Author Topic: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon  (Read 3943 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #145 on: May 21, 2013, 12:14:11 PM »
These appear to be your opinions. Please, once again, where is your evidence to support your claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Can you please cite your sources.

The lack of evidence that he did rise from the dead is sufficient, since there is still no evidence that anyone has been brought back to life after lying dead for three days.

We don't even have sufficient evidence that he was real, much less that anything he did or experienced ever happened.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #146 on: May 21, 2013, 12:15:31 PM »
None of you have presented any evidence, you just have presented straw. Thanks for the heads up on the wiki straw-argument link. Here it is. Which category do you fit in? Osiris, unicorns, and unfounded statements like: "practically the entire New Testament is unreliable."

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

    Person 1 has position X.
    Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
        Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
        Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
        Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
        Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
        Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
    Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position. The ostensible argument that Person 2 makes has the form:

    "Don't support X, because X has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

However, the actual form of the argument is:

    "Don't support X, because Y has an unacceptable (or absurd or contradictory or terrible) consequence."

This argument doesn't make sense; it is a non sequitur. Person 2 relies on the audience's not noticing this.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #147 on: May 21, 2013, 12:18:55 PM »
These appear to be your opinions. Please, once again, where is your evidence to support your claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Can you please cite your sources.

The lack of evidence that he did rise from the dead is sufficient, since there is still no evidence that anyone has been brought back to life after lying dead for three days.

We don't even have sufficient evidence that he was real, much less that anything he did or experienced ever happened.
No, I made a claim and provided evidence. What is your claim and where is your evidence. your simple claim that, in your opinion, I have insufficient evidence is not worthy enough to win in a debate. You must state your case and provide evidence.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #148 on: May 21, 2013, 12:30:00 PM »
No, I made a claim and provided evidence. What is your claim and where is your evidence. your simple claim that, in your opinion, I have insufficient evidence is not worthy enough to win in a debate. You must state your case and provide evidence.

Your evidence is inadequate, as the information in the link I provided shows.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2194
  • Darwins +72/-9
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #149 on: May 21, 2013, 12:32:14 PM »
No, I made a claim and provided evidence.

What would you accept as evidence against your claim?
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3002
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #150 on: May 21, 2013, 12:37:06 PM »
Time for a thorough cross-examination of this purported testimony!

(Springy G drops an e-mail to Her nephew Forseti, who promptly subpoenaes Biblegod, the Holy Spirit, Jesus, Satan, Mary, Joseph, Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, and all 12 of the disciples.  Balder's son also gives a heads-up to His bailiff that there may be a few bench warrants going out if the subpoenaed parties fail to show...)

It's going to be particularly interesting watching the Synoptic Three trying to avoid perjury when all three of them tell different stories about what happened outside the alleged tomb on Easter morning.   ;)
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #151 on: May 21, 2013, 12:41:21 PM »
No, I made a claim and provided evidence. What is your claim and where is your evidence. your simple claim that, in your opinion, I have insufficient evidence is not worthy enough to win in a debate. You must state your case and provide evidence.

Your evidence is inadequate, as the information in the link I provided shows.
As I stated in a previous post, you are offering a straw-argument.

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #152 on: May 21, 2013, 12:42:58 PM »
As I stated in a previous post, you are offering a straw-argument.

Incorrect.  I have put forth no argument of my own.  I am pointing out that the support for yours is invalid.

Offline Seppuku

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
  • Darwins +125/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • I am gay for Fred Phelps
    • Seppuku Arts
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #153 on: May 21, 2013, 12:48:15 PM »
A book on its own doesn't constitute evidence. It needs a lot more to verify it.

For example, lets take something older than the bible, lets take The Epic of Gilgamesh. There's different versions, but each account a story about the Uruk King, Gilgamesh. The Epic of Gilgamesh itself is not evidence that Gilgamesh once existed. We simply have a story recorded and told by many. In that story exists gods and giant monsters and man created from a meteorite (Enkidu), it involves a trip to the underworld and it involves an encounter with Utnapishtim, an earlier version of Noah, where he tells the story of the great flood.

We facts can I confirm with the story by itself? Absolutely nothing. It's a story.

Okay, now we discover some ancient documents, the Sumerian list of kings and we see clearly labelled, an era in the city of Uruk, King Gilgamesh. Okay, so suddenly it seems like Gigamesh might not be a fictional character, we can say there's a chance there really was once a man by the name of Gilgamesh who was king of Uruk. The list possesses some accuracies with other known kings giving it some credibility, though some of the dates are a bit messed up because some suggest people reigned longer than a human can possibly live. But then in the story King Gilgamesh is actually part-god, so it may suggest that if these dates were accurate, then maybe being part deity led to longer reigns.

