A Challenge to Christians

[median]

.....The offense factor is definitely different, but the frustration factor in dealing with people who have permanently made up their minds about you without knowing a thing about you is the same.

I guess so. And what a boring old forum it would be if such problems didn't arise. Gives us all something to do.

Actually, if one side (or both) is flatly refusing to change their mind; refusing to accept there is even any possibility of changing their mind.....then so far as I am concerned there is no longer any point in conversing with that person.

There's little or no point in me trying to understand their position.  Certainly there is no point trying to understand why they hold that position.  All I need to know is how their position may or may not affect me. 

Its like arguing with a locked door - it may be mildly interesting to know who built the lock, why the door is locked, or what is behind that door, but at the end of the day if that door is impassable then my focus has to be on how I circumvent that door.  Does it mean I have to sit in front of it forever, or do I go somewhere else?  A better analogy might be arguing with a bomb-on-wheels.....it's irrelevant WHY this bomb may want to blow me up, all I need to know is how fast it goes, and what damage it will do.

When a mind is entirely impervious to change, its motives are moot.  All that matters is how its opinions will affect the world.  And in great part, that may be a conversation best held without the input or knowledge of the unchangeable mind.

Great point. Ultimately what magicmiles is going to have to fall back on (just like all other apologists) is "faith" in his first big assumption ("The bible [my interpretation of it] is the word of God!") - not sound reasoning, not solid evidence, but faith. So then, all of this arguing about "good reasons for believing" is just a shell game. "I had a personal experience and I won't allow anyone to change my mind about it - no matter the cost."

How is this any different from superstition?


Perhaps more importantly, notice how all of these smoke and mirror games are a distraction from DEMONSTRATING this deity. As might have been so easily predicted, they can't demonstrate this alleged "Yahweh" thing. It's all just a big fat belief in the Santa Claus for grown ups.

It's Wayne all over again! They must have went to the same indoctrination therapy.

[holybuckets]

Has atheism been proved? Has it been proved that is NO GOD?
Has evolution been proved? Has it been PROVED that man evolved?
Seems to me there should be a challenge to atheists as well.

[Jag]

Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.

Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.

[Jag]

I knew I'd tackled this quite nicely once before!

hb, below is a re-post of a reply I made in this thread: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24186.0.html

If you decide to go read that thread, feel free to skip the video in the very first entry. You really don't need to waste that hour of your life, even if you watched it through closed eyelids while snoring quietly. It's almost not relevant the the rest of the discussion. Read to the end of what I have below to see why you're not making any headway here.

magicmiles, you might want to take a peek too.

Quote from: mhaberling on December 22, 2012, 06:35:56 PM

    you sure know alot about what it means to be a.christian for an atheist

Reply from Jag:
You might be surprised to realize that most of the posters on this board are VERY well read former believers. Many of us were passionate in our desire to experience a personal relationship with god. Every single one failed to find anything to substantiate even the possibility of such a thing.

Don't make the common believer mistake of thinking that we all dismissed god-claims as implausible without careful consideration of the facts. Most (but certainly not all) of us went through tremendous amounts of pain and misery before concluding that if there is a god, his impact on the world is so minimal that we can't discern the slightest evidence of his existence, therefore it makes perfect sense to live our lives as though there is/are no god/gods whatsoever. My life is no different than that of a believer - there's been absolutely no impact at all.

I happen to be a former believer myself. I have not read the bible cover to cover, but I've read most of it spread out over a long time - frankly it's too grim in the OT, and too far-fetched in the NT for me to take it all in in a cover to cover reading. I arrived at my conclusion after years of being a Catholic, followed by years of seeking an alternative belief system, followed by years of ignoring the entire issue of religion. I finally admitted to myself that I don't BELIEVE in god, and probably never really have. I cannot force myself believe in a god. I can consider the idea of a god, but not believe in it. For me, it's the equivalent of believing in fairies - I understand the idea of fairies, but I don't believe that fairies actually exist.

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,24186.msg539401.html#msg539401

[holybuckets]

Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.

Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.

Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.

[kcrady]

God can't dwell with sin

Pretty amazing really, that mere humans can create a metaphysical force so powerful that it can repel an omnipotent god like a cross repels a vampire.  One would think that "God can't" would be two words that a Christian could never string together.

[Anfauglir]

Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.

Because "no god" is not a positice claim.  "God is", is. 

Holybuckets, how would you go about disproving Ganesh, to the satisfaction of a devout Hindu?  Would you even try, or would you feel that the burden is on them to substantiate their claim of Ganesh's existence?

[Graybeard]

Has atheism been proved?

