Author Topic: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.  (Read 105472 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ataraxia

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 667
  • Darwins +102/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am large, I contain multitudes."
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #986 on: April 29, 2015, 04:02:09 PM »
I think this is the heart of the matter and reveals the competing worldviews. If I thought God did not exist I might agree with the former between these two choices. However, since I see evidence for God beyond the possible resurrection of Jesus, the latter becomes much more likely. As you can see, if we rule out a supernatural explanation a priori, no amount of historical evidence is going to convince you that something supernatural occurred. That is why theism and atheism, or perhaps supernaturalism and naturalism, is not answered through history, but rather with philosophy.

Yes, this is the crux of the issue and why you're pissing into the wind on a hiding to nowhere trying to establish theism through the apparent historicity of the Gospels. Religion, any religion, is secondary to theism, and those who have claimed to have found a god exists through religion are kidding themselves because they have already accepted one does exist.

Being an atheist isn't about ruling out supernatural explanations a priori, it's about not being able to determine whether or not something supernatural occurred because there is no means of falsification. Put forward a means to do so and you'd be off the starting blocks in being able to establish that a god exists... or you can stick to chasing your tail with the Jesus schtick.
Christian: "My faith grows every day."
Atheist: "So does rhubarb, and for the same reason."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8941
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #987 on: April 29, 2015, 04:17:49 PM »
No historical document on its own would be sufficient. However, multiple independent sources relating to a common event, as we find in the New Testament, provides strong support for historians that the event in question occurred.
I'm assuming you don't recognize the contradiction in what you just said.  You describe the New Testament as containing multiple independent sources relating to a common event, presumably the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, supposedly written by the disciples in question.  And yet, if they were actually written by said disciples, they are anything but independent of each other.  The disciples traveled with each other, talked with each other, ate with each other, and so on.  It is unbelievable that they would never have talked with each other about the events in question.  And, as such, they cannot be considered independent of each other, anymore than eyewitnesses who discuss something among themselves before writing down their accounts of what happened can be considered independent of each other.

Quote from: PhilosoB
Multiple copies allow for better tracking of alterations through the transmission of the document which allows for a more accurate reconstruction of the original.
This is true, but note what you said here; it allows for a more accurate reconstruction of the original.  The high number of copies argues against the original being an accurate rendition of events which really happened, for reasons I already stated.

Quote from: PhilosoB
The closer the copies are to the original writing means there is both less time for copying errors and greater accuracy in reconstructing the originals.
Which is beside the point.  Even if we had the actual originals, it would not establish that the events written about in the New Testament really happened.  We do not assume that other historical documents accurately relate history simply based on the fact that they exist.

Quote from: PhilosoB
And? I would think Christians would be interested in knowing more about the historicity of the New Testament.
So would I.  But your statement I was responding to was, "and yet it still receives more criticism than any historical document."  If the primary source of that criticism is other Christians, then it seems disingenuous to point out that it receives more criticism than other historical documents.

Quote from: PhilosoB
One historical document does not provide strong evidence for a historical event. Multiple independent sources provide much more credibility. A fictional story created by independent contemporary authors is not likely to share the amount of similarities as the New Testament.
First off, the disciples were clearly not independent of each other, so to argue that the gospels they presumably wrote are "multiple independent sources" is plainly wrong, and your point about them therefore providing more credibility is also wrong.  Second, there is no reason to conclude that the gospels were intentionally fictional, but that is not the same thing as them ending up being fictional.  Third, the gospels were not written for decades after the events they supposedly recounted, which substantially reduces the likelihood that they are accurate descriptions of those events, due to the way human memory works.

Quote from: PhilosoB
Further, archeological evidence show that the Roman empire was real, that the towns mentioned in the NT were real places, that Roman did crucify people, that the tombs existed, that particular governors mentioned in the NT existed. To deny the historical events found in the NT on archeological grounds is simply not reasonably defensible.
Many fictional stories contain real people, real places, and real events.  It is neither reasonable nor defensible to assume that because a story contains elements from reality, that the events it recounts are necessarily real.  Yet that is exactly what you seem to be doing by making this argument.