What else do we have? We can cross reference the story with the bible and find huge similarities between the tale of Utnapishtim and the tale of Noah. The connection is further drawn to a close when you find that the abbreviation for Utnapishtim is Na'ish and use the pronunciation in Palentine at the time you'd get something along the lines of 'Noah'. So what does this suggest? That Noah somehow existed? If so, then why is there a heathen account of it first and not Jewish one? Why are the heathen gods accounted and not the one true God? Of course this isn't actually telling us a lot, because stories can evolve and they can be plagiarised. So we still haven't got verification that the Epic of Gilgamesh is in fact a true story.

The of course, a group of German archeologists managed to uncover a tomb where Gilgamesh's tomb is described by various ancient records. They couldn't confirm who's tomb it was with evidence present on site, however, it seems more and more likely that Gilgamesh was in fact a real live king.

I would argue this is more than Jesus has. Yet, what does it prove about the whole epic? If you wish to suggest BOTH the Bible AND The Epic of Gilgamesh are factual, then you will be in contradiction, because the Bible suggests there's only 1 God, whereas in the Epic of Gilgamesh there are many. There's also discrepancies between the story of Utnapishtim and Noah, both cannot be right, otherwise there were 2 separate floods, one initiated by God and the other by Mesopotamian gods and on both accounts an ark is built to sustain many animals.

But neither the bible or the Epic of Gilgamesh exist as evidence for anything except that they were written and there isn't enough supporting evidence either.

Would I turn around and say either are false? No. I would say either are highly unlikely or improbable. Why? Because they require a high number of assumptions for them to be true, many of which would contradict not only each other, but our understanding of how the universe works, things we have already have evidence for. It is simply not worth me assuming either are factual.

I think it's possible Jesus existed and I wouldn't be surprised if he did, however, for him to be who people say he is (the son of God) and do the things people claim he did, I would say it's highly unlikely for the same reasons as above. As for providing evidence for my lack of belief in things without evidence, it is ludicrous because I accept the unknown are a possibility, regardless of how improbable they may be and it would be logistically impossible, because everybody would have to justify their lack of belief in everything they lack belief in and there's simply not enough hours in a person's lifetime to do it because we are talking about many lifetimes of claims. You yourself would for example would have to justify a lack of belief in Ganesh, Odin, Ukko, Zeus, Jupiter and many, many, many other deities and it won't stop at deities either.
“It is difficult to understand the universe if you only study one planet” - Miyamoto Musashi
Warning: I occassionally forget to proofread my posts to spot typos or to spot poor editing.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #154 on: May 21, 2013, 12:56:46 PM »
Let's take Osiris, even though it is immaterial. What about him/her? You say Osiris rose from the dead. OK, I will take your word for it. The fact of the matter is that Jesus resurrection has nothing to do with Osiris. If you are making the claim that both are myths, then give your evidence and prove your claim. I have stated my claim and gave my evidence.

Nope.  I'm stating that Osiris rose from the dead, end of claim.  You are stating that Jesus rose from the dead, end of your claim.

What I am therefore asking you is why anyone should treat YOUR claim as being any more relevant than mine.  You agree that the claims are equal, I presume, and should be treated equally?  If not, can I ask why not?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #155 on: May 21, 2013, 12:58:10 PM »
As I stated in a previous post, you are offering a straw-argument.

Incorrect.  I have put forth no argument of my own.  I am pointing out that the support for yours is invalid.
Tonus, I don't know if you saw the Holocaust is a Myth post. I pointed out how easy it is to say something is a myth. I took the stance that the Holocaust was a myth and this site went ballistic. The thread was finally shut down. You can look it up and read the same arguments you guys gave to prove the Holocaust was not a myth- is the same argument you guys use to claim that Jesus was a myth.
There are other myth theories out there. Sandy Hook is one. This guy kills his mom, goes to an elementary school, kills 20 kids and 6 adults, then shoots himself in the head. Gruesome, horrific, and inexcusable. Yet, and you can do a Google search, people are claiming it is a hoax.
Back to the argument, people have claimed Jesus was a hoax for a long time, if that is your argument, then fine. Is this what you are going with? Jesus never existed as your claim and evidence?

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #156 on: May 21, 2013, 01:02:28 PM »
Let's take Osiris, even though it is immaterial. What about him/her? You say Osiris rose from the dead. OK, I will take your word for it. The fact of the matter is that Jesus resurrection has nothing to do with Osiris. If you are making the claim that both are myths, then give your evidence and prove your claim. I have stated my claim and gave my evidence.

