Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon

[Seppuku]

The funny thing is, there are Christians believing that Obama, a fellow Christian is a threat to their religious rights as Christians and is often thrown out there and grouped in with the atheists and it's ludicrous.

Of course, I think it would be likely a non-Christian president wouldn't favour Christianity in their politics, but at the same time, I'd hope more Christians would understand that they're not the only religion out there and that not everybody is religious and would be more accepting of the fact that there's other people out there and be more accommodating of that fact and understand a healthy society is secular. But then perhaps I expect too much from people.

Though I suspect it's not just Christians who voted in the poll, as the US also has Jews, Hindus, Muslims and people of other faiths, but of course, Christians would make up the majority.

[jaimehlers]

It is very easy. The main claim of Christianity has been that Jesus rose from the dead.  No scholar, group or individual has been able to prove that wrong.  It there has been please let me know. Gary Habermas has an excellent book entitled "The Historical Jesus." There is some very good information inside.

Before you can ask other people to prove something wrong, you first have to prove that it's right.  And no Christian has ever been able to do that.  You've set an awfully high bar for this Gary Habermas, so I went and looked up his Q&A on "The Historical Jesus".  Needless to say, I was less than impressed.  For example, he cites letters from Paul (such as 1 Corinthians), who never actually met Jesus, because they were written within a few years of Jesus's supposed death, and he cites "extra-Biblical" writings which date from the mid-first century to about 110 AD.  What he does not do is cite from any historical records from the time Jesus supposedly ministered.

He also cites the discredited passage from Josephus by stating that "the vast majority of scholars who address this issue think that although Josephus' longer statement about Jesus in Antiquities 18:3 has been altered a bit, the bulk of it was written by Josephus."  This is not believable, not the least of which because it doesn't fit the paragraphs that precede and follow it.  He also refers to Antiquities 20:9, "concerning Jesus being the brother of James", but this is also not believable - it could very easily have been referring to another Jesus (indeed, it brought up another Jesus at the very end).

The first person to 'notice' these passages was a Christian bishop named Eusebius, during the 4th century CE.  Nobody who discussed Josephus's Antiquities until them even brought them up, so it is extremely likely that they are fraudulent (not to mention the fact that Eusebius was known for committing pious frauds, lies for the purpose of advancing his religious beliefs).  Origen, a 2nd century Christian apologist who quoted from Josephus at length, never mentioned either passage.

In addition, Habermas said that of over a thousand recent publications on the subject of the historical Jesus, he was aware of less than five which doubted or questioned that there was actually a historical Jesus.  Even I can spot the weasel wording here, not to mention that he doesn't mention where these publications were, well, published.

I don't have time to go through all twenty of the questions that he answered, but it's pretty clear that even if someone else asked them, rather than him phrasing them himself, they intentionally gave him plenty of wiggle room so that he could avoid saying something that was definitely untrue.  In other words, I'm not impressed at this apologist "historian" or his book.

I would advise you to read up on the subject, as I pointed out, it is so easy to stand on the sideline and cry myth. By the way, did you know the Apollo Moon landings were faked?

Funny how we have verifiable evidence to show that they actually happened.  That is to say, transmissions from the Apollo landers, objects brought back from the moon, etc, etc.  I'd say it's been pretty well proven that the moon landings did in fact happen.

[jdawg70]

By the way, did you know the Apollo Moon landings were faked?

As was the Battle of Thermopylae and the Renaissance.

I'm calling Poe at this point.

[holybuckets]

jaimehlers,

Thanks for proving my point. You write; "Funny how we have verifiable evidence to show that they actually happened.  That is to say, transmissions from the Apollo landers, objects brought back from the moon, etc, etc.  I'd say it's been pretty well proven that the moon landings did in fact happen."

Your assumption is that if shown proof, then the theory would be invalid, as you have indicated in your post.

The problem with your theory is that people still believe the moon landing is a hoax. I have provided a line- and there are others who still claim the US did not land a man on the moon.