Quote from: PhilosoB
I think I have demonstrated that I have investigated and studied the historicity of the NT. The historical documents and archeological evidence form persuasive reasons to think we are dealing with actual events 2000 years ago. The question is how do we explain such events.
I think you have demonstrated that you believed the New Testament was true before you ever started to investigate and study its historicity, actually.  For example, your assumption that the different gospels were "multiple independent sources" despite the fact that the disciples would have been anything but independent from each other, not to mention your assumption that because the gospels included things which are known to be real, that the events recounted in them are equally real.  This does not show that you have seriously considered the likelihood that the events written in the New Testament did not happen; it shows that you were working from the conclusion that they happened before you ever started to research the New Testament.

Quote from: PhilosoB
It is arbitrary to think that the authors of the NT were influenced or copied pagan mythologies when there is no evidence of such things occurring. I have provide sound historical analysis, reasoning and evidence for why the NT accurately records real events in history. That is not arbitrary.
It is eminently reasonable to consider the likelihood that they were influenced by pagan mythologies, considering the nature of the Roman Empire during that time period.  The province of Judea was very important to Rome, since it controlled the land and coastal trade routes to Egypt (which was the breadbasket of Rome and thus of critical importance to it).  What that means is that a lot of people would have passed through it, and they would have brought their religious beliefs with them, including the mythology.  It is simply not believable that the writers of the gospels had never even heard of these pagan mythologies, and as such the likelihood that they were influenced by them, or outright copying them, cannot be ruled out.

Furthermore, your analysis and reasoning is flawed, as I've shown in this post.  That makes the evidence you've laid out suspect, at the very least, because it would have been selected to support your analysis and reasoning.  You owe it to yourself to honestly reevaluate your reasoning and analysis, if only because it might be wrong.  Instead of simply writing another post to me, asserting that you are in fact correct and always were, you should make the effort to go over your reasoning and analysis, step by step, and carefully check each and every part.
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5056
  • Darwins +1082/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #988 on: April 29, 2015, 04:57:08 PM »
Quote from: PhilosoB
Further, archeological evidence show that the Roman empire was real, that the towns mentioned in the NT were real places, that Roman did crucify people, that the tombs existed, that particular governors mentioned in the NT existed. To deny the historical events found in the NT on archeological grounds is simply not reasonably defensible.
Many fictional stories contain real people, real places, and real events.  It is neither reasonable nor defensible to assume that because a story contains elements from reality, that the events it recounts are necessarily real.  Yet that is exactly what you seem to be doing by making this argument.

I think it's also worthwhile to note the people, places, and events that cannot be substantiated outside of the text.

For example, if one were reading a book on the history of The United States, and there was a reference made to the state of New Italy, and no other historical records or other evidence can be brought to bear to suggest the actual existence of New Italy, that book becomes a little more suspect.  No, that doesn't necessarily mean you have to ditch every claim from the book, but it is a bit of evidence that suggests one should be somewhat wary of the claims in the book.

Rome is a real place.  Yes.  Romans crucified people.  Yes.  We have corroborating evidence of those places and events.

Did the Egyptians have Israeli slaves?  Did a catastrophic global flood that the Chinese didn't notice actually occur?  Where is Arimathea?  Where on Earth is the Garden of Eden?

If you want to have a look and pick out verifiable events in a book and use that as evidence to suggest the veracity of the claims in the book, that's fine, but you really can't cherry pick and ignore the unverifiable events.  Those count for something too.

Basically, just because there really was a Trojan War does not mean that Poseidon is actually real.  Just because New York is an actual place doesn't mean that there is a web-slinger swinging about there.  Just because New York is an actual place does not mean that there actually are golden plates with reformed Egyptian on them.  You're right, it would be silly to deny the existence of Spiderman based on the archeological grounds of the existence of New York.  But it would be silly to accept the existence of Spiderman based on the archeological grounds of the existence of New York.
"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

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Defiance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1774
  • Darwins +94/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #989 on: April 29, 2015, 05:22:51 PM »
Philo,

There's no reason to shoehorn your god into the explanation just because I haven't said an alternative.

My position is that we only know, based on evidence I've come across, what happened after the Big Bang. Matter coalesced, etc, etc. We have evidence for this, agreed?

I have NOT said anything about the "before". It doesn't even make sense, according to what we DO know.

I am NOT special pleading the Universe; I am simply holding off on a "before Big Bang" hypothesis until I come across evidence.

Therefore, you need to provide evidence for this "before" concept, not just word games, that can be verified over and over, and over and over.

I think you may be intelligent enough to use proper science, unlike other theists who think science is out to destroy their fairy tales.

And I don't understand why this fuss over Mark and whatnot. It's kind of irrelevant.