I don't think you can prove an "ism" but atheists exist, therefore there is atheism, therefore atheism exists.

Has it been proved that is NO GOD?

Has it been proven that there are no pixies?

Proof of no god (I warn you that this is quite long and you may not be able to concentrate for the whole time required.)

Any claim for the existence of any god (a remarkable concept) has to be supported by remarkable evidence. To date I have seen no evidence for gods and neither has anyone else.

Earlier (and perhaps elsewhere on this forum) there was the question of the existence of Santa Claus. Just to recap, the legend is that Santa Claus delivers one present to every person on the planet (6 Billion) in the period of the morning of 25th December. Think how many presents per second that is (if it helps there are only ~32 Million seconds in a year.) No one here is going to say that this is proof of Santa Claus; all will say that it that the unlikelihood is so great that it amounts to proof of Santa Claus' non-existence.

However, if I made the same statement about a god, theists would say that a god could deliver that many presents in the same amount of time and argue that this is proof of god, or is, at least, one of his attributes.

Theists claim that a god is exempt from the constraints of space and time but do not seem to think that Santa Claus might be. There is the same (lack of) evidence for each statement. So why do the theists not accept Santa Claus?

It is man who has exempted gods from the bounds of time and space. It is an attribute given without evidence. Mankind now has a creature that not only can be everywhere, do everything and know everything, but we have one whose existence cannot be shown or even inferred, because its existence enters and leaves the only dimensions we may perceive. Why should the existence of gods be inferred or even credited?

On the other hand, if existence outside the bounds of time and space is accepted then this attribute should be comprehensible, demonstrable and repeatable. Once we comprehend, it is no longer supernatural. However, our having such knowledge would not mean that we become as gods, it would mean that gods become as us. This is “The god of the gaps.”

It may strike you at this stage that people believe in gods because they cannot understand them - this seems very strange.

If we may never comprehend gods, then nothing they say or do can be comprehensible and this alone should be a reason not to worship them. We know the effects of weather but the weather system is chaotic (although governed by space and time) yet all its effects are explicable, if not precisely predictable, yet we do not worship weather. Thus we will not worship something we can broadly comprehend but do worship something we do not.

We now have reached a point at which we can say that there is no evidence at all for gods. We can say that gods’ attributes are man made; we can say that the attributes are invented and incomprehensible, yet people still think that there might be gods. However, based on similar evidence, people are absolutely sure there is no Santa Claus.

These 2 ideas cannot exist side by side, yet some hold that they do. Those who accept gods are thus voluntarily or involuntarily deluded.

NEXT PARTS
 

My estimates:
Interactive god: 0.0000000000000000001%
Caring god: 0.00000000001%
Any old god: 50% because I have no reason to lean either way--it just does not matter.

I know you pulled these figures out of the air but basically, you say there is an evens chance of their being a deity. You think there is an even chance of there being such a thing as a ‘god’! I know priests who aren’t as sure as that!

See my third quote below and remind yourself of my earlier example about my saying there is a unicorn in the forest, and your not believing it – i.e. you are indicating there is no unicorn in the forest. Yet you think – on the same evidence – that there is an evens chance of there being a deity. Where is your statistical reasoning? Where is your critical thought?

On with the show : )

Disproving god:
Part I
Gods exist only as ignorance but there is a perfectly good word for ignorance – it is ‘ignorance’.

Three quotes to start us off:

(i)    “Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it would stop. Just because science doesn’t know everything, it doesn’t mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairytale most appeals to you.” Dara O'Briain

(ii)   “If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”? Penn Jillette,

(iii)   A: "I don't know why X happens but I suggest it is caused by the metal contracting as the temperature drops, which allows air to enter. I will do a few experiments at varying temperatures."
B: "I don't know why X happens but I suggest it is a goblin entering the laboratory at night and releasing the seal. Someone told me that goblins do that sort of thing, so I don't need to check anything."
A: "???"
B: Well if neither of us know, either of us could be correct."
- Graybeard.[/i]

It is a strange conceit, but when a Westerner talks of “god” he speaks usually of the Judeo-Christian deity and dismisses all others. Classically, the atheist just dismisses one more god.

The Christian does not think that Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi of the Ekoi of Nigeria are real – why might that be? The Ekoi know that in the beginning there were two gods, Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi. The two gods created everything together. Then Obassi Osaw decided to live in the sky and Obassi Nsi decided to live on the earth. Obassi Osaw gives light and moisture, but also brings drought and storms. Obassi Nsi nurtures, and takes the people back to him when they die. One day, long ago, Obassi Osaw made a man and a woman, and placed them upon the earth. They knew nothing so Obassi Nsi taught them about planting and hunting to get food.