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no! The Apollo Myth Theorists didn't convert.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

[Astreja]

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no! The Apollo Myth Theorists didn't convert.

If Christianity was proven tomorrow, I would accept that the deity actually existed but I would not worship it.  I reject substitutionary atonement, human sacrifice, Original Sin and eternal torture of anybody for any reason.

[jaimehlers]

Thanks for proving my point. You write; "Funny how we have verifiable evidence to show that they actually happened.  That is to say, transmissions from the Apollo landers, objects brought back from the moon, etc, etc.  I'd say it's been pretty well proven that the moon landings did in fact happen."

Your assumption is that if shown proof, then the theory would be invalid, as you have indicated in your post.

You totally missed the point I was making.  What I was actually trying to get across was that once something's been demonstrated with evidence, it's up to the people who disagree with it to find evidence[1] to contradict it.

The problem with your theory is that people still believe the moon landing is a hoax. I have provided a line- and there are others who still claim the US did not land a man on the moon.

And some people still believe that the Earth is flat.  However, there's been more than sufficient evidence that shows that it is a sphere to put the burden of proof squarely in the court of the flat earth crowd.

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no! The Apollo Myth Theorists didn't convert.

I think most atheists would accept the reality of your god existing, but would not convert to worshiping it.  Imagine if the Flying Spaghetti Monster came down and denounced Christianity as an evil fraud.  Would you expect Christians to convert to worshiping it?  No?  Then why would you expect atheists to convert to the worship of your god just because it proved that it actually existed?

1.	that stands up to scrutiny

[holybuckets]

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no! The Apollo Myth Theorists didn't convert.

If Christianity was proven tomorrow, I would accept that the deity actually existed but I would not worship it.  I reject substitutionary atonement, human sacrifice, Original Sin and eternal torture of anybody for any reason.

Thanks for your honest answer.

[holybuckets]

Thanks for proving my point. You write; "Funny how we have verifiable evidence to show that they actually happened.  That is to say, transmissions from the Apollo landers, objects brought back from the moon, etc, etc.  I'd say it's been pretty well proven that the moon landings did in fact happen."

Your assumption is that if shown proof, then the theory would be invalid, as you have indicated in your post.

You totally missed the point I was making.  What I was actually trying to get across was that once something's been demonstrated with evidence, it's up to the people who disagree with it to find evidence[1] to contradict it.

The problem with your theory is that people still believe the moon landing is a hoax. I have provided a line- and there are others who still claim the US did not land a man on the moon.

And some people still believe that the Earth is flat.  However, there's been more than sufficient evidence that shows that it is a sphere to put the burden of proof squarely in the court of the flat earth crowd.

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no! The Apollo Myth Theorists didn't convert.

I think most atheists would accept the reality of your god existing, but would not convert to worshiping it.  Imagine if the Flying Spaghetti Monster came down and denounced Christianity as an evil fraud.  Would you expect Christians to convert to worshiping it?  No?  Then why would you expect atheists to convert to the worship of your god just because it proved that it actually existed?

1.	that stands up to scrutiny

jaime,
Thanks for taking my to Alice in Wonderland. Now let's talk truth. The fact is Apollo is true, Sandy Hook is true, the Holocaust is true, yet- and do a google search if you want. There are still many people who believe they are a hoax.
Secondly, give "evidence" rather than contradict it? Are you kidding me? Have you read these posts? How many times have you heard that it is up to the person making the claim to prove it and the atheist does NOT have to provide any evidence?
At least you are true on one point- even if God was proven true to atheists, they would not worship Him.

[naemhni]

At least you are true on one point- even if God was proven true to atheists, they would not worship Him.

I'm not sure that's true for all atheists, but it's certainly true for many if not most.  My own view is pretty much the same as Astreja's: it's just barely possible you could convince me that Yahweh exists, but there's absolutely no way I would ever worship him.  The bible shows quite clearly that he is an absolute monster, completely unworthy of even basic dignity and respect, let alone worship.