We can discuss Harry Potter books all we want, but will still need scientific evidence to show that this magic world exists.

So, without further adieu, present the evidence. 
Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/schooljokes/physicsjokes.html

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #990 on: April 29, 2015, 06:07:40 PM »
I have not stated that something came from nothing. This universe might have come from another universe. If god spoke the universe into reality--that would be something coming from nothing. Right? Or did god make the universe out of something else that had always existed?

I still cannot figure out how god does not need a beginning but the universe does. This is circular reasoning plus special pleading because god, who needs no beginning, then becomes the beginning of the universe!

As for life having to come from something, you get into the same trouble if you posit a god-being making life out of nothing. That is something from nothing. It seems that the only problem PB has is saying it could happen naturally. He does not seem to have problem with god doing it.  :?

One last point: if god is alive and has always existed, doesn't that mean that life has always existed?
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #991 on: April 29, 2015, 06:17:34 PM »
Are you seriously asking youself how you might be wrong or are you just trying to fool yourself?

I suppose I could ask you the same question but how would that advance the discussion.

This is the essence of the discussion. Are you honest enough to try to prove yourself wrong?

That is how you advance your knowledge. You are responsible for the false ideas in your brain. No one else is responsible for them. No one else can do your thinking for you. I cannot do your thinking for you. You have to think for yourself. Instead of saying "You are wrong.", you should be thinking "Can I prove this is correct?"

This is for a neutral observer who wants to decide if the resurrection stories in Luke are true. There are two stories. In the first one Jesus is walking along a road and he "explained to them the passages which referred to himself in every part of the scriptures." In the second one Jesus is in a room and he said "this is what is written, that the Messiah is to suffer death and rise from the dead on the third day, and that in his name repentence bringing forgiveness of sins is to be proclaimed to all nations."

So are the resurrection stories true or not? Definitely faked. There are no such prophecies. If Jesus was a resurrected god he would have known that there are no such prophecies. Also, the technique of quoting the OT to proclaim Jesus to all nations is a later christian agenda, and the story is just a self justification composed for later christians.

Quoting Mark again, - they said nothing (about the resurrection) because they were afraid.

The purposely faked resurrection stories in the bible, make a resurrection the least likely scenario, certainly less likely than Jesus surviving and describing an Near Death Experience.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #992 on: April 29, 2015, 07:02:27 PM »
What is it with the "empty tomb" story cited as evidence of someone rising from the dead? I mean, if someone died and was buried and later their grave had no body in it, this is the very first thing that would occur to me: they woke up, walked out of the grave, went to heaven and that means they are a god! What?

It's not like there are any other possibilities:

a) Like, the guy was not really dead, just mostly dead.[1]Maybe he is in a deep coma--it's not like they had him on a life support machine and saw him flat-line. Dead is not as sure fire as people think.[2] So he wakes up, tells people about his near death experience, someone carries him somewhere else and he dies from his injuries later. They bury him in a pauper's grave somewhere. His followers show up and find the tomb empty! And a myth is born!

b) Like, the body ending up in a mass grave to make room for another paying customer. This often happened in ancient times, especially with poor people. The dead person got buried or entombed for the family's benefit, and then the body was moved later to an undisclosed location. That could not have happened with Jesus, because......he was not poor?

The other even more obvious possibility is this:
c) The story is made up, so they can say anything they want, adding whatever details that make it sound good to the followers. And it worked!

Jesus lost his slipper running from the ball, and Pontius Pilate later fitted it onto his foot and married him. Jesus brought the knowledge of fire to the people and the gods were angry so they chained him to a rock and Pontius Pilate cuts out his liver every day, but it always grows back. Jesus was killed and buried in a tomb but when the people came to see his body he was not there, but there was a different guy, or an angel, or nobody. Depending on which gospel-- or fairy tale, or myth-- you read. And Jesus is in heaven now.

Why do intelligent people believe clearly made up stories that can't be true about their own religion when they would never fall for anything so ludicrous in any other religion? That is what I want to know.

 1. Princess Bride reference....
 2. As recently as the Victorian age, people were terrified of falling into a coma, being declared dead by mistake, and being buried alive.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18290
  • Darwins +640/-134
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #993 on: April 29, 2015, 08:02:01 PM »
Don't forget graverobbing. Many celebrity graves have been robbed over the years, back then they could've taken the whole body.

