable basis for the tale?

 

[Frothingslosh]

Are you claiming Jesus didn't exist as a person in history? At least as a somewhat notable basis for the tale?

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

 

[ConnorGiles]

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

I read somewhere that they found some sort of parchment that backed "Someone" named Jesus existing around that time.

But not proclaiming he had healing powers and was the son of god. Pretty sure (may have imagined it) I read somewhere Jesus was found out to be a much darker skin colour than is depicted aswell.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I read somewhere that they found some sort of parchment that backed "Someone" named Jesus existing around that time.

But not proclaiming he had healing powers and was the son of god. Pretty sure (may have imagined it) I read somewhere Jesus was found out to be a much darker skin colour than is depicted aswell.

There's a real problem with any documentation claiming to prove Jesus lived then. "Jesus" is a corruption of the name Yeshua (a common alternative to Yehoshuah), which translated to Iesous in Greek and thus to Iesus in Latin, and thus became Jesus. It was a hilariously common name then - it also became the name 'Joshua' in use in modern times - and it would be like looking for a 'William' in an Anglican country today.

Because of that, you can know for a fact that any documentation claiming to be from that time but with the name "Jesus" in it is a forgery.

Edit: Oh, second half of your quote. Jesus would have been a Semitic Jew living in Judea in Roman times. He would have absolutely been fairly brown-skinned, with short, curly black hair, and probably not very tall. The tall white Jesus with long straight blonde or light brown hair is absolutely a fiction of Western European making.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

He's pointing out that there's not a lick of proof that Jesus existed. It's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Please prove that I have never visited Miami.

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

 

[Frothingslosh]

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point:

You asked if he's saying Jesus didn't exist. I pointed out he's merely saying that there's not a shred of proof that Jesus did exist.

Certainly he's using the second to infer the first, but he still merely said that there was no actual proof whatsoever. In fact, he very carefully didn't say that there was never some guy name Yeshua running around preaching to the rabble, because then the burden of proof would be on him.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Fair enough, but that doesn't change my point:

You asked if he's saying Jesus didn't exist. I pointed out he's merely saying that there's not a shred of proof that Jesus did exist.

Certainly he's using the second to infer the first, but he still merely said that there was no actual proof whatsoever. In fact, he very carefully didn't say that there was never some guy name Yeshua running around preaching to the rabble, because then the burden of proof would be on him.

I think he said no trivial evidence and means no contemporary however trivial evidence.

I don't disagree with that - I was asking if that he thought a real life basis for Jesus existed. One the facts of whom if we had them (we don't) we would recognise as the basis for Jesus.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You can prove a negative!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Negative_proof


I didn't ask for proof btw.

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

What the fallacy isn't part.

 

[ConnorGiles]

I think he said no trivial evidence and means no contemporary however trivial evidence.

I don't disagree with that - I was asking if that he thought a real life basis for Jesus existed. One the facts of whom if we had them (we don't) we would recognise as the basis for Jesus.

1. If Jesus had existed, then there is evidence
somewhere.
2. There is no evidence of Jesus Anywhere.
3. Therefore, Jesus never existed.

"Modus Tollens"

 

[Frothingslosh]

Well I read the article and it did not enlighten me as to how to prove the non existenence of something.

Brian

The last part of the article gave some points where you could prove a negative, at least some of the time. Basically, 'you cannot prove a negative' is an extreme oversimplification, which can be proven wrong any number of ways as a general principle.

Better would have been 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' and 'the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim'. Fanatics especially hate the last one.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Not sure which points in the article you are referring to but the one mentioned regarding the correspondence seems false to me, and the comments regarding the maths examples seemed out of tune with the main issue, that is what is the negative they were proving, it seemed akin to me saying there is no such thing as pasta and somebody popping over to Tesco and buying a packet.

Of course it could be that I am not bright enough, a negative easily proved.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

Not sure which points in the article you are referring to but the one mentioned regarding the correspondence seems false to me, and the comments regarding the maths examples seemed out of tune with the main issue, that is what is the negative they were proving, it seemed akin to me saying there is no such thing as pasta and somebody popping over to Tesco and buying a packet.

Of course it could be that I am not bright enough, a negative easily proved.

Brian

Hehe

They were just showing that, as a broad statement, 'You cannot prove a negative' is wrong, because for it to be true, it would need to apply at all times. Then they brought up examples where you CAN prove a negative, such as a claimed statement not being in the document someone said it was in, or by using something logical techniques like reductio ad absurdum and proof by contradiction.