[jaimehlers]

Thanks for taking my to Alice in Wonderland. Now let's talk truth. The fact is Apollo is true, Sandy Hook is true, the Holocaust is true, yet- and do a google search if you want. There are still many people who believe they are a hoax.

Yep, there are lots of people who believe things that aren't true, and who don't believe in things that are.  So what?  Reality doesn't change because of what people believe.  That's why we keep talking about needing evidence - which is based on reality, and thus not dependent on human opinions.

Secondly, give "evidence" rather than contradict it? Are you kidding me? Have you read these posts? How many times have you heard that it is up to the person making the claim to prove it and the atheist does NOT have to provide any evidence?

You have to prove that a claim is valid before you can reasonably expect someone to provide evidence to disprove it.  If theists were able to provide the sort of evidence that would validate their religious beliefs, then the onus would be on atheists to find evidence to disprove it, or else admit that they were wrong.  But theists have to provide evidence in order to get to that point in the first place.

At least you are true on one point- even if God was proven true to atheists, they would not worship Him.

Right...because it's about more than whether something exists in that case, it's about whether it deserves worship.  And based on the descriptions in the Bible, YHWH...really isn't.

[Graybeard]

At least you are true on one point- even if God was proven true to atheists, they would not worship Him.

The thing is that were God to tell us how he managed to do all theses wondrous things, then he would no longer be a god, would he? The essence of a god is that a god can do things we can't and we don't know how he does them.

A bird and a fish can do things that we can't but we understand why we can't do those things but they can. There are plenty of stories about  people who can fly and people who can stay underwater for days, both unaided, but, because we understand the impossibility of this, we recognise the fiction.

Therefore we must recognise the fiction of gods - they are beings that can do amazing things - and we are ignorant of how they do them.

So, as I say, if your god came along and just explained how he did things, he would no longer be a god, would he?

Basically, gods are our ignorance, and the more we know, the less of a space they can occupy in our lives.  We are now in a position to explain the universe from the Big Bang to the present. There is no need for a god between that start and the present day.

This leaves the "Time before the Big Bang" - now, there is a well supported suggestion that there was no "time" before the Big Bang: you can work out why yourself (in broad terms) and that idea also precludes a "timeless god".

So the argument is about the creation myth.

Consider: “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.”

To a reasonable person, that shows that there was no god who created anything. If there had been, the same story would arise... and it could not.

[holybuckets]

Gray,
Let me ask you this. Do you feel a God interferes in an atheists view of existence. In other words, take the Bible God for example; it sounds to me that you are saying that a God would only get in the way. Forget creation and all that stuff, now that we are here, are we better off without a God?

[Graybeard]

Gray,
Let me ask you this. Do you feel a God interferes in an atheists view of existence.

I feel that the concept of gods in general interfere with all human advancement and existence. It suppresses the search and desire for real knowledge that alone has improved our lot. And yet, there are sheep who walk willingly behind the shepherd to the slaughterhouse. They like the magic stories and living for ever on a cloud with Jesus who loves everyone, being there with all their friends (who, of course, have all gone to heaven.)

In other words, take the Bible God for example; it sounds to me that you are saying that a God would only get in the way.

I think it has been clearly shown that gods do get in the way of advancement. The adherents of gods revel in their conservative ignorance; opposing change and knowledge at every turn. Here's a quick question, Who said, "RELIGION, n. A daughter of Hope and Fear, explaining to Ignorance the nature of the Unknowable."? - Ambrose Bierce
Highlight the space after the quote for your answer.

Forget creation and all that stuff, now that we are here, are we better off without a God?