-Nam
"presumptions are the bitch of all assumptions" -- me

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #994 on: April 29, 2015, 10:07:46 PM »
how does one explain the thousands of relics, eg jesus body parts that exist in catholic churches all around the world today if the tomb was empty and he is risen-ed?

was he dismantled and the bits distributed on the first and second day??
« Last Edit: April 29, 2015, 10:09:29 PM by eh! »
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1799
  • Darwins +173/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #995 on: April 30, 2015, 11:16:21 AM »
how does one explain the thousands of relics, eg jesus body parts that exist in catholic churches all around the world today if the tomb was empty and he is risen-ed?

was he dismantled and the bits distributed on the first and second day??

relics are pieces of dead saints, not dead jebus
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1556
  • Darwins +68/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #996 on: April 30, 2015, 01:44:30 PM »

The Roman empire was a big place. I'm sure Roman historians didn't record everything that happened especially in an outlying Jewish province. That said, first-century Roman historian Tacitus does mention the torture incurred by "Christians" named after "Christus" who "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of [their] procurators, Pontius Pilate" and around whom a "mischievous superstition" had begun, an allusion to the belief in the resurrection.
I'm sorry you have this wrong also TACITUS (c.112CE) wrote that some 80 years after the alleged events (and 40 years after the war) Tacitus allegedly wrote a (now) famous passage about "Christ" - this passage has several problems however:
Tacitus uses the term "procurator", used in his later times, but not correct for the actual period, when "prefect" was used.
Tacitus names the person as "Christ", when Roman records could not possibly have used this name (it would have been "Jesus, son of Joseph" or similar.)
Tacitus accepts the recent advent of Christianity, which was against Roman practice (to only allow ancient and accepted cults and religions.)
No-one refers to this passage for a millennium, even early Christians who actively sought such passages.

So I would take another look if I were you. because the evidence speaks AGAINST it being based on any Roman records.
It is merely a few details which Tacitus had gathered from Christian stories circulating in his lifetime (c.f. Pliny.)
These passages are NOT evidence for jesus,
There are just evidence for 2nd century Christian stories about a christ.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/ToC/0067.php
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #997 on: April 30, 2015, 07:01:05 PM »
how does one explain the thousands of relics, eg jesus body parts that exist in catholic churches all around the world today if the tomb was empty and he is risen-ed?

was he dismantled and the bits distributed on the first and second day??

relics are pieces of dead saints, not dead jebus


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce
some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1799
  • Darwins +173/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #998 on: May 01, 2015, 12:43:10 PM »
how does one explain the thousands of relics, eg jesus body parts that exist in catholic churches all around the world today if the tomb was empty and he is risen-ed?

was he dismantled and the bits distributed on the first and second day??

relics are pieces of dead saints, not dead jebus


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

From article (emphasis added):

"The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium) is one of several relics attributed to Jesus"

while I was mistaken (there are, in fact, relics attributed to Jesus), I was really referring to your statement of "thousands of relics."  The vast majority of these thousands of relics are attributed to saints.
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #999 on: May 01, 2015, 01:02:54 PM »
From article (emphasis added):

"The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium) is one of several relics attributed to Jesus"

What. The. F@ck.

Someone claims to have possession of Jesus' foreskin? MANY "someones" throughout history have claimed to have possession of Jesus foreskin:o (I'm using the "shocked" face because there isn't one for "I'm completely disgusted")

First, seriously gross, people. I mean, really, really kind of sick and weird - I don't care WHO the foreskin belonged to originally, this is just creepy and serial-killer mentality.

Second, I'm again butting up against my own morals and the vulnerability of theists. They make it REALLY easy to just sell them whatever ridiculous nonsense they are willing to pay for. I have a few ideas that could sell really well... ;)
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1799
  • Darwins +173/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1000 on: May 01, 2015, 01:27:28 PM »
From article (emphasis added):

"The Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin (Latin præputium or prepucium) is one of several relics attributed to Jesus"

What. The. F@ck.

Someone claims to have possession of Jesus' foreskin? MANY "someones" throughout history have claimed to have possession of Jesus foreskin:o (I'm using the "shocked" face because there isn't one for "I'm completely disgusted")

First, seriously gross, people. I mean, really, really kind of sick and weird - I don't care WHO the foreskin belonged to originally, this is just creepy and serial-killer mentality.