Nope.  I'm stating that Osiris rose from the dead, end of claim.  You are stating that Jesus rose from the dead, end of your claim.

What I am therefore asking you is why anyone should treat YOUR claim as being any more relevant than mine.  You agree that the claims are equal, I presume, and should be treated equally?  If not, can I ask why not?
You are creating a straw argument. Please read my previous post. I am stating X. You are stating Y. By you stating Y does nothing for my stating X and vise-verse.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #157 on: May 21, 2013, 01:05:02 PM »
Let's take Osiris, even though it is immaterial. What about him/her? You say Osiris rose from the dead. OK, I will take your word for it. The fact of the matter is that Jesus resurrection has nothing to do with Osiris. If you are making the claim that both are myths, then give your evidence and prove your claim. I have stated my claim and gave my evidence.

Nope.  I'm stating that Osiris rose from the dead, end of claim.  You are stating that Jesus rose from the dead, end of your claim.

What I am therefore asking you is why anyone should treat YOUR claim as being any more relevant than mine.  You agree that the claims are equal, I presume, and should be treated equally?  If not, can I ask why not?
You are creating a straw argument. Please read my previous post. I am stating X. You are stating Y. By you stating Y does nothing for my stating X and vise-verse.

Not at all.  I quite agree that one claim does not affect the case for the other.  What am I asking is how we should now treat those two equally valid cases.  We should treat them equally, yes?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #158 on: May 21, 2013, 01:05:28 PM »
unfounded statements like: "practically the entire New Testament is unreliable."
First off, that is not a straw man, that is a criticism.  A straw man is when someone distorts another person's position and then addresses the distorted position as if it is the original position.  That, I did not do.  A criticism, on the other hand, is when someone takes issue with what someone says and points out the reasons why.  And that, I did do.

You are attempting to claim that the Bible serves as evidence for your claim (which comes from the Bible).  I am criticizing that position for two reasons.  First, it is circular reasoningWiki; you cannot use the source of a claim as evidence to support that claim.  Your particular usage of circular reasoning follows this form:
  • You are repeating the Biblical claim that Jesus was resurrected after three days.
  • You are using evidence from the Bible to prove that Jesus was thus resurrected.
  • Your evidence is essentially the same as your claim.  The Bible makes a claim about something which it provides evidence for.
  • If the Biblical evidence is shown to be faulty/unreliable, the claim is also therefore faulty/unreliable.  That is why circular reasoning doesn't stand on its own.

Second, I am showing that the New Testament itself is not reliable evidence for the claim "Jesus was resurrected after three days".  This is not a straw man because I am not misrepresenting your actual position.  I am criticizing the evidence that you are using to support that position.  I have already given my reasoning to support my criticism, specifically that the authors of most of the New Testament books are not known, and therefore those books cannot be considered reliable testimony[1] to support the Biblical claim that Jesus was resurrected after three days.  And while several of Paul's letters were written by him, he was certainly not an eyewitness to the events of the Gospels, and therefore his letters cannot be used as evidence to prove it.

In short, you must provide evidence, from outside of the Bible and that doesn't use it as a source, to support the claim made by the Bible and that you are advancing.  This will deal with both of my criticisms, that you are using circular reasoning and that the source for your evidence is not reliable.  Going on the offensive, by claiming that atheists don't have evidence, are using straw man arguments, etc, will not do anything to negate my criticisms.  All it will do is more and more firmly convince myself and others that you cannot provide external evidence for your claim, that you must rely solely on the unreliable testimony of the New Testament and various other things based on the Bible (such as apologetics).

Once you start doing that, then we can review your evidence to determine whether it's valid.  For example, the two passages from Josephus's Antiquities are suspect (because they were probably added by a Christian bishop named Eusephius who was known for saying that it was acceptable to commit "pious frauds" to further the cause of his religion), so they are themselves not reliable.



It takes more than just saying, "I made a claim and provided evidence" for it to work.  Your claim must be separate from the evidence - and since the Bible is the source for both your claim and the evidence you use to support it, it assuredly is not - and the evidence must not be questionable or suspect.
 1. If you do not know the source of the testimony, how can you determine its accuracy?

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #159 on: May 21, 2013, 01:05:42 PM »
Back to the argument, people have claimed Jesus was a hoax for a long time, if that is your argument, then fine. Is this what you are going with? Jesus never existed as your claim and evidence?