The question presupposes that there was a god at some time. I dispute this. As far as being better off without gods, I certainly am; my time is my own. I don't pay tithes to hear the terminally deluded rant apologist garbage or nonsense. I have nothing to do with snake-oil salesmen or Elmer Gantry type people. I am unrestricted by dogma and doctrine created by those with vested interests in spreading misinformation. I am not required to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast. Nobody has persuaded me that when I die I'll be alive or that a whole swathe of religious language has any meaning.

For the rest of the world, think of the internecine strife in the Middle East - they are killing one another to see who God loves best! Of course, they are 900 years behind us when we went off to the crusades. Think of all those who die because they believe their god will cure them of some disease. Think of the fundamentalists in the US and Iran: 

Here's another quick question: Who said, "Feminism encourages women to leave their husband, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians – Pat Robertson, Christian Coalition.

Atheistic, secular humanists should be removed from office and Christians should be elected; Government and True Christianity are inseparable – Robert Simonds Citizens for Excellence in Education.

Highlight the space after the quote for your answer.

Finally:

“Wandering in a vast forest at night, I have only a faint light to guide me. A stranger appears and says to me: 'My friend, you should blow out your candle in order to find your way more clearly.' This stranger is a theologian.”
-- Diderot, c1762

Now, have I side-stepped anything?

[holybuckets]

Great job Mr Graybeard,

While we are on the subject, one more question please. Would it be fair to say that some people feel God would get in the way of their lifestyle? You kind of eluded to that when you said:  "I don't pay tithes to hear the terminally deluded rant apologist garbage or nonsense."
I'm just wondering if atheists think that the Bible God would be dictative?

[Astreja]

Would it be fair to say that some people feel God would get in the way of their lifestyle?

I think that tends to happen more on the believer side of the atheist/theist divide, as non-believers don't generally consider gods substantial enough to be an obstacle in the first place.

In fact, there are sections of the New Testament that purport to strike down sections of the Old Testament, despite Jesus supposedly stating that the old laws will not pass away.  (I think this is because the parties who compiled the NT were writing from a Hellenic perspective rather than a Jewish one, and focused on philosophical concepts rather than cultural traditions such as strict observance of the Sabbath and keeping kosher.)

[Anfauglir]

Very good. Now we are starting to get somewhere. I CANNOT prove Islam wrong, I CANNOT prove Hinduism wrong. You CANNOT prove Christianity wrong. You people seek PROOF. It's a religion. Religion is  a belief. It is not built on a proof system.

Excellent!  So now we have established that any and all beliefs are equally valid, we can agree that none should have any special treatment in the world, yes?

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no!

You'd be right.  I'd accept it happened, but I wouldn't support it.  I accept the evidence that the Holocaust happened, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good thing.  So no - if I discovered that Yahweh actually existed, I wouldn't suddenly support him.  I'd probably pretend to, because I know he is a vindictive monster that tortures people who don't agree with him.

[holybuckets]

Very good. Now we are starting to get somewhere. I CANNOT prove Islam wrong, I CANNOT prove Hinduism wrong. You CANNOT prove Christianity wrong. You people seek PROOF. It's a religion. Religion is  a belief. It is not built on a proof system.

Excellent!  So now we have established that any and all beliefs are equally valid, we can agree that none should have any special treatment in the world, yes?

Here's the deal. If Christianity was proven tomorrow, would you atheists convert? My guess is no!

You'd be right.  I'd accept it happened, but I wouldn't support it.  I accept the evidence that the Holocaust happened, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good thing.  So no - if I discovered that Yahweh actually existed, I wouldn't suddenly support him.  I'd probably pretend to, because I know he is a vindictive monster that tortures people who don't agree with him.

No, we have not established that all beliefs are equally valid. We have established that you have failed to prove Christianity wrong.
Also, there are people who swear the Holocaust never happened. Do a Google search, it's crazy. Do a Google search for Sandy Hook Hoax, or The Apollo Landing. There are tons of others. My point is that is it easy to make up a hoax theory. Look at you guys, a perfect example.