The American Christian dismisses the Native American deities as not being the way to salvation. Why?

How many creation myths have you read? How many do you accept? Why do you reject the others? Are they quite unbelievable? Or is it that you were brought up in a Christian country by Christian parents? Children are strange creatures – I know, I was one – they believe adults… even superstitious ones.

So what chance Obassi Osaw and Obassi Nsi existing?[1]Look at the third quote.

Taking the Judeo-Christian god – we have to set him on a par with every other god. Even those who wrote the fiction of his biography agree that there are other gods and, in that book, He Himself admits it. He puts Himself forward only as the tribal god of the Israelites. He does not say that He is the be-all and end-all, only that you should believe that – His troops flee before a human sacrifice to Chemosh (another god). Yet how many of his followers agree there is a Baal-Haddad (more of whom later) or Marduk, or Astarte?

Think of it – you take a holiday to Europe and visit a country whose national religion is taken from a small Amazonian tribe – you hear the whole story and think it is amusing garbage. Yet you return and are in a country where the religion is taken from a small Middle-Eastern tribe and is no more than amusing garbage?

See how easy it is to not believe in gods and dismiss them as fiction?  And rightly too. At this stage, on the balance of probabilities, there are no gods.

Part II

OK. Let’s say you meet a god. How would you know it’s a god? It would have to do something supernatural, right? So, the god, being benevolent tells you how it is done. You can’t do it, but then on the other hand you can’t fly like a bird or stay submerged for a lifetime like a fish. You understand… The event is no longer supernatural, it is natural; the god is no longer a god.

Time for another quote:
(iv)    “Clarke’s Third Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

We therefore see that a god is the embodiment of our own ignorance. They exist only in our ignorance.

Then there is the problem of energy. If a god is to turn water into wine, it will need energy – there is no way around this. What is the source?

And then there is the universe. Where did that come from? – If you’re thinking “some god” you did not read my first quote – go back and do it.

You trotted out, “God does not want to be found” This is quite ridiculous.  If God does not want to be discovered, does he want people pointing out evidence of his possible existence? Have you considered that the unicorn <insert any mythical being/god> simply does not want to be found? Where shall we stop when it comes to believing anything that any mind can think up?

(v)   2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

And yet you suggest God does not want to be found? I thought you were supposed to be intelligent… or, failing that, at least have read a bible.

At this stage, there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that there are no deities.

Part III

What has God ever done?

Can you think of anything?

No. neither can I.

You know what else has never done anything? A unicorn.

Which one shall we believe in?

Do we understand enough of the universe to know that there is no need for gods? Yes. Don’t believe me, then read some of Dr Stephen Hawking’s books or look at his mathematical work. [vi] “Hawking's latest comments go beyond those laid out in his 2010 book, ‘The Grand Design’, in which he asserted that there is no need for a creator to explain the existence of the universe.”

That there is no sign of a god, despite mankind having sought evidence of a god – any god - for over 40,000 years, now places the proof firmly into the “Believe in gods and you’ll believe in anything” category. It is not for nothing that in any justice system, “God told me to do it.” is not a defence.

Part IV
At this stage, and despite my warnings that God is no different from other gods, you will have thought of a few Bible verses that you vaguely remember. OK, let’s look for evidence of the Judeo-Christian god in the Bible. You may claim that parts of the Bible are in fact historically correct. One or two might be but these are generally restricted to small unelaborated ideas not involving deities or prophets and, in any case, lack detail.

The last time the god Yahweh allegedly appeared to man was on Mount Sinai: (bear with me on this one – it is, of necessity, long but it shows what charlatans the authors of the Bible were.)

Exodus 19 Has God telling Moses to gather the people at the foot of Mount Sinai to see God appear in a cloud. So Moses goes off and tells them this and they gather there. God appears on the top of the mountain and calls Moses up to tell him to go down and bring Aaron with him

Ex:19:25: So Moses went down unto the people, and spake unto them.

Ex:20  Starts with  “And God spake all these words, saying, [A lot of Laws]” Either the scene is (i) the top of the mountain with God and Moses or (ii) Moses is in the camp and speaking

Ex:20-Ex:23 [A lot of Laws.]

Ex:24 God then invites Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel up Sinai, although “And Moses alone shall come near the LORD: but they shall not come nigh; neither shall the people go up with him.”
Ex:24:3: And Moses goes down the mountain and tells everyone who agree Yahweh is their god
…
Ex:24:9: Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Ex:24:10: And they saw the God (Elohim) of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
Ex:24:11: And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God (Elohim), and did eat and drink.

