Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

Bible and slavery wrote:

Can any mere mortal explain how Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine or how he raised Lazarus from the dead? Let's hear your answer.

He waited until it froze, added grapes and waited until Lazarus came out of his coma and took credit.

Any other questions?

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Bible and slavery wrote:

Can any mere mortal explain how Jesus walked on water, turned water into wine or how he raised Lazarus from the dead? Let's hear your answer.

Can you explain how Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and can leap tall buildings in a single bound? I'll explain your fiction once you explain mine.

agreed. I'm a little late to this party, but also remember that when Jesus (the man) did all of these alleged things, a lot of it was hearsay.

Look at some of the legends of Chris Solinsky, Joe Falcon and jamin on here. And we know 2 out of those are real people.

;) wrote:

Look at some of the legends of Chris Solinsky, Joe Falcon and jamin on here. And we know 2 out of those are real people.

Hey, c'mon! Chris is real!

xcrunner6 wrote:

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Can you explain how Superman is faster than a speeding bullet, more powerful than a locomotive, and can leap tall buildings in a single bound? I'll explain your fiction once you explain mine.

agreed. I'm a little late to this party, but also remember that when Jesus (the man) did all of these alleged things, a lot of it was hearsay.

Actually, all of Jesus' deeds and sayings are hearsay. There are no eyewitness testimonies to anything he did and the stories we do have weren't written down until decades after the supposed events.

But even worse, for the kind of claims made about Jesus, testimonies, whether eyewitness or not, would be close to worthless in determining the validity of the claims. This is why we generally reject other similarly outlandish claims such as alien abduction, other religious miracles, and bigfoot sightings even though we have plenty of eyewitness claims for all three. Believing in the miracles of Jesus based on the stories in the Bible requires an especially high level of gullibility.

I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks and just address the points.

On point 1: no assumptions here. The burden of proof lies with he who asserts the positive. If a miracle is asserted, this must be proven by a) reason and b) evidence. I can dismiss "miracles out of hand" because no empirical evidence for "miracles" exists and because of logic. This makes them non-events. If natural causes explain the "miracle" then it isn't a miracle at all.

On point 2: see 1) above

On point 3: Let's say God exists. Let's suppose that our world is a balloon in his hands. if he were to adjust the inner workings of the balloon there would be evidence of a God's tinkering with said balloon. Saying, "he's God, so there would be no evidence" doesn't really help your case.

So, let's say God intervened to part the Red Sea. This would suggest that his plan wasn't perfect because he had to intervene. If God's plan wasn't perfect, he isn't omnipotent. If he didn't know his plan wasn't perfect he isn't omniscient. If he knew his plan wasn't perfect but he didn't correct it, he isn't benevolent.

While I do appreciate your scalding critique of my intelligence, I'm not sure you've resoundingly demonstrated your case.

Good God, your stupidity level is absolutely staggering!

1) You can dismiss miracles because "logic" says they cannot exist?!? And yet you are making no assumptions about the impossibility of miracles? Sorry, but there is really nothing to to add here. The sheer magnitude of the stupidity of such a statement stands on it's own. It would take a miracle to top that one.

on 3) You are saying that "So, let's say God intervened to part the Red Sea. This would suggest that his plan wasn't perfect because he had to intervene." Or in other words, you might have done this differently and therefore God screwed up?!?

OK, now we have evidence of miracles. You have topped the seemingly unassailable heights of stupidity that you established in 1)

Seriously dude, you are probably too stupid to even recognize your own stupidity. Just stop, it is painful to witness.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Seriously dude, you are probably too stupid to even recognize your own stupidity. Just stop, it is painful to witness.

You have a painfully inaccurate perception of your own intelligence relative to others. It borders on a personality disorder.

;) wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Seriously dude, you are probably too stupid to even recognize your own stupidity. Just stop, it is painful to witness.

You have a painfully inaccurate perception of your own intelligence relative to others. It borders on a personality disorder.

Thanks. You are wrong.

We've had pages and pages of civil discussion on here. Arguments and points can be made without the constant vitriol.

1) Can you *actually demonstrate* that it is possible for a being to violate natural laws? You are shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to prove miracles are impossible. You have to prove miracles are possible. If you can show that miracles are both logically and empirically possible, then I'll actually consider your argument. It's like saying "You're saying square circles can't exist and yet you are making no assumptions about the impossibility of square circles?"

Square circles have never been shown exist in the natural world and are also a logical contradiction. Wouldn't miracles fall into this category as well?

Additionally, if God got involved in the natural world there would be evidence that he poked through the ethereal realm into the physical one. We don't have evidence of this.

3) As for "God's plan," if a being is both omniscient and omnipotent (which, incidentally are paradoxical states), then his creation would be such that he wouldn't have to intervene. If God creates a world that is "perfect" and then he has to murder one group to keep them from murdering another then that is not a perfect world. If the beings were created perfectly, and later fell into moral decay then they were, in fact, not created perfectly.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with the statement "OK, now we have evidence of miracles..."

1) Nope. I never claimed that miracles were possible. Try sticking to what I actually said, not what you imagine I might have said.

It is your 'logic' that I am pointing out as painfully flawed. Going back to your original post that I commented on you have assumed that there is no such thing as a God and used that assumption to prove that there is no such thing as a God. Not really sure why this has to be pointed out to you over and over. Also not really sure if one could in all honesty fail to see the problem with this "logic".

3) Your point here is simply beyond silly. Working with the assumption that there is a God (not necessarily anything that you believe, I take it, and not necessarily anything that I believe - at least nothing that could be deduced from anything I have written on these pages). But still, this God assumption is being taken as a given for the sake of discussion. To go with this assumption and then essentially tell God that he/she blew it - things didn't go according to plan is truly beyond stupid. Sorry, but it just is and I am having a hard time finding a better word for it.