[Anfauglir]

Very good. Now we are starting to get somewhere. I CANNOT prove Islam wrong, I CANNOT prove Hinduism wrong. You CANNOT prove Christianity wrong. You people seek PROOF. It's a religion. Religion is  a belief. It is not built on a proof system.

Excellent!  So now we have established that any and all beliefs are equally valid, we can agree that none should have any special treatment in the world, yes?.

No, we have not established that all beliefs are equally valid. We have established that you have failed to prove Christianity wrong.

And YOU have failed to prove Hinduism wrong, failed to prove Islam wrong.  So in what way are all beliefs not equally valid, if none can be proved wrong?  What is it that makes your chosen faith worthy of additional consideration above any of the others?

<<edit: fixed quotes>>

[holybuckets]

Very good. Now we are starting to get somewhere. I CANNOT prove Islam wrong, I CANNOT prove Hinduism wrong. You CANNOT prove Christianity wrong. You people seek PROOF. It's a religion. Religion is  a belief. It is not built on a proof system.

Excellent!  So now we have established that any and all beliefs are equally valid, we can agree that none should have any special treatment in the world, yes?

No, we have not established that all beliefs are equally valid. We have established that you have failed to prove Christianity wrong.

And YOU have failed to prove Hinduism wrong, failed to prove Islam wrong.  So in what way are all beliefs not equally valid, if none can be proved wrong?  What is it that makes your chosen faith worthy of additional consideration above any of the others?

I did not say that I have proved Hinduism wrong or Islam wrong. You cannot prove them wrong. This is my point. You atheists ask for proof and yet you have no argument to prove them wrong. Christians of course believe our religion has more validity. I could make many claims, but you don't have any evidence to dispute them. So then we will go round and round....and round and round........
My point to you is that myths are easy to create and you cant prove Christianity wrong. If you have any evidence to counter those claims, I will be more than happy to see what you have.


<<edit: Fixed quotes>>

[wheels5894]

No, we have not established that all beliefs are equally valid. We have established that you have failed to prove Christianity wrong.

Well, if you don't think we have shown that all the various religious claims are equal, tell us how we are to distinguish between the ones that are right and the ones that are not. On what basis is this done.

Also, there are people who swear the Holocaust never happened. Do a Google search, it's crazy. Do a Google search for Sandy Hook Hoax, or The Apollo Landing. There are tons of others. My point is that is it easy to make up a hoax theory. Look at you guys, a perfect example.

Maybe that's a perfectly good way of explaining religion too - as the explanatory power of religion is getting smaller and smaller yet some people still stick to it, albeit a declining number.

[Anfauglir]

And YOU have failed to prove Hinduism wrong, failed to prove Islam wrong.  So in what way are all beliefs not equally valid, if none can be proved wrong?  What is it that makes your chosen faith worthy of additional consideration above any of the others?

I did not say that I have proved Hinduism wrong or Islam wrong. You cannot prove them wrong.

Yes - that was exactly my point.  I never said you had disproved them.  I agree with you that you can NOT disprove them.   (The quoting went all to cock, which may explain the confusion)

This is my point. You atheists ask for proof and yet you have no argument to prove them wrong. ..... My point to you is that myths are easy to create and you cant prove Christianity wrong.

Yes.  And that is my point.  I cannot prove Christianity wrong.  And YOU cannot prove Islam or Hinduism wrong.

So why should any one of those three beliefs be granted any additional consideration?  If none can be disproved, surely we MUST treat them all the same, no? 

[holybuckets]

No, we have not established that all beliefs are equally valid. We have established that you have failed to prove Christianity wrong.

Well, if you don't think we have shown that all the various religious claims are equal, tell us how we are to distinguish between the ones that are right and the ones that are not. On what basis is this done.

Also, there are people who swear the Holocaust never happened. Do a Google search, it's crazy. Do a Google search for Sandy Hook Hoax, or The Apollo Landing. There are tons of others. My point is that is it easy to make up a hoax theory. Look at you guys, a perfect example.