Note that at this point, (i) THEY (Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ) saw the God of Israel. (ii) THEY are up the mountain

Ex:24:12: God then invites Moses the rest of the way up to give him  “tables of stone, and a law, and commandments” Moses goes off ( Ex:24:13: And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.) with Joshua (Who is Joshua? Was he invited? Why Joshua?) telling the others that unless they have business down below they should wait until he and Joshua  return.

…and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights. (OK, where’s Joshua?)

Ex: 25to 31 More details of how to worship and build and run a tabernacle with Aaron in charge Ex:27:21: In the tabernacle of the congregation without the vail, which is before the testimony, Aaron and his sons shall order it from evening to morning before the LORD: it shall be a statute for ever unto their generations on the behalf of the children of Israel.

Ending with Ex:31:18: And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

Cut to the Israelite camp:

Ex:32:1: And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, (who inexplicably seems to have come down) and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

Now bear in mind that Aaron has just seen God and has been chosen as the head of the Yahweh priesthood… so what does he do?

Ex:32:2: And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
…
Ex:32:4: And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Ex:32:5: And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD.
Ex:32:6: And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play.

Cut back to Moses and God: God is upset. He has seen the golden calf. He tells Moses to sort it out. Moses and Joshua hurry down with the tablets. They see the naked dancing and the calf. Moses loses it and breaks the tablets and smashes the calf.

Aaron gives a lame excuse saying that the people had insisted and Moses has the pagans slaughtered. (but not Aaron)

Apart from the facts that
(i)   nobody is sure whether Moses is up a mountain or at the bottom,
(ii)   disregarding the fact that Moses refers to himself in his own book as “Moses”,
(iii)   setting aside the variety of people who might or might not have been allowed to see God and/or approached Him, What was Aaron thinking of?

We are asked to believe that Aaron, who has been appointed God’s Priest, and various others, actually saw God and then, ignoring, “Ex:20:4: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:” went down to the camp and decided that they needed to create their own false god. Perhaps he was responding to a particular popular call?

Why would that be and why a calf? In Canaanite myths preserved at Ugarit ( ca. 14th-13th century BCE), we learn that Baal Hadad (Adad) could take on the form of a bull. He was the god of thunderstorms and rains. In one myth he mounted his sister, Anat, who taking on the form of a cow, later gave birth to a bull calf. The myths note that storm clouds were called ADAD'S CALVES.  We note that God made himself manifest to the nation at Mount Sinai in the form a great storm cloud full of thunder and lighting.

Ex:24:15: And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount.
Ex:24:16: And the glory of the LORD abode upon mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days: and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.
Ex:24:17: And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
Ex:24:18: And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and gat him up into the mount: and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

Had a Ugaritic Canaanite (for example Aaron) been at Sinai, he would have understood the storm cloud to be ADAD'S CALF.  The calf they produce is associated with storm clouds. I am of the persuasion that it is Canaanite religious beliefs dating from Late Bronze Age times (14-13th centuries BCE), that lies behind Iron Age (ca. 1200-1000 BCE) Israel's worship of the Golden Calf, But what of

“Ex:32:4: And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods [Elohim], O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.”?

Well, there never was a period of captivity – there is nothing in Egyptian records to show that there was. So trying to link a 400 year captivity in Egypt and worship of Egyptian bulls is wrong. But the writer added it anyway as he has already given the story.

And then there is, Num 23:22  GodH410 brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.H7214  Here (i) the word El is used for God and  the word for unicorn is rem derived from H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): -

So all is explained. Aaron honestly thought that the Deity on Mount Sinai was Baal Haddad; he had no idea that it was Yahweh. Hence his lame excuse, which was, in fact, true because the Children of Israel were Ugaritic Canaanites.

One thing remains: "And he received the gold at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, and made a molten calf; and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out the land of Egypt !" (Exodus 32:4, RSV) (One calf, many gods?)

So we see

"So the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold. And he said to the people, "You have gone up to Jerusalem long enough. Behold your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. And he set one in Bethel, and the other he put in Dan." (1 Kings 12: 28-29)

The Canaanites were a henotheistic people. The calf was the symbol of the Elohim, the gods; El, Ashure, Baal Haddad, Baal Hammon, Baal Molech, Baal Dagon and many others. (Compare this to the Pantheon in Athens – the temple of all the gods.)

Aaron’s mistake was not knowing that it was Yahweh at the top of the mountain and Yahweh was a jealous god. How could he be so mistaken?