As I said, I am not making an argument.  You made a claim and presented evidence.  But the source of your evidence is also the source of your claim.  If this is a valid method of producing evidence for a claim, then every religious book must be true, regardless of how ancient or modern it is and regardless of what claims it makes.  I do not consider that to be the case, therefore evidence for the claim must come from other sources.  As far as I am aware, there is almost no outside corroboration of the existence of a Jesus of Nazareth, even less for his death as a martyr, and none at all for his resurrection three days later.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #160 on: May 21, 2013, 01:07:01 PM »
A book on its own doesn't constitute evidence. It needs a lot more to verify it.

This is your opinion. Straw argument!

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #161 on: May 21, 2013, 01:07:44 PM »
Back to the argument, people have claimed Jesus was a hoax for a long time, if that is your argument, then fine. Is this what you are going with? Jesus never existed as your claim and evidence?

As we've been trying to tell you, there is an utter lack of evidence that Jesus existed, or that the gospel stories occured.  Right now, all you've presented (unless I missed something) is the bible itself as evidence for your claim.  The problem, as we've been trying to say, is that the bible is the source of that claim, not evidence in itself.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4880
  • Darwins +559/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #162 on: May 21, 2013, 01:09:42 PM »
A book on its own doesn't constitute evidence. It needs a lot more to verify it.
This is your opinion. Straw argument!
Actually, this is a well-known fact.  There's a reason that books/papers/etc cite sources for the information in them.

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #163 on: May 21, 2013, 01:33:45 PM »
None of you have presented any evidence, you just have presented straw. Thanks for the heads up on the wiki straw-argument link.
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:


Quote
As I stated in a previous post, you are offering a straw-argument.

Quote
You are creating a straw argument.

Quote
This is your opinion. Straw argument!


I am reminded of the following clip:




All things considered, I wonder if holybucket really doesn't understand the meaning of "strawman fallacy", and when it applies.
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2000
  • Darwins +360/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #164 on: May 21, 2013, 01:38:56 PM »
Jdawg,
I just thought of this. If all of the other atheists are willing, I will put up supporting evidence that the Bible is not a lie and you guys can defend your argument with the timecube.
Any takers?
How about you just go ahead and put up this supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  Once we see that then we can evaluate the veracity of that evidence and any counter evidence that may or may not exist.
Just don't want you forgetting that you've said you'd be able to provide supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  I read that as saying that you can provide supporting evidence that the bible is true.  If that is the case, then your presentation of evidence that 'the bible is true' will certainly go a long way in moving this discussion along.  Alternatively you can go ahead and claim that it's totally OK to simply accept any premise as resolutely true until otherwise proven false.  To which I can only say - I've got this friend in Nigeria e-mailing me...
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2013, 01:39:56 PM »

As we've been trying to tell you, there is an utter lack of evidence that Jesus existed, or that the gospel stories occured.  Right now, all you've presented (unless I missed something) is the bible itself as evidence for your claim.  The problem, as we've been trying to say, is that the bible is the source of that claim, not evidence in itself.
This is your opinion, and why not. You are atheists. I would not expect you to think there was a lot of evidence. But that is not my point. A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #166 on: May 21, 2013, 01:43:25 PM »
Jdawg,
I just thought of this. If all of the other atheists are willing, I will put up supporting evidence that the Bible is not a lie and you guys can defend your argument with the timecube.
Any takers?
How about you just go ahead and put up this supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  Once we see that then we can evaluate the veracity of that evidence and any counter evidence that may or may not exist.
Just don't want you forgetting that you've said you'd be able to provide supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  I read that as saying that you can provide supporting evidence that the bible is true.  If that is the case, then your presentation of evidence that 'the bible is true' will certainly go a long way in moving this discussion along.  Alternatively you can go ahead and claim that it's totally OK to simply accept any premise as resolutely true until otherwise proven false.  To which I can only say - I've got this friend in Nigeria e-mailing me...

Very good, but once again you use the atheist pick and chose method. Would you like to continue reading and tell me what I proposed that you use as your defense? Guess I didn't have any takers on that one!

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #167 on: May 21, 2013, 01:43:45 PM »
A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.

It doesn't appear to me that anyone is trying to debate your claim.  They're just asking you to support it, and explaining why what you're offering as what you think is support, isn't actually support.  Asking you to support your claim is not the same thing as making a counterclaim.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #168 on: May 21, 2013, 01:44:01 PM »

As we've been trying to tell you, there is an utter lack of evidence that Jesus existed, or that the gospel stories occured.  Right now, all you've presented (unless I missed something) is the bible itself as evidence for your claim.  The problem, as we've been trying to say, is that the bible is the source of that claim, not evidence in itself.
This is your opinion, and why not. You are atheists. I would not expect you to think there was a lot of evidence. But that is not my point. A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.