Second, I'm again butting up against my own morals and the vulnerability of theists. They make it REALLY easy to just sell them whatever ridiculous nonsense they are willing to pay for. I have a few ideas that could sell really well... ;)

You think that's creepy?!?!  Read on!!  this is priceless.  From above wiki article (emphasis added)

"The first reference to the survival of Christ's severed foreskin comes in the second chapter of the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel which contains the following story:

1.And when the time of his circumcision was come, namely, the eighth day, on which the law commanded the child to be circumcised, they circumcised him in a cave.
2.And the old Hebrew woman took the foreskin (others say she took the navel-string), and preserved it in an alabaster-box of old oil of spikenard.
3.And she had a son who was a druggist, to whom she said, "Take heed thou sell not this alabaster box of spikenard-ointment, although thou shouldst be offered three hundred pence for it."
4.Now this is that alabaster-box which Mary the sinner procured, and poured forth the ointment out of it upon the head and feet of our Lord Jesus Christ, and wiped it off with the hairs of her head.[2]"
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1001 on: May 01, 2015, 02:23:32 PM »
^^^I have lived in many cultures. I have been exposed to many different traditions and practices. And that's just plain NASTY! Gagola. :P :P :P :P :P :P :o
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Defiance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1774
  • Darwins +94/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1002 on: May 01, 2015, 03:25:10 PM »
Congrats on the 1000th post, Boots.

1000th posts in... no evidence to be found.
Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/schooljokes/physicsjokes.html

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1003 on: May 01, 2015, 03:41:25 PM »
If they had any, you would think they would have presented it and shut this site down by now.
When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1004 on: May 01, 2015, 05:50:23 PM »
Eew. Eew eew eew. That's absolutely .... I don't even.... I'm so .... ohmygawdthat'sdisturbingonsomanylevels eeeeeewww.

I just did a "100 proof shudder" without drinking any alcohol. That's some seriously messed up stuff Boots (that's not your fault, of course).

It certainly demonstrates that christian mythology is no less f'ed up than any of the others. I can see how that book wouldn't make the final cut with this as an example of what it contains.
"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline eh!

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 7681
  • Darwins +457/-109
  • Gender: Male
  • jimmy hendrix is jesus
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1005 on: May 01, 2015, 06:12:14 PM »
finally proof that jesus rose from the dead.

 this is supposed to be a theist clip mocking atheism and proving the resurrection, it was posted to me as an insult to the stupidity of atheists. I thought the guy sent me the wrong clip because it looks like an atheists clip mocking theists - I am so confused;

some skepisms,
1. "I have not seen God. I have felt the invisible presence"
2. What if there is a rock in the middle of a road, a blind person is speeding towards it, ...they say that they can't see it.   Would you recommend him to keep speeding?

Offline natlegend

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2748
  • Darwins +167/-4
  • Polyatheist
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1006 on: May 01, 2015, 07:21:29 PM »
Wait, no, let me make sure I have this right... They kept his foreskin, then when he was older(?), the oil it was kept in was poured all over Jesus... then, Mary wiped the box with her hair? Have I got that right?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"Ray, when someone asks you, if you're a god, you say YES!!"

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1007 on: May 09, 2015, 01:17:45 PM »
Quoting Mark again, - they said nothing (about the resurrection) because they were afraid.

The purposely faked resurrection stories in the bible, make a resurrection the least likely scenario, certainly less likely than Jesus surviving and describing an Near Death Experience.

Continuing my proof that all the resurrection appearances of Jesus are fake descriptions made up more than fifty years after Jesus was executed as a criminal.

The remaining descriptions are in John, who is writing a symbolic narrative dressed up as an eyewitness account so all of his descriptions of resurrection appearances are his own inventions except the last one at the lake shore in John 21 which is one of the early stories of Luke reused and changed merely to make a claim for the author.

There are three other resurrection appearances in John. The first one at the tomb in John 20:10 is an invention of John which contradicts Mark who says Jesus had gone to Galilee, "there you will see him". The second resurrection appearance invented by John at John 20:19 contradicts Acts which says that the Holy Spirit came after Jesus had ascended to heaven. This appearance and the third one invented by John at John 20:26 both describe Jesus showing the wounds on his hands and side. The idea that Jesus was wounded in his side contradicts all the other gospels and is a theological invention of John using his idea of blood, water and wine beginning with the miracle of turning water into wine. So none of the resurrection appearances in John can be accepted as genuine.

The only possible early resurrection story in the bible is the ascension story in Acts 1:9 when the disciples watch Jesus ascend to heaven. This claims to be an eyewitness account but it is just a conventional theological account based on contemporary cosmology that souls float up to the gates of heaven through the solid dome above the fixed Earth. The cloud which takes Jesus is also a theological image of Yahweh as the rider on the clouds, originally derived from the storm god Baal.