"Storm clouds were called Adad's `bull calves'." (p.111, "Ishkur/Adad," Jeremy Black & Anthony Green. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia- An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin, Texas. University of Texas Press. 1992 ISBN 0-292-70794-0 pbk.)

"Adad. His name is probably etymologically connected with Arabic hadda 'to break' and haddat, 'thunder.' (p.1, "Adad,"  Gwendolyn Leick)

Obviously, this visitation from God (at least Yahweh) is lies and inventions by those whose morals, intellect and research capabilities were zero and whose self-interest and deluded mindset was paramount[2]  – Bronze Age peasants… and yet, here we are thousands of years on and people are saying – “I believe in God.”

What is there to believe in? Can you not see? There are no gods. Never have been, never will be. People invent gods that is how gods enter mythology.

Two more quotes:
(vi)    “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” Douglas Adams
(vii)   "Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" Douglas Adams'

CONCLUSION:
So periboob,
QED There are no gods. Man invents gods when he does not know the answer (see the second quote right at the top) and does not even think of searching for it. Otherwise, what did/does a god do?

And now a moment of prayer based upon Ex:15:3 to thank the Almighty for this revelation:

“O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it--for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.” – Mark Twain

PS
If you have read this far, thank you. JeffPT also has a contribution here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23300.msg528703.html#msg528703[/size]

1.

I was again concerned about your critical thinking skills when you started giving odds on unicorns versus Bigfoot. A man who can distinguish between the chances of mythical beings existing is … remarkable, but not in a good way. You say no one has seen a unicorn therefore the chances of there being unicorns is slim… do you believe (i) that people have seen Bigfoot? (ii) that throughout history, no one has claimed to see unicorns? If so, you would be wrong on both counts.

2.

To keep this to manageable length, I have not referred to the authors (who were not Moses) or the redactor of the Pentateuch who constantly push their own agenda to such an extent that none can be believed

Has evolution been proved?

Yes, it is proven to the same extent that gravity is proven.

Has it been PROVED that man evolved?

Yes, we have a very complete fossil record and we see the evolutionary diversity in the human species.

Seems to me there should be a challenge to atheists as well.

Well, it would seem like that to you who knows nothing about science at all and prefers to believe in an invisible man in outer space who likes the smell of burning goat's flesh.

[Jag]

Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.

Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.

Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.

Wha....? How does that prove that "atheists are hypocrites"? And I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, as I wasn't going to say any such thing! I know what atheism means, I'm not so sure you do though.

There is no "by and large", atheists BY DEFINITION do not believe in god(s) - that's what atheism means - you might be referring to agnosticism, but that doesn't actually support your position either.

Did you actually bother to read what I posted? You can not prove a negative - the burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. In this case, that means YOU are the one who is expected to provide proof that your claim is true. This isn't some random crap that a bunch of internet atheists dreamed up to mess with believers, this is a fact of logic. Take it up with the ancient Greeks if you don't like it.

We've not being hypocrites. You apparently don't know what that means either.

[Mrjason]

Hi there holybuckets, welcome to Logic 101.

Rule #1: You cannot disprove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.

We'll move on to Rule #2 when you understand this one.

Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.

Lets put what Jag says another way...

My evidence that god does not exist is that there is no evidence for gods existence.

edit for spelling

[jaimehlers]

Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.

Hypocrisy is defined as pretending to be something that you aren't, or pretending to believe something that you don't.  Trying to argue that atheists are hypocrites because it is logically impossible to prove a negative is...strange, to say the least.

So, what do you call scientists, who approach experimentation the same way?  Since it's impossible to prove a negative, scientists expect that the person who proposes a hypothesis has to provide evidence to support it.  If they don't, then their hypothesis isn't accepted for lack of evidence.  This is not hypocrisy by any stretch of the imagination, it is skepticism.

You see, the position of atheists is essentially that religious people need to provide evidence to show that their beliefs are true, and that if they can't, then they have no business spreading those beliefs based on supposition and hearsay.

Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.

There are so many pieces of evidence available for evolutionary theory that it would be impractical for me to even list a tiny fraction of them all.  But one of my favorites is that the further away an organism is from us (based on classification), the less DNA we have in common.  This is exactly as evolutionary theory predicts, the DNA of organisms that have diverged from a shared ancestor will be different, and more different the further they get from that shared ancestor.

It's funny, though, how your statement attempts to equivocate evolution and creationism, as if evolution not being 'proven' (of course, what you mean is that it hasn't been absolutely proven, not that there's no proof for it) means it's a completely unsupported belief, no different than creationist beliefs.  Doesn't work that way.  Evolution has enough solid evidence behind it that there is no comparison at all between it and creationist beliefs.