Quite right.

So now that we have agreed that Osiris rose from the dead, I presume that you have no problem with that fact being placed on an equal footing with your claim that Christ also rose?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2000
  • Darwins +360/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #169 on: May 21, 2013, 01:50:57 PM »
Jdawg,
I just thought of this. If all of the other atheists are willing, I will put up supporting evidence that the Bible is not a lie and you guys can defend your argument with the timecube.
Any takers?
How about you just go ahead and put up this supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  Once we see that then we can evaluate the veracity of that evidence and any counter evidence that may or may not exist.
Just don't want you forgetting that you've said you'd be able to provide supporting evidence that the bible is not a lie.  I read that as saying that you can provide supporting evidence that the bible is true.  If that is the case, then your presentation of evidence that 'the bible is true' will certainly go a long way in moving this discussion along.  Alternatively you can go ahead and claim that it's totally OK to simply accept any premise as resolutely true until otherwise proven false.  To which I can only say - I've got this friend in Nigeria e-mailing me...

Very good, but once again you use the atheist pick and chose method. Would you like to continue reading and tell me what I proposed that you use as your defense? Guess I didn't have any takers on that one!
Your declaration that Time Cube is illogical is just your opinion.  STRAW MAN!

Your claim does nothing to refute mine.  The bible is a lie.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."
- Eddie Izzard

Offline Tonus

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Darwins +28/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
    • Stuff I draw
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #170 on: May 21, 2013, 01:52:06 PM »
This is your opinion, and why not. You are atheists. I would not expect you to think there was a lot of evidence. But that is not my point. A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.
But if this is a debate where no one has sufficient evidence for the claim that Jesus did/didn't exist or that he was/wasn't resurrected, haven't we reached an impasse?

Offline holybuckets

  • Emergency Room
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
  • Darwins +3/-34
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #171 on: May 21, 2013, 01:55:24 PM »
This is your opinion, and why not. You are atheists. I would not expect you to think there was a lot of evidence. But that is not my point. A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.
But if this is a debate where no one has sufficient evidence for the claim that Jesus did/didn't exist or that he was/wasn't resurrected, haven't we reached an impasse?
Great question. You have to refute me, then give more evidence than I have. But I have a lot more evidence that I can give, and a whole lot more than you! I will save that for the second round, if we ever get that far.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4363
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #172 on: May 21, 2013, 01:59:36 PM »
If this is a debate where no one has sufficient evidence for the claim that Jesus did/didn't exist or that he was/wasn't resurrected, haven't we reached an impasse?

Not quite.  Holybuckets' claim extends ontology, so if there is no evidence to either support or refute it, we then fall back to the default position, which is to assume that the claim is not true.  Of course, since he says he does have evidence, we won't need to default to that.  Assuming he ever actually presents any evidence, of course.  So far, he hasn't.  (He just thinks he has.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Aaron123

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2733
  • Darwins +77/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Don't expect an atheist president anytime soon
« Reply #173 on: May 21, 2013, 01:59:49 PM »
This is your opinion, and why not.

A lack of evidence is not "opinion".  Lack of evidence is simply that.  Things can only change when evidence is uncovered to support an arguement.


Quote
You are atheists. I would not expect you to think there was a lot of evidence. But that is not my point.


We do not believe in Santa Claus, due to lack of evidence.

We do not belive in talking ponies, due to lack of evidence. (sadly)

We do not believe there is a giant robot named Voltron defending the universe, due to lack of evidence.

It is the same for your god.


On the other hand, if we started seeing a man flying in a sleigh proped by reindeers... if ponies talked... if we saw robot lions combine to form a big robot... then things would be different.  Same with your god.  It's that simple.  Really.


Quote
A debate argument is not won by you merely claiming I do not have enough evidence. Of course you can claim that, then present your case. If you fail to present your case, you lose the debate, no matter if you feel the other person has a lack of evidence or not.

For all your talk about the need to present evidence, you do very little of this.  Do you have anything to offer, other than "it says so in the bible"?  I have a feeling you don't, and your "prove Jesus didn't exist" stance is a reaction to this.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 02:01:34 PM by Aaron123 »
Being a Christian, I've made my decision. That decision offers no compromise; therefore, I'm closed to anything else.