Once you accept the God assumption (which again, you did for the sake of the argument) you have no choice but to admit that any lack of understanding as to why God intervened when and where and how he/she did demonstrates a limitation of your own mental skills rather than a limitation on God. For you to arbitrarily say that God "should have" set everything up in such a way in "the beginning" so that there would never be a point after that where it would make sense for God to play an active role again is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. There is absolutely nothing to back up this "logic" other than that such a construct seems to appeal to your sensibilities - that is, your "argument" has zero content.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

For you to arbitrarily say that God "should have" set everything up in such a way in "the beginning" so that there would never be a point after that where it would make sense for God to play an active role again is completely arbitrary and nonsensical. There is absolutely nothing to back up this "logic" other than that such a construct seems to appeal to your sensibilities - that is, your "argument" has zero content.

"Nope. I never claimed that miracles were possible. Try sticking to what I actually said, not what you imagine I might have said."

This is in reference to something you said at the bottom of your last post, which I didn't really understand. Note the quotation marks around "OK, now we have evidence of miracles." I was quoting you because I didn't understand your point. Is this clear?

I guess we are arguing about two different things here. Could a God exist? I suppose, although I have no evidence to suppose so. I'm arguing against the Judeo-Christian notion of an omnipotent/omniscient creator God who made a perfect creation. My original post was in reference to bible and slavery, re: science and miracles.

If this God does exist, and, again, I have no reason or evidence to suppose so, then this immoral God at the very least doesn't deserve adoration.

I'm not assuming there is no God. Again, you are shifting the burden of proof. If someone says "God exists," the null hypothesis is not, "God doesn't exist," but rather, "no evidence for God exists." See the difference? Based upon epistemology, that is, that I can see that the natural world *actually exists*, and since I have no evidence of God's existence, I'm coming from a valid de facto position of argument.

We are talking about two different things. You got that much right.

And no, I NEVER shifted the burden of proof. Further, the difference between "God doesn't exist" and "no evidence for God exists" is way too obvious to require statement.

Indeed, the fact that one cannot find any evidence that God exists is 100% inevitable regardless of whether God exists or not.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Indeed, the fact that one cannot find any evidence that God exists is 100% inevitable regardless of whether God exists or not.

Really? I exist, and people can find evidence for that.

Given what we mean by "exist," why wouldn't people be able--at least theoretically--to find evidence for anything that exists? Including "God"?

Huh?? wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Indeed, the fact that one cannot find any evidence that God exists is 100% inevitable regardless of whether God exists or not.

Really? I exist, and people can find evidence for that.

Given what we mean by "exist," why wouldn't people be able--at least theoretically--to find evidence for anything that exists? Including "God"?

The standard understanding (insomuch as such things can be understood) is that God's existence transcends that of the physical Universe.

Does yours?

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Indeed, the fact that one cannot find any evidence that God exists is 100% inevitable regardless of whether God exists or not.

So how can you tell the difference between something you can't find any evidence for and something that doesn't exist?

I had started a few threads in my time about this topic and every time it gets deleted. Obviously believing in God might bring meaning and hope to your life but it is at the end of the day futile.

1) Universe is 13.8 Billion years old with earth being 4.5 billion or so. With the exception of a small period of time this almighty man stood there with arms folded as war, famine, natural disaster killed of humans and begins to intervene in every day life to just disappear without a trace and never return when we can take actual photographic evidence of his existence?

2) Christians believe the world and man kind is some 6,000 years old despite trees and fossil proving them wrong.

3) Noahs arc somehow housed all these animals even the sloth. An animal awake for 4 hours a day with a top speed of 6mph. So it traveled 57,000 miles which would have taken 6.5 years without leaving any traces of its existence?

4) Shows up in the middle east, literally least educated part of the world at that time. China and Egypt have the ability to do math, read, write, why not show up there

5) Denounce evolution but believe in Adam and Eve. We have proof that there are over 10,000 unique starting points, meaning 10,000 different parents. If you believe in Adam and Eve you must believe in evolution. How else do you explain all the different races? Wouldn't Eve have committed a sin by sleeping with her son?

6) Hates for you not to believe in him, creates other religions.

7) If Christians are so much better why is 93% of the worlds academic society atheist but only 1% of the prison population. (Even when scaled atheist commit less crimes.)

8) Ted Bundy asked for forgiveness before death and will ascend into heaven. Bill Gates, a man who donated over 27 billion to the worlds betterment will not. He did provide millions with clean drinking water, something God apparently couldn't do, and essentially eradicated one of God's most deadly diseases in malaria

9) No one ever witnessed anything written in the bible and none of the authors are alive at the same time as this savoir

10) Whatever science can't prove people say is God. If this is the case, he is an ever receding entity.

11) If people really believe in after life, why not just let yourself go instead of rushing to the hospital? After life takes everything out of this life. Why work hard to enjoy success when you have the rest of time to do it in the clouds?

12) The religion life most is based off of fear. Follow us or be damned to hell. Do as we say not as we do.

While some of these points are accurate, given the many and varying differences in Christian beliefs, trying to paint Christianity as a monolithic set of beliefs is doing nothing but strawmanning. Maybe instead you should ask the Christians in this thread what they actually do believe before going off on your rants.

Sloetry in Motion wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Indeed, the fact that one cannot find any evidence that God exists is 100% inevitable regardless of whether God exists or not.

So how can you tell the difference between something you can't find any evidence for and something that doesn't exist?

That is a GREAT question (no sarcasm). And I do not have an answer for that question.