[Aaron123]

Thanks Jag,
Then atheists are hypocrites. If they claim that there is no God (and I know what you are going to say- "I never said we don't believe in God, it's the fact one has not been proven) Look, atheists, by in large, DO NOT believe in God. So, if you cannot prove there is no God, then why constantly attempt to make Christians "prove" their God. Hypocritical at best.
Same thing with evolution. It has not been proven, so you are in the same boat as creationists.

This apparent sensitivity about god's existence is rather telling.  One would think that if god's existence was fact, that it would be simple enough to prove it.  We can demostrate the existence of gravity, we can demostrate the existence of microwaves, we can demostrate the existence of radiation.  Why should it be so hard to demostrate the existence of god?  People 2,000+ years ago were apparently able to do it, so it shouldn't be any harder now.

[nogodsforme]

Allow me to paraphrase a post that I made in response to another theist who denied science:

Christians who say they follow the bible often deny the discoveries and theories of scientists. They think that acknowledging that the Theory of Evolution, for example, really does work means they have to abandon the bible and god.

But they [religious people] eventually accept the new information, adapt their thinking to it and absorb it into their supposedly unchanging biblical world view. Then they can just soldier on as if everything was the same as in 300 AD. Except they also get to enjoy the modern conveniences that science gives them. (They don't really want to live in 300 AD!)

Examples: in the 19th century good Christian religious folks denied Darwin's ideas. (Even though he was religious and considered becoming a clergyman.) No, animals could not go extinct because god made everything perfect. Humans could not possibly be related to other animals because god made humans separately. We are special, the only beings on earth with souls.

There were no dinosaurs because the bible did not allow that--they could not fit on the ark, etc. The earth was not old enough for anything to evolve, live for 200 million years, and go extinct or become fossilized. Nobody believed in germs--it was god's will if you were healthy, sick, lived or died.

Now pretty much everyone recognizes extinction and even global climate change--but as signs of the last days! Jesus rode a dinosaur and your doggie and kitty cat will be in heaven with you because they have souls just like people. The time it takes for "micro" evolution speeds up or slows down, depending on what the argument against "macro" evolution is.

There are too many or not enough fossils to prove anything. Those "Lucy" remains are just a deformed human or maybe a deformed chimp--scientists don't really know anything. Germs are everywhere, especially in heathen countries, because Satan. Flu shots work because of evolution but we just ignore that and get them anyway. And god still finds missing keys for comfortable Americans while letting babies starve in Sudan.

But we are the ones who have no evidence. 

[holybuckets]

Atheists are hypocrites.
You can use all of the "rules of reason" or whatever you guys use in your chat rooms or whatever.  Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.

First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!

Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.

Are you with me so far? I can type slower if you do not understand.

Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God.  Oh, I know some will say it's not that they don't believe or not believe, but a God has not been proven.

It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.

Once again, I know you are going to apply your law of "reason"... but you are only stroking yourself.  You may buy the argument- and more power to you.

Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing.  NO PROOF. Do you hear me? There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF.  There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.

Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!

[Ambassador Pony]

Effusive stupidity is the worst kind of stupidity. The in-your-face attitude of the self-righteous ignoramus astounds me. 

[Jag]

Effusive stupidity! Thank you, I knew there was a word for it! 

[Philosopher_at_large]

To the first part, the "work" that believers were told to do was to spread the gospel message and correct theological error, it wasn't to do "magical shit".

to the second part, in order for me to reason with you the way that Paul reasoned with the Jews, you would have to first have accepted Judaism and then listen as I tell you that Jesus is the Christ. Since you never believed that there would be a Christ in the first place, and I have no interest in trying to convince you of any theological anything, we are incapable of having anything close to that kind of conversation.

[Astreja]

This apparent sensitivity about god's existence is rather telling.  One would think that if god's existence was fact, that it would be simple enough to prove it.  We can demonstrate the existence of gravity, we can demonstrate the existence of microwaves, we can demonstrate the existence of radiation.  Why should it be so hard to demonstrate the existence of god?  People 2,000+ years ago were apparently able to do it, so it shouldn't be any harder now.

Precisely!  For something as allegedly powerful as the god of the Bible, it leaves a mighty small energy footprint...

...Unless it's actually expending all its energy on a cloaking device.  That *would* explain the dearth of answered prayers:  Either it has no juice left to work signs and wonders, or it knows we'll spot it if it actually drops the invisibility field long enough to do anything.

[Anfauglir]

Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God. 

Holybuckets, do you accept that there is a magical leprechaun under my bed who opens the curtains in my room for me each morning?

If not, why not?

[Graybeard]

Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.

First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!

Ex:24:9: Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Ex:24:10: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

Mind you, you are quite right. Like the rest of the Bible, it is all fairy tales and lies. None of those mentioned really saw God, even though they said they did.

Are you with me so far?

No, not really.

It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.

No it's not. If I say, "I've got a 1lb bar of gold in this locked box, I will sell it to you for $100." Do you believe me without any proof? I am the one who is saying that there is gold in the box, how can you show to me that there is or is not? You would have to weigh it (but it might be lead) So, you would want to see it before you parted with your $100. i.e. you would want proof.

Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing.  NO PROOF. Do you hear me?

I disagree but tell us -> What would you consider to be proof?

There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF.

I disagree but tell us -> What would you consider to be proof?

There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.

As an absolute fact there is less evidence that Jesus even existed than there is for Evolution, which like gravity, is a pretty solid law.

Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!

Unlike Christians who, as proof of their gods have a magic man making other men out of mud, burning bushes, snakes and donkeys that talk and iron ax-heads that float!

[holybuckets]

Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God. 

Holybuckets, do you accept that there is a magical leprechaun under my bed who opens the curtains in my room for me each morning?

If not, why not?

I have never seen your leprechaun and neither have you. Right? We BOTH have NOT seen your little friend. I say he/she exists, you claim he/she does not.

Am I going to fast for you? I'll slow down.

You use your argument of "reason" to claim there is no leprechaun because there is no proof one has been seen.

I use my argument of "reason" to claim that there are residual effects the are proof the leprechaun exists.

Now, before you jump to conclusions- this is hypothetical. I have not been to your room nor have I looked under your bed.

The fact that you have NOT seen a leprechaun DOES NOT mean one DOES NOT exist. Once again, it's hypothetical. I know how you atheists are.

The fact that I have, what I believe to be residual evidence does not "prove" the leprechaun exists, but it does not prove the leprechaun does not exist either.

My bottom line is that you have no proof that God does not exist. He could, you just have not seen Him.

[holybuckets]

"Ex:24:9: Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:
Ex:24:10: And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

Mind you, you are quite right. Like the rest of the Bible, it is all fairy tales and lies. None of those mentioned really saw God, even though they said they did."

I said "On this earth." I do not believe that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are still walking around.  Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.

[Anfauglir]

Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.
Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.
Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God. 

Holybuckets, do you accept that there is a magical leprechaun under my bed who opens the curtains in my room for me each morning?

If not, why not?

I have never seen your leprechaun and neither have you. Right? We BOTH have NOT seen your little friend. I say he/she exists, you claim he/she does not.

Am I going to fast for you? I'll slow down.

You use your argument of "reason" to claim there is no leprechaun because there is no proof one has been seen.

I use my argument of "reason" to claim that there are residual effects the are proof the leprechaun exists.

Now, before you jump to conclusions- this is hypothetical. I have not been to your room nor have I looked under your bed.

The fact that you have NOT seen a leprechaun DOES NOT mean one DOES NOT exist. Once again, it's hypothetical. I know how you atheists are.

The fact that I have, what I believe to be residual evidence does not "prove" the leprechaun exists, but it does not prove the leprechaun does not exist either.

My bottom line is that you have no proof that God does not exist. He could, you just have not seen Him.

So, you agree that it is perfectly reasonable for me to believe in the leprechaun?

[Jag]

I said "On this earth." I do not believe that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are still walking around.  Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.

No dear, this means that you still don't know what the word "hypocrite" means.

Definition of HYPOCRITE
1: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

Now, can you tell me how that applies to us? It's fine for you to be upset or even hostile about our continued resistance to your message - ineffective, but acceptable. That doesn't make us hypocrites by any stretch of the imagination. You don't get to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean, and then try to use your own special meaning of it to insult us.

As I stated in an earlier post - atheists are not responsible for the creation of the rules of logic, that goes back to the ancient Greeks. You are trying to "prove" that we can't "prove" there is no God. Well Sherlock, we already agree that we can't do so, but that's hardly a point for your side of this debate. Trying to blame that on us only "proves" that you don't know wtf you're talking about.

If you're going to try to be insulting, at least come up with something that fits. You could tell me I'm being a bitch, for instance. There's evidence to support that.

Edited to correct formatting

[jaimehlers]

Atheists are hypocrites.

Incorrect.  Atheists are skeptics.

You can use all of the "rules of reason" or whatever you guys use in your chat rooms or whatever.

This is not rocket science, holybuckets.  People have known that you can't prove a negative for thousands of years.  It is physically impossible to do so.  This isn't something atheists made up to jerk Christians around.

Here is the bottom line:
NOBODY on this earth has seen God.

First of all, I challenge anyone to dispute me on that!

Certainly true.

Secondly, Christians believe that there IS a God.

Are you with me so far? I can type slower if you do not understand.

True, thus the burden of proof, to show that there is a god, lies on Christians, who believe there is one.

Thirdly, Atheists do NOT believe in God.  Oh, I know some will say it's not that they don't believe or not believe, but a God has not been proven.

It is hypocritical to say they a person is wrong because they believe in God but cannot prove it, and say that there is no God because they cannot prove it.

Incorrect.  Hypocrisy is claiming to believe something that one does not in fact believe, or something equivalent.  Requiring believers to provide evidence for the existence of gods before acknowledging the existence of gods is not hypocrisy.  It is skepticism.

Once again, I know you are going to apply your law of "reason"... but you are only stroking yourself.  You may buy the argument- and more power to you.

Your unwillingness to accept an argument means nothing except that you are unwilling to accept that argument.  You don't get to redefine words to mean something else at your convenience.

Same with evolution. There is NO PROOF humans came from fish or some ape looking thing.  NO PROOF. Do you hear me? There is no proof that man evolved from ANYTHING. NO PROOF.

Yes, there is.  There is lots and lots and lots of proof.  Getting mad about it won't change that.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/courses/evolution/html/evidence.html
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

That's just a tiny handful of the total amount of proof that scientists have found to support the theory of evolution.

There is MORE proof that Jesus resurrected from the dead than there is for evolution.

Sorry, but that's simply not true.  The only 'proof' that the resurrection occurred is in the Bible.  There are no contemporary accounts regarding it, and indeed, some of the claims that the Bible makes regarding the resurrection are improbable, to say the least.

Atheists think they have it figured out, but offer NO PROOF!

It is impossible to provide evidence to show that something doesn't exist.  That is why atheists offer "no proof" of the nonexistence of gods, because if something doesn't exist, there will be no evidence to show that it doesn't exist.  It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.  That means that atheists can't actually prove that gods don't exist.  What they can do is show that nobody's ever provided evidence for the existence of gods, and thus there is no reason to believe in them unless and until someone does provide evidence for them.

But as I've shown with evolution, there is tons of evidence to show that it occurred, and is still occurring.  That's because evolution exists, and thus evidence for it also exists.  That is the key difference.  It is possible to prove that something exists.

[Aaron123]

Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.

It's very simple to demostrate that the bible is a falsehood.  You just need to see if the historical/geographical records matches with those in the bible.

The bible said the world was created in six days.  The facts show that it took billions of years for the world to be created.  The bible talks of a worldwide flood.  There is no evidence of a worldwide flood.  The bible talks of a massive exodus out of Egypt.  There is no evidence of such a thing.  These are all things that if true, we would've found overwelming evidence a long time ago.

I'm sure you'll say something about "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", but this does nothing for your part.  You still need to provide evidence for your arguement.

[Graybeard]

I said "On this earth." I do not believe that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are still walking around.

And they never walked about

Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie. You can't, no one has in 2000 years. This makes you hypocrites.

You've been correct on your English, now let me ask you. The Bible says there was a flood that covered the earth. Yet, as the Flood was happening, there are records from Egypt that the people there did not get wet at all. There are also other civilisations that did not seem to be flooded - The Chinese for one missed out on it completely.

New Testament: Herod King of Chalkis (Herod V) and High Priest of Jerusalem (d. 40 or 48 AD) Acts 12 is confused in the Bible with Agrippa I. We know this because Josephus, who was around at the time when Jesus was allegedly alive, correctly describes Agrippa I and we know when he reigned.

Then you only have to look at the genealogies in the NT to see that they contradict each other, and these are essential for the line of David.

Then there is the difficulty of where and when Jesus was born - the Bible does not match known history.

[Astreja]

Secondly, prove the Bible is a lie.

Burden of proof is on you, Holybuckets.  Kindly courier a real live Talking Snake™ (Genesis 3:1) to My house.  If you can't do it, then I'll continue to operate on the assumption that the Bible is, at the very least, truthiness-impaired.

[holybuckets]

"This is not rocket science, holybuckets.  People have known that you can't prove a negative for thousands of years.  It is physically impossible to do so.  This isn't something atheists made up to jerk Christians around."

Thank You,

Someone actually TRUTHFULLY answered my question. Atheists CANNOT PROVE their case. YET, they are constantly putting Christians under scrutiny to do so.

That's called hypocrisy my friends.