Something like the ascension story might have been used as a cover story by the followers of Jesus when trying to convert people. Since Jesus was a criminal it would have been too dangerous to say that Jesus had survived the crucifixion. This is probably the real reason why the women were too frightened to say anything about the resurrection at the end of Mark's gospel. It is interesting that Saul in his letters knew no details of Jesus resurrection except the plain statement that Jesus was resurrected and appeared a few times. It looks as if the disciples did not trust Saul (or anyone else) with the details, since they thought he was spreading false ideas. The only time Saul saw Jesus was in a vision.

The resurrection stories which were invented over fifty years after Jesus died make the idea that Jesus was resurrected as a supernatural being the least likely scenario. If he had really been resurrected, these fictional accounts would not have been necessary. It is much more likely that Jesus survived the crucifixion for two or three weeks, and the disciples said nothing in order to protect the people who helped Jesus. If Jesus had a Near Death Experience which he told to his disciples, that would certainly add even more weight in explaining everything about how Christianity started. It is not necessary to use any supernatural explanation for the origin of Christianity.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline Defiance

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1774
  • Darwins +94/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Can't be mad at something that doesn't exist.
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1008 on: May 09, 2015, 07:46:32 PM »
Good post.

And... Bump.
Q: Why are quantum physicists bad lovers? A: Because when they find the position, they can't find the momentum, and when they have the momentum, they can't find the position.

source: http://www.jokes4us.com/miscellaneousjokes/schooljokes/physicsjokes.html

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1799
  • Darwins +173/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1009 on: May 11, 2015, 01:02:57 PM »
Wait, no, let me make sure I have this right... They kept his foreskin, then when he was older(?), the oil it was kept in was poured all over Jesus... then, Mary wiped the box with her hair? Have I got that right?

Not quite.  Mary applied the oil to him with her hair.  So she rubbed his infant foreskin all over herself, and him.
...religion is simply tribalism with a side order of philosophical wankery, and occasionally a baseball bat to smash...anyone who doesn't show...deference to the tribe's chosen totem.

~Astreja

To not believe in god is to know that it falls to us to make the world a better place.

~Sam Harris

Offline Mrjason

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2234
  • Darwins +170/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1010 on: May 12, 2015, 06:03:16 AM »
Wait, no, let me make sure I have this right... They kept his foreskin, then when he was older(?), the oil it was kept in was poured all over Jesus... then, Mary wiped the box with her hair? Have I got that right?

Not quite.  Mary applied the oil to him with her hair.  So she rubbed his infant foreskin all over herself, and him.

That is some...errr..."specialist" reading material.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1011 on: May 12, 2015, 06:24:51 AM »
No Jst or Skep here to defend the religious position? Probably too hot for them!
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14851
  • Darwins +626/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1012 on: May 12, 2015, 06:26:12 AM »
No Jst or Skep here to defend the religious position? Probably too hot for them!

...Or they're already participating in other threads with several replies.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2

Offline nogodsforme

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11187
  • Darwins +1865/-9
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1013 on: May 12, 2015, 01:02:32 PM »
No Jst or Skep here to defend the religious position? Probably too hot for them!

Mary was supposed to be very beautiful. Now she's covered head to toe in oil..... that image probably led at least a few devout believing guys astray. ;)

When all of Cinderella's finery changed back at midnight, why didn't the shoes disappear? What's up with that?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15326
  • Darwins +1178/-40
  • Gender: Male
  • We stand on the shoulders of giants
Re: Challenge to any theist to prove existence of god.
« Reply #1014 on: May 12, 2015, 03:06:16 PM »
Mary was supposed to be very beautiful. Now she's covered head to toe in oil..... that image probably led at least a few devout believing guys astray. ;)

Add to that, orthodox women are supposed to hide their hair from everyone except their husbands.  When something is kept hidden like that, it sort of becomes a fetish, simply because it is hidden.  I've heard stories of men in Islamic countries going ape-shit over seeing an exposed ankle.   

I don't know how far back that ridiculous rule goes, but if it was in jesus' time, her exposed, oiled up hair might just as well have been a wet T-shirt contest.

good article on the wig
http://tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/151283/no-more-sheitel
Quote
Talmudically, hair is defined as ervah, or “sexually erotic,”
What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.