Maybe that's a perfectly good way of explaining religion too - as the explanatory power of religion is getting smaller and smaller yet some people still stick to it, albeit a declining number.

All religious claims are not equal. Jesus is only one who claimed to be God and according to the Bible rose from the dead. Now, I realize you atheists are going to have a field day with that statement, so please read carefully how I worded it. My claim is that according to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead. I have stated a claim and used the Bible as my reference. If you deny that, then you are making the claim, and according to your rules, then you must state your evidence as I have.

[Anfauglir]

.....tell us how we are to distinguish between the ones that are right and the ones that are not. On what basis is this done.

All religious claims are not equal. Jesus is only one who claimed to be God and according to the Bible rose from the dead. ..... My claim is that according to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead. I have stated a claim and used the Bible as my reference.

So?  The Koran and the Veda make claims about THEIR gods.  I'm not going to try to dispute that their holy books say what they say.  But so what?  We can't disprove your book, you can't disprove thier books.  So what have we gained from your example?

Your book makes the most outlandish claim.....so we should give that one the MOST credibility, is that what you are saying?

[holybuckets]

.....tell us how we are to distinguish between the ones that are right and the ones that are not. On what basis is this done.

All religious claims are not equal. Jesus is only one who claimed to be God and according to the Bible rose from the dead. ..... My claim is that according to the Bible, Jesus claimed to be God and rose from the dead. I have stated a claim and used the Bible as my reference.

So?  The Koran and the Veda make claims about THEIR gods.  I'm not going to try to dispute that their holy books say what they say.  But so what?  We can't disprove your book, you can't disprove thier books.  So what have we gained from your example?

Your book makes the most outlandish claim.....so we should give that one the MOST credibility, is that what you are saying?

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove that Jesus rose from the dead....

[Anfauglir]

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove that Jesus rose from the dead....

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove any claims made by the Koran and the Veda.....

I repeat: Why should your mystical claims be given any special consideration over any others, when (according to you) none can be disproved?  Why should we NOT treat them all equally?

[holybuckets]

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove that Jesus rose from the dead....

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove any claims made by the Koran and the Veda.....

I repeat: Why should your mystical claims be given any special consideration over any others, when (according to you) none can be disproved?  Why should we NOT treat them all equally?

I gave my answer in the post above- because, according to the Bible Jesus claimed to be God and rose form the dead. This is my claim. The evidence behind the claim is the Bible.

[wheels5894]

Holybuckets,

You use the bible as the basis for your Christianity but why have you chosen the account of Jesus as your choice of religion rather than, say, Islam whose leader met the angel Gabriel and was permitted to see the seven levels of heaven?

I'd like to know why you made your choice.

[Anfauglir]

I repeat: Why should your mystical claims be given any special consideration over any others, when (according to you) none can be disproved?  Why should we NOT treat them all equally?

I gave my answer in the post above- because, according to the Bible Jesus claimed to be God and rose form the dead. This is my claim. The evidence behind the claim is the Bible.

So what?  Osiris came back from the dead as well.  Hercules conquered death.  Dionysus was resurrected.  Appolonius of Tyana was crucified and rose from the tomb.   Orpheus nearly brought someone back from the dead.

You - as you have admitted - cannot disprove any of them.

So I ask again.  What makes YOUR magical claim any more valid than any other?

[Mrjason]

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove that Jesus rose from the dead....

So you agree you have no evidence to disprove any claims made by the Koran and the Veda.....

I repeat: Why should your mystical claims be given any special consideration over any others, when (according to you) none can be disproved?  Why should we NOT treat them all equally?

I gave my answer in the post above- because, according to the Bible Jesus claimed to be God and rose form the dead. This is my claim. The evidence behind the claim is the Bible.

The evidence that jesus didn't rise from the dead is that humans do not rise from the dead.
You have no evidence that he did. where is this